Hi,
I started reading the book “Zealot” by Reza Aslan yesterday. He quoted the Bible at Luke 22:36, saying that Jesus advocated violence. His quote was “If you do not have a sword, go sell your cloak and buy one.” I
In addressing Aslan’s claims, it’s important that we read the scripture with an even better historical-critical lens than he uses. This passage in Luke is notable for two themes. First, there’s the obvious theme Aslan selects of violence. Second is that of a transition in the life and ministry of the Kingdom of God, which Jesus proclaimed with himself. To me, this latter theme, that of transition, is the key critical moment.
Jesus’ ministry began in the villages of Galilee. He avoided the large cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias, instead focusing on smaller communities. In Galilee, he drew crowds who flocked to see his healing miracles and hear his preaching. In Sunday’s Gospel, he was perceived as a prophet, and probably viewed himself in the line of prophets. According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus only made one journey to Jerusalem, his final journey. In contrast, the Gospel of John includes three journeys to Jerusalem, many of which expose Jesus to conflict and controversy. The gospels all make it clear that Jesus faced danger and opposition in large cities, and the execution of John the Baptist for his preaching against the wedding of Herod Agrippa to his brother’s wife reinforce the danger to prophetic voices who publicly challenged the morality or legitimacy of powerful figures in Palestine.
Jesus’ whole ministry, but especially his final journey to Jerusalem, is marked by increasingly apocalyptic language, with the parable of the tenants told right near the walls of the city. From the perspective of a historian, one can ask, why did Jesus venture from the relative safety of his ministry in Galilee to the hotbed of Jewish and Roman political and religious power and symbolism in Jerusalem?
Answering that question is bound up with his ultimate worldly fate: his execution by crucifixion under the mocking (yet true) accusation, “King of the Jews.” His accusers say that he claimed to be able to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. Leading up to that trial and execution, violence is an undercurrent that follows Jesus through his final week. This violence must be viewed in context.
In Mark and Matthew, Jesus curses the fig tree outside Jerusalem, visits the temple, and returns to see that the fig tree has withered. His visit to the temple is marked by his visiting the Court of the Gentiles, the largest court in Herod the Great’s temple, and casting out the money changers, which allowed practicing Jews to purchase animals for sacrifice. In the image of the cursed, then withered fig tree, we see what type of movement Jesus led – an anti-temple movement, which he proclaimed as the Kingdom of God. His ministry began with John the Baptist, who proclaimed a baptismal of atonement, in contrast with the temple sacrifice in Mosaic law. It’s clear that Jesus took aim at the temple’s cult of atonement. His single dialogue with Sadducees, that regarding the legitimacy of divorce, suggests a stark disagreement between Jesus and the Temple.
In three gospels (Mark, Matthew and John), the last scene in which we see Judas Iscariot is another scene that occurs just outside the walls of Jerusalem: his anointing for burial by a woman, who is either nameless (Mk and Mt) or identified as Mary of Bethany (in Jn).
In the garden of Gethemane, there is a literal appearance of a sword, when someone (a nameless person in the Synoptics and Simon Peter in John) draws one to defend Jesus from arrest. But Jesus rebukes them. This scene suggests a historical occurrence that is hard for us Christians to accept: the presence of arms among the followers of Jesus. Jesus rebukes them, showing his commitment to nonviolence. However, there is a strong suggested that people expected Jesus to be a messiah who delivered Israel from her temporal enemies. As the Son of David, they looked on him as military leader who would return the Unified Kingdom, and were willing to take up arms in support of Jesus.
How can we assert, therefore, that Jesus was committed to nonviolence when his followers were not?
Look at the action Romans took against Jesus: arrest and crucifixion, for all the Jews to see – in contravention of Jewish law. Yet there is no record of police actions against the followers of Jesus. As cited by the heterodox Bible scholar, John Dominic Crossan, the lack of police or military crackdown on Jesus’ followers is evidence that Jesus led a nonviolent movement.
Beyond that, there are the sayings of Jesus, common to Matthew 5 and Luke 6 (in the hypothetical “Q” source) on violence in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain. Jesus explicitly teaches that when someone tries to take your cloak or press you into service for a mile, that you should reciprocate with even greater generosity (also handing over one’s tunic and going an extra mile). This statement is in the context of Roman law, which allowed soldiers to commandeer goods or labor from the occupied population. This highly-contextual saying is strong evidence that Jesus was not just teaching nonviolence to strategically avoid interception until he could launch a larger campaign of violence.
By saying, in reply to his disciples’ pointing out the existence of two real swords, Jesus proclaims, “it is enough!” In other words, when the people heard him, they got it wrong… not real swords, but conflict. Luke’s gospel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD), when Jews were being attacked and Christians didn’t have a lot of friends. But all those issues agree… Jesus said that when he went to Jerusalem, he and his followers would face more problems.
The simple answer is that (1) Aslan had just cherry-picked a soundbyte out of context; and (2) while Jesus wasn’t some armed guerilla, He ain’t a hippie-type pacifist either.
