Who Would Jesus Bomb?
Faith and Philosophy
| January 25, 2005
| Tim
A leftist friend of mine asked me this question recently:
Let me ask you, if Jesus walked the planet today, who would Jesus bomb? I know it sound trite but in that little kernel of thought lies the crux of the issue. Jesus would not bomb anyone!
Jesus would not kill anyone! His is and was a message of peace and love, a "New Testament" as opposed to the "Old Testament"...a new testament of peace and love.
The question here is really about the nature of Jesus who, unlike that really stern version of God found in the "Old Testament", is nothing but sweetness and light. That version of God would never kill anyone... right?
Err, um, wrong:
[Jesus] said: “A man of noble birth [e.g. Jesus, as son of God] went to a distant country [heaven] to have himself appointed king and then to return... But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don't want this man to be our king.' He was made king, however, and returned home [earth]... [And he said to them:] "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me." (Luke 20:12,14,15,27)
Jesus also teaches here about his own departure and return, and how his followers should behave in his absense:
The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. (Luke 12:42-46)
And, in case that wasn't clear enough, there's this picture, also from the New Testament, about Jesus's return (emphasis added):
I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. (Rev. 19:11-15)
So yes, Jesus would certainly kill people if he came back to earth and walked among us. He assured us he will. In fact, that's the entire point of Jesus coming in the first place, and his crucifixion:
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. (John 3:17-19; read full chapter)
The world was and is already under judgement for it's evil -- for our evil, that is; there was already a death sentence decreed, and Jesus, through his substitutionary death, provides us a way out.
In the next verse Jesus states that the litmus test, dividing between light and darkness, is an interest in coming to Jesus and taking advantage of that offer:
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” (John 3:20-21)
This is the famous passage where Jesus says you must be "born again."
So why do many leftists, like my friend, get this so woefully wrong? Why do they imagine Jesus or the God of the New Testament would never harm anyone?
I believe the answer is that there are two problems occuring here...
What is Love?
The first problem, I think, is that many people misunderstand the nature of Jesus because they misunderstand the nature of love, itself. Sometimes we have a tendency to superimpose our own limited, unjust, and often deeply unloving notion of what "love" is onto scripture, rather than listening to it to learn what is necessary for real love.
Many people seem to think love is sweetness and light and puppies and happiness and big warm fuzzy hugs. And love is all of that, but it is also much more: it is justice, it is protective, and love can even HATE.
Love hates? Huh? Isn't that a contradiction?
Love hates evil. The bible says it over and over again. God is love, and God hates evil. A hatred of evil is necessary in order for love to protect what is good:
Let those who love the Lord hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked. (Psalm 97:10)
In fact, if you're not hating evil, you're not truly being loving:
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. (Romans 9:12)
Regarding our situation, to put it in human terms: God's dilemma is that something he loves -- us -- is currently bound up with quite a bit of evil. And since God is just, He can't allow that evil to continue indefinitely. At some point, things must be set right, and evil must be punished, otherwise, love would be unjust. And Jesus, in the bible, assures us God will do so at some future point.
But love is also patient. Many angry people indict God for a lack of "justice". They complain that he has allowed things to get pretty awful. They demand he get involved right now and come clean up "his" mess. Of course, they don't realize that they would be among the first to be "cleaned up" and that God is being patient, giving them a chance to change.
So we're all part of the problem. And Jesus's death is our ticket out: We can stop being "part of the problem", accept the forgiveness offered through Jesus's crucifixion, and start being "part of the solution" by admitting we've been part of the problem (e.g. that we've "sinned"), and tell God we're going to stop doing things our flawed, shortsighted way, and thus put God in charge of cleaning up the problems of this world -- begining with those in our own lives.
That's what it means when Jesus says the kingdom of God is "among us", and "within" us -- it starts inside of people, doing it's work first in the hearts which which will receive their future King. It is like yeast, working it's way, almost invisibly, through the loaf, leavening it, making it delicious.
That's also what Jesus means when he talks about having a plank in our eye. If our heart is filled with anger, fear, and hatred for our enemies -- yes, including our political enemies -- we cannot reasonably expect to clean up the rest of the world. First, our own character must be "reformed", and put under "reconstruction" by truth and justice Himself. Only then can we begin to think about dictating our policies to our neighbors, or entire nations.
Deceiving the Left
The second mistake leftists make here is that they are assured over and over by their "prophets" that they, simply by being a leftist, understand scripture much better than those ignorant conservative Christians, who (the leftist is assured) never even open their bibles to read them, and learn what is in them!
