‘Political violence’ is in the news this week, for obvious reasons. Judging from the media’s reaction one ‘political’ shooting is of more significance than multiple school shootings. But that’s another discussion. What I want to consider in this week’s post is: Did Jesus say anything about political violence?
To review the situation of Jesus’ time and place, Israel was occupied by the Roman Empire. Although the Jews had various rulers and the priestly system was still in operation they had limited governing power and it was always under the watchful eyes of the Romans. And of course they had to pay taxes to Rome, and nobody likes paying taxes, especially to a foreign power. So, there were various clashes between the Jews and the Romans, with the most significant being the Great Revolt, or First Jewish-Roman War around 70 CE (AD), that culminated in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus supposedly predicted this destruction of the temple (e.g., Mark 13:2). Scholars are divided as to whether Jesus had divine prophetic knowledge of this, or was simply a keen observer who could see what was likely to happen, or whether the Gospel authors writing after 70 CE simply put these already-fulfilled ‘prophecies’ onto Jesus’ lips. Take your pick.
Was life under the Romans that bad? I’m reminded of the scene from Life of Brian where the rebel leader Reg says, “All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?” Well, people still don’t like having some foreign power looming over them, so there was significant tension in the land. But what did Jesus say about it?
There are those who think Jesus was indeed ready to lead an armed rebellion against the Romans. For example, at the Last Supper Luke[1] (and only Luke) has Jesus tell the disciples:
“…whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.” Luke 22:36-38
Arrest of Christ (1308 – 1311) by Duccio
Note Peter cutting off the servant’s ear. Not much of a sword, is it?
All the disciples running off with their halos intact is a cute touch, too.
So, Jesus told them to buy swords, right? Well, this is only in Luke, and let’s be realistic: two swords against the Roman army? That’s not much of a rebellion. It seems that Luke is setting up two things: the cutting off of a servant’s ear in the Garden of Gethsemane (recorded in all 4 Gospels) and a supposed prophecy from Isaiah 53.[2] There had to be a ‘transgression’ (the cutting off of the ear) in order for Jesus to be ‘numbered with transgressors.’ But then what did Jesus say when the ear was cut off? “Stop! No more of this!” in Luke 22:51. Matthew expands on this:
“Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?” Matthew 26:52-54
This seems like a pretty clear refutation of political violence. However, Jesus did expect an overthrow of the Romans, but not by human violence; more on that in a bit.
Some might also point out this verse: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34
Aha! Jesus advocating a sword, not peace! However, if you read this verse in context Jesus is talking about the conflicts that will arise within families when people have to choose between their families and Jesus. I do not think it is reasonable to think that Jesus was telling his disciples to use their swords on their parents and siblings.
Some might also point out Jesus making a whip and driving the moneychangers out of the temple court (John 2:15). That hardly equates to violent overthrow of political authorities. It had nothing to do with their Roman overlords.
Christ Driving the Money Changers out of the Temple
c. 1618 by Jean de Boulogne Valentin
In fact, Jesus repeatedly spoke in terms of love and peace:
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Matthew 5:9
“But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Matthew 5:39
“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” Luke 6:27
In regard to those offensive taxes they were forced to pay the Romans: “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21
It’s kind of hard for me to think that loving your enemies means taking the sword to them. Or that Jesus would advocate paying your taxes to the regime you’re trying to overthrow.
However, Jesus did think that the Romans were about to be overthrown, but not by the Israelites themselves. Right at the start of his ministry Jesus announced: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.” (Mark 1:15) Later: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” (Mark 13:30) At his trial he told the high priest: “You shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven!” (Mark 14:62) Jesus thought the time had come, but it would be by God, through the Son of Man, that the old order would be overthrown and the righteous age of the Kingdom of God would begin. It would not be by the violent actions of his followers. In Matthew 24 Jesus told his disciples about this impending overthrow but that they would be the victims of violence, not that they would be the perpetrators of it: “Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you.” (Matthew 24:9)
But there was a problem. The end did not come. The Christians believed that Jesus was crucified and then raised back to life, but the world itself did not change. Roman rule over Israel continued. What were they to do? Well, most followed the teachings of Jesus and remained peaceful, even as they were sometimes abused, imprisoned and killed. Three centuries later the Christians actually became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire and then the tide changed, and there have been religious wars in the name of Christ ever since. Can you imagine using the teachings of Jesus as a basis for the violent advance of the religion named for him? Yet it happened.
So, what are we supposed to do now? Look at the American Revolution. Were the Founding Fathers wrong to use a violent revolt to free themselves from what they saw as England’s tyranny? Was Abraham Lincoln wrong to use war to suppress the secession of the southern states and to end slavery? Were the Allies wrong in WW2 to fight a war to stop the atrocities of Nazi aggression? How do you combat evil in this world without sometimes using violence? Or do you just remain peaceful and let evil have its way? Should we have let Nazi atrocities continue, trusting that somehow, sometime God would miraculously intervene and stop it?
Does this discussion apply to America today? Many see a rising tide of fascism which puts the liberties of many people at risk. Does that justify ‘political violence?’ Or do we need to trust the teachings of Jesus and remain peaceful? Would that have worked in 1776? Or in the 1860s? Or during Hitler’s time? Will it work now? Are these even valid comparisons? I mean, we aren’t seeing people marched off to gas chambers here in America. Not yet, at least. Do we wait until that point? Are peaceful political changes still an option? Will there come a point at which peaceful change is no longer a viable option?
Let me ask you: what do you think Jesus would have us do? Do you think Jesus’ teachings are still relevant in today’s world? If you were in Nazi Germany and saw a family being shipped off to a concentration camp, what would you do? Just call out to them, “I’ll pray for you!” perhaps? Is political violence ever the right option? If not, would we still be under British rule? Or Confederate rule? Or Nazi rule? Is there ever a point at which violence in defense of freedom becomes a virtue? Or do we continually ‘turn the other cheek’ no matter how bloody and bruised we are? What about when it is our neighbor being struck on the cheek? Or worse?
Sorry, but I have a lot more questions than I have answers! What do you think?
[1] I say ‘Luke’ using the traditional name assigned to that Gospel although it was written anonymously.
[2] Scholars point out that Isaiah 53 is speaking of Israel itself as a ‘suffering servant’, not some future Messiah figure, but early on the Christians claimed this passage as a prophecy of Jesus as the Messiah.