In reality it is the secular liberal who seldom opens the scripture to read what is in it, with any kind of reverence, and it is the Christian liberal who has an a priori theological excuse to reject or skip over any verses he or she might find troubling. Thus, they tend to lose these kinds of arguments. Worse, they miss many of the benefits of the teachings they supposedly revere.
Instilling arrogance is an effective way of keeping people in the dark: Simply assure a person he knows everything already, and he will not quest for more knowledge, and will even reject it when offered on a platter!
In a conversation between a wise man and a fool, who learns more? Ah, yes the wise man, because the fool is beset the sin of arrogance, and thus cannot learn. That's how he got to be a fool in the first place.
Of course, the idea that those annoying, conservative, zealous Christians don't know what's in the bible makes little sense if you stop and think about it. What do you think they do at all those "bible studies" they attend -- read Cosmopolitan magazine? Discuss autmotive maintenance?
It never occurs to many leftists that the whole reason "Jesusland" doesn't buy into their worldview is because it is fairly well "salted" with people who tend to look to the bible for their ethics and morals, and thus tend to be resistant to various leftist errors and values. This also implies it is the bible itself which is a major source of opposition to leftist policies.
Politics and Religion
Finally, why all the scripture? As time goes on, I'm increasingly convinced that a person's religion is at the core of much of what he does, including and especially politics. In fact, I'm begining to suspect politics are simply a subset of religion: Politics is religion put into practice, you might say. Not just for Christians, but for atheists, secular humanists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc.
Politics are also a fruit by which you can judge a tree. A person says good things: they believe in peace, love, tolerance, etc. But what kind of fruit are produced by the policies they support? Do those policies hurt or help people in the long run? How did you know that? Did you do research before insisting everyone obey your orders?
And what of your own life? What good is advocating some policy in a faraway place if your own life is a "policy disaster"? Do you fight with people and get angry with them? Do you hate your enemies -- yes, even your political enemies? Are you filled with anger and hatred towards them? Have you hurt and used people in order to gain sexual satisfaction? Do you practice the policies you preach? Do you treat others as you'd like to be treated?
And most importantly, if you believe God is love, and Jesus is love, then how can you say you believe in Love and want Love to rule the world, if you haven't put Jesus, and the God of love, in charge of the details of your own life?
Questions to ponder!
Bless you, brothers and sisters.
wow... you're so misguided its horrifying. good luck.
If what I say is so "horrifyingly" wrong, you're more than welcomed to point out specificly what is in error.
Or don't you even care about helping a person as "misguided" as I am?
I'm a young man, but it has been obvious to me for several years now that politics is a direct offshoot of ones religion. Its almost stereotypical, to the point where you could almost say with 100% assurance that an atheist will be a secular leftist, liberal Christians will be secular leftists, non religious Jews will be secular leftists, while religious Jews and Christians will almost always fall on the right side of the political spectrum. There are of course, exceptions, but as the old saying goes, they are simply proving the rule.
I believe the reason for this phenomenon is, one's religious beliefs form the foundation of one's character and informs one's moral/ethical compass. Now of course, all humans share a basic morality, murder is wrong, rape is evil, ect. but whether or not one's moral compass tells one that homosexuality is perversion is dependent on a person's religious outlook. I believe this is so because I believe that spiritual matters are just naturally more important to human beings than any other activity. Even atheists are indulging a spiritual need when they subscribe to materialism, secular humanism, and social darwinism. These things don't speak to one's physical nature, they speak to the spiritual side of the human being, even if that individual denies the existance of such a thing as the spirit.
Because religion speaks to the deepest part of the human being, everything else is built upon it. How one lives life, whether he is playing a game of football, conversing with a friend, or voting in an election, is directly influenced by the foundation of that persons character, their religious beliefs.
I think it also important that we see such a distinction between modern liberals and modern conservatives/classical liberals, namely in their character. As you have pointed out innumerable times throughout your blog, the majority of conservative positions are at least partially based around facts and rational thinking, while a huge chunk of liberal ideaology is purely emotional, with no rational foundation to be found. How many conservatives will argue themselves into a circular reasoning fallacy? Not many. How many liberals respond emotionally to any kind of sound, logical arguement that seriously challenges liberal dogma? Most. In an essay, C.S. Lewis described the mad man as someone who thinkings extremely rationally, but in very tiny loops of circular reasoning. It seems to me that modern liberals can almost be seen as being guilty of the same thing. Could these entirely different ways of reasoning be chalked up to differences in religious beliefs? Probably. There has to be some relationship between the almost universal differences in reasoning, and different religious views.
Sure there is. But call it World View.
"Conservatives" -by which I mean Fundamentalists- tend to believe in separation:
God from Man; Man from Man; Man from Woman; Man from Animals; God from Nature; Body from Mind; Heaven from Hell; Now from Eternity, Good from Evil, and Reason from Emotion. They would rather rely on Aristotelian (either/or) logic and literal legalistic interpretations of scriptures, than consider the implications of their own direct experience; they think truth is what is convenient for the argument of the moment and sophistry is justifiable.
"Liberals" tend to believe in the essential unity of things. Pantheist or atheist and the whole spectrum in between, they think the Foundation of the Universe is Immanent throughout, and ought to be considered it with the reverence due the divine. In addition to either/or they recognize the possibility of both/neither; they think that scripture has more layers of interpretation (some better than others) than an infinite onion, and that the Original Autograph - as it were - is inherent in the physical world and is susceptible to and worthy of study by direct experience, that they can thereby arrive at some approximation of coherent and consistent Truth, and that it ought to inform the understanding of scripture rather than the other way round. They think sophistry is inherently hypocritical and may thus feel justified upon hearing it, at overturning the tables in righteous emotional outrage. Much like Jesus, in fact.
Why should Jesus bomb anyone?
We bomb our own selves.
He was trying to teach us how not to do that.
"Conservatives" -by which I mean Fundamentalists- tend to believe in separation...
When I debate a relativist, they'll often say: "You see just black and white; I see shades of grey." I often think: No, I see shades of grey too. It's just that I *also* believe in black, and white, where you don't admit those particular colors.
We believe in both separation and unity. Human beings have a lot in common, of course: but were are also all individuals. We don't believe everything -- including charity workers and Hitler and Stalin -- is God or divine. So yes, we try to distinguish "Good from Evil", as you allege. Guilty as charged.
Conservatives... [don't] consider the implications of their own direct experience...
Actually, we do. That's why I started out closer to your views and eventually changed. My experience, is this regard, is hardly unique. That's why we commonly hear that "a conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged by reality."
...they think truth is what is convenient for the argument of the moment and sophistry is justifiable...
As a Christian, I'm used to being accused simultaneously with exactly opposite charges. It kind of comes with the terrority, I've learned -- especially when debating someone who just admitted they're comfortable equating opposites.
One minute you claim we "rely on logic" and believe in a difference between "Good" and "Evil". The next minute, you claim we don't really believe in "logic" or "Good" or "Evil", but simply feel free to invert our moral values if it's convenient.
Well "humble", which is it?
I would argue it is a moral relativist, not someone who truly believes in right and wrong, who would be more likely to do whatever works at the moment.
But I guess that's just my "reliance on either/or logic" kicking in again. ;-) Damned law of the excluded middle -- I'm glad at least some "enlightened" types like you have "evolved" "beyond" that kind of idiotic "logic". ;-)
Pantheist or atheist and the whole spectrum in between, they think the Foundation of the Universe is Immanent throughout, and ought to be considered it with the reverence due the divine.
Precisely. As the Apostle Paul put it: "They worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator." (Romans 1:25)
In a way, you have far more faith than I do. You see an object -- like a rock or tree -- which clearly seems to have to have a beginning, and you think it's actually divine. I think it's just a rock, and had a beginning. You "worship" it, and I don't.
I think it reflects God's glory: yes. But you believe in an essence which is ultimately impersonal, so there's no more reason to "revere" it, or think it has "glory", than we'd revere any other impersonal thing like water, air, or gravel.
And of course I note how much you revere me: in your eyes, I'm the kind of guy who, because he's a conservative, chooses whatever arguments are convenient at the moment, with no regard to actual princples.
I assume rocks get more "reverence" from you than this?
They think sophistry is inherently hypocritical...
Oh! My! Gosh!
You're too cute to be true, "humble!" One minute, you claim "Liberals" don't believe in the "separation" of Good from Evil, nor "rely on Aristotelian logic". The next minute, you want us to believe that "sophistry is inherantly hypocricial." Hypocritical to what? Right and wrong? LOL!
Err: Need I point out your arguments are contradictory? And thus are as pure an example of sophistry as one could ever hope to find?
Irony, anyone?
And, need I suggest, projection?
Tim-
Where you said that love can hate, you didn't clearly specify what is to be hated. "Evil" in the abstract? Sure. Evil deeds? Sure. Evil-doers?. I have heard one is supposed to "love the sinner, but hate the sin". But I think you are leaving the door wide open to justify hatred of anyone one considers to be a "sinner" (isn't that everyone?) or who doesn't adhere to one's exact belief system. Can you please clarify that?
And why did you start out with that particular headline?
Great question, M.T. -- thanks so much for bringing it up!
I agree entirely with the phrase "Hate the sin love the sinner" -- I don't believe Christians are allowed to harbor hatred towards their enemies -- that is, to fail to wish for them to repent. We're not supposed to nurse a grudge, or wish for personal vengeance. If we want to have our sins against God forgiven, we have to be willing to wish forgiveness for those who have sinned against us. We must indeed love our enemies.
But that doesn't mean people should be mild-mannered or passive towards evil acts, much less pacifists. Would you agree that Jesus was the model of Christian love? I would. But then we'd also have to admit that he was FURIOUS with the pharisees for the harm they were doing to people, and also said some of the things he said above. He said of his enemies, for example, that they were children of the devil and "sons of hell." Doesn't sound very "loving" by modern ideas of love, does it? If he were a modern political candidate, the media would say Jesus was "full of hatred" for the Pharisees.
But was he? It doesn't look that way to me: I have no doubt that he wish for them that they'd just knock it off and repent. The least loving thing he could have done was to say: "Oh, you're okay, you're a good person, you're not doing anything wrong, and nothing bad will happen to you" -- and given everyone watching the same impression. But because he loved them, and loved the crowd, he had to also passionately hate what they were doing and hate what they stood for. And it resulted in some pretty harsh "name calling" -- or so we'd call it today.
So yes, I agree: Love the sinner, hate the sin. But hating the sin, at least for Jesus, didn't mean sort of abstractly sitting back and saying: "Well, I'm opposed to this policy." It meant saying or even doing some things which people would call "un-Christian" today, out of our confused ideas about love.
And why did you start out with that particular headline?
I started out with that particular headline because I often see it on signs and bumper stickers, and, as I said, because a friend asked me that question in letter.
The underlying idea seems to be that Jesus was opposed to violence or harsh measures. He wasn't. He agreed with the death penalty, told his followers at one point that owning a sword was more important than even owning adequate clothing (at that specific time, anyway), and said all the hard things I quoted him saying above.
Love isn't having a nice feeling. Loving all living people means wanting to save lives, and saving lives sometimes means dropping bombs. Saying "Who would Jesus bomb?" implies that real Christians would have stood back and said: "Well, don't use bombs against Hitler! Jesus wouldn't do any violence." But even in his lifetime, Jesus did violence, and approved of it's use. He used a whip (!!!) to drive moneychangers out of the temple. He agreed that Pilate's ability to kill people was God-given. He never once condemned a soldier for his job choice, nor asked them to stop carrying swords, but instead said one of the most godly people he ever met was a career military man. When asked about a tragedy where Pilate had killed a group of worshipers, instead of condemning Pilate, Jesus talked about how sins, including theirs, deserved a death penalty.
(He also did all kinds of wonderful, "touchy-feely" and warm and fuzzy sorts of things, like crying that a friend died, or touching unloved outcasts. I don't want to ignore that aspect either -- it's just that the biblical Jesus is a lot more complex than the people holding signs seem to think.)
So do I want people to hate their enemies, or break the law, quickly turn to vigilante justice, or resort to violence to get their way? Never! But would I hope that people could grow up and understand that sometimes real love for people requires using force or even violence or bombs, at times? Yes, I do.
"Who would Jesus shoot?" might sound attractive to some, but it doesn't mean Jesus would stand back and demand that the police not shoot a serial killer who was holding a class full of children as hostages, and had been killing one each hour.
My point here is to get people to think hard, uncomfortable thoughts, and question their shallow assumptions about what it means to "love". Love is not just having the nice feeling that all people are good, and will respond to offers of hugs and beads. When that kind of outlook causes thousands or millions of unnecessary deaths, there's nothing "loving" about it.
Hi Tim,
I'm curious; What's your interpretation of
Matthew 26:52
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place, for all those who take the sword will die by the sword.
link
Ryan! Wonderful question! It's truly gratifying when I see someone thinking about what is being said, turning it over in their mind, challenging and testing it. I try to confront everything I believe, and appreciate it when others do too.
My rules for interpreting the bible (or any document, really -- there's nothing special needed for religious materials) are to presume the author or speaker is trying to make a sensible point (at least to them) and read the context for clues as to what that might be.
I also tend to go with the meaning that fits best with the rest, and does the least violence: If a politician is talking about immigration, and suddenly uses the word "alien", I wouldn't presume he's suddenly talking about extraterrestrials, for example. :-) (Though some seem to favor that approach when it comes to the bible!)
One take might be Jesus was here speaking concretely and "literally" here -- that is, that he was saying that everyone who draws a sword must die by a sword. But I don't think anyone really believes that everyone who ever wields a weapon will be killed with one: lots of people survive wars (or serving as police or an armed guard) to die of old age, etc. Everyone knows this, I should think, including Jesus -- given his rather adroit answers to other questions of basic human experience.
In addition, in the verse before, someone has already drawn a sword -- so it would seem Jesus's warning would have already have been useless, if meant literally:
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him...
So, unless we are ready to write Jesus off as completely incoherent, we must conclude he was speaking metaphorically, at least to some degree.
One popular interpretation is that he's saying that, in general, all who start wars die by them. Again, doesn't seem to be historically true, but perhaps he believed that. (I don't think so: Again, he was intelligent, and he was certainly also familiar with David, who started wars but was considered godly, and died of old age, not struck down in battle.)
So I'm left in the camp with those who believe he was talking to his disciples, right then and there, about their current circumstance: That all who draw the sword (start a battle) *now* (at the time of his arrest, in the garden) would be killed -- meaning that if they would persist in fighting in that circumstance, that they would have been killed -- and rightly so. (Since he believed they were fighting the god-appointed ruling authorities -- I can demonstrate this if needed.)
And indeed, I see no reason to think they wouldn't have been thinking it was time for a fight: given the idea that some had, that Jesus would have set up a new political kingdom, they probably would have thought this might be the signal for the beginning of the the new order of things. Luke records precisely this reaction:
When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" (Luke 22:49)
So it seems to me he was telling them that if they persisted in starting a war here, now, contrary to their expectations, they would surely be struck down. And that matches up with his saying "enough", and his emphatic restatement that he was NOT leading an armed rebellion.
At that time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.
You'll note that his followers flee AFTER he states again that what's happening is not going to be a physical battle. They seem to have stuck around until he said exactly that. That tells us their mind was changed, somehow, by that statement.
If this sounds like, perhaps, a bit of stretch from the usual English rendering you quoted, keep in mind they're a translation -- some of the words (such as "all") may have been added so it sounded right in English; the original may have had a slightly different connotation. (Or not! I'd like to hear from another.)
I'm no expert on Greek (far from it), but the words are roughly:
[Then] [say] [he] [which], [Jesus], [turn away from] [which] [small sword/knife] [thy] [for] [place/situation/occasion for acting] [individually] [for] [to take hold of] [small sword/dagger] [with] [small sword/knife] [to destroy/kill/end]
Again, I'm no expert, but it seems as if the words chosen again refer to individual actions (i.e. an individual's desire to pull out a knife and start fighting), not referring to killing according to a law or as part of a an organized combat operation. And these words sound to me like he's intimately addressing those around him ("thy" being the closest English equivalent of the you/intimate form present in many other languages), not making a general pronouncement. (Perhaps Mike would like to take a stab at it -- pun intended -- as he knows a bit of Greek.)
But regardless of the former, to recap: (1) it wouldn't make sense for Jesus to believe all who pull swords actually die from swords; (2) it seems the disciples were indeed asking (in other recorded accounts) whether they should be using a sword, at that moment; and (3) thus it does seem to me as if he's giving them a warning about that circumstance, (4) not overturning the entire historical Jewish belief about wars sometimes being justified -- something I imagine he would have had plenty of time to bring up previously, had he intended to do so. (One's arrest being an odd time to start introducing new theology.)
Thanks for the detailed response, Tim.
As for 1.) The question of 'living' and 'dying' seems a bit muddied in that the New Testament concerned itself with the afterlife as well as the earthly life. Jesus also said that anyone who believed in him would not perish, but some of his apostles seem to have been crucified. As you say, Jesus wasn't incoherent. So 'life' and 'death' could mean something other than earthly 'life' and earthly 'death.' It seems unlikely, but I can't exclude it. Also, I don't know what it means to 'live by a sword.'
Though I agree that the fact that Jesus allowed his disciples to keep swords (I assume they weren't just for eating) and even suggested that they buy them at one point suggests he wasn't a pacifist. I don't question your assertion that Jesus believed the Roman authorities derived their power from God.
Your explanation does seem the most logical and parsimonious. Of course, the flip side of assuming that any historical figure 'makes sense' is that it leads easily to projecting one's own beliefs onto that figure. I've done this often, as you've been a party to once or twice.
In no particular order...
Also, I don't know what it means to 'live by a sword.'
I think most people understand it to mean to live as a military person (that was my interpretation, when I was a pacifist) or at least resort easily to arms and warfare.
I've examined the Greek -- the words seem (again, I'm not an expert) only to refer to grasping a small sword in your hard, not so much "living by" it.
There's a lot of "biblical knowledge" in our culture, which is really more a translation artifact from a particular version. One of the most popular is "thou shalt not kill" -- which would seem to promote vegetarianism, until one was told the Hebrew word there actually meant "murder", not merely "kill." I suspect that's a similar example.
The question of 'living' and 'dying' seems a bit muddied in that the New Testament concerned itself with the afterlife as well as the earthly life...
I wouldn't say it's so much "muddied" (as in, hard to ultimately decipher -- in a few cases, perhaps, but not most) but it certainly is a bit surprising at first to realize that most oratorical references Jesus makes to living or dying refers to the afterlife, not this one.
Jesus also said that anyone who believed in him would not perish, but some of his apostles seem to have been crucified.
Precisely. Certainly they're all quite physically dead today. Other examples:
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." (Luke 10:25-28)
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." (John 11:25-26)
Jesus often segued between physical and spiritual death or life, as in this example, where it actually IS a bit "muddier" as to what he meant:
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. (Luke 13:1-3)
The topic at hand is "Current Events", and those gathered were inviting him to criticize the awfulness of Herod; his bloody slaughter. Is Jesus promising them that if they repent they will never physically die?
(Doubtful, I suspect, given his view of his own impending physical death.)
One last example in this line; from another discussion as to whether there was life after death:
Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am [not "was"] the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
As a Christian, one of the things I'm supposed to learn is how to focus past this life; to see things from an "eternal" perspective. (Which, on one hand, can give a kind of detachment and altruism similar to, say, Buddhism, but without the ultimate dismissal of import and meaning.) And my experience has been that it's doable, at times, but it's a rather difficult perspective to keep.
But an interesting thing about the way Jesus spoke, in this regard, was that he seemed to do this almost effortlessly, as if the afterlife was, from his perspective, the thing he'd always seen, focused on, and knew all about -- and as if physical life and death were a kind of illusion or distraction that other people kept getting caught up on, requiring frequent perspective correction. He and those around him often seem to be coming from completely different perspectives.
Though I agree that the fact that Jesus allowed his disciples to keep swords (I assume they weren't just for eating)...
Beans would tend to roll off it, I would think. ;-)
When Jesus sent them out to visit the different towns, he asked them not to even take "a purse or bag or sandals" (and certainly not a sword -- Luke 10). (He also told them to eat whatever was set before them -- though presumably, again, not with a large knife. ;-))
Yet later, before his arrest:
Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
Interesting switch. I honestly don't claim to have a full-blown explanation for what that's all about (perhaps a deterrent against vigilantes -- domestic weapons are far more often used as deterrents) -- but it would minimally appear that his view on whether to "pack heat" (or carry other provisions, for that matter) was situational.
Of course, the flip side of assuming that any historical figure 'makes sense' is that it leads easily to projecting one's own beliefs onto that figure.
Quite right! That's why I deliberately phrase it so carefully:
"... presume the author or speaker is trying to make a sensible point (at least to them)..."
I believe it's possible to try (you can't read minds, of course) to understand what a figure meant, without necessarily needing to agree or disagree.
And just as an aside: I don't actually always agree with the bible. (That might sound surprising, but I don't.) Though I've got to say, it's won quite a few debates with me. (And thus I suspect I'm probably wrong on the other ones, too, given my experience.)
Part of my brain knows full well what it's seen. But part of my brain persists as a sceptic, always turning things over, trying to see them through different eyes. That perpetual process is one of the reasons, I suspect, that some think I have a rather "strong" faith in some ways: I've tried to pry this apart many ways, and personally found it sturdy, though I can also understand how others could see it otherwise.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Socialized Medicine vs the Tsunami |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Leftist Myth Du Jour: Bush & Phramaceutical Profits »
|
wow... you're so misguided its horrifying. good luck.
Posted by: on March 1, 2005 03:04 PM