While I don’t agree with this interpretation, again I have to say that this is probably the best argument I have heard in support of the use of violence.
I enjoy your input!

Of course from my secular worldview, we have a name for people who’s actions contradict what they preach…

Take that interpretation for what it’s worth. It is from a non-believer who hasn’t study that part of the Bible.

I appreciate your input. I think that it is important for us to wrestle with these kinds of questions. So many times we just fit Jesus into the mold of our current beliefs and worldviews without actually considering the radical implications of following His lead. The Kingdom of God is so topsy-turvy…or maybe it’s the kingdom of the world that is so topsy-turvy

You said:
So, am I the only one arguing from silence?

Honestly, I think that you are. I believe that in this episode we have presented a solid case from Scripture for Jesus both teaching and living out an ethic of non-violence. However, I don’t know of a passage in Scripture that demonstrates Jesus inflicting violence or teaching others to do so, as would harmonize with your interpretation of Jesus “clearing the Temple.”

There is ample evidence, both in the teachings and example of Jesus and the apostles, that believers are called to a lifestyle of loving enemies, overcoming evil with good, and “turning the other cheek.” Where is any Scriptural proof that believers are allowed a “free pass” when facing certain kinds of enemies or are experiencing “righteous anger?”

This is why I stated earlier that we must interpret the ambiguous passages in the Scriptures in light of the more obvious and reoccurring passages and themes in the same.

As to your application of Jesus’ encounter with Pilate, I take something far different away from their conversation. I think that Jesus was basically saying to Pilate, “A sign of the kingdoms that are worldly is that they are willing to fight in order to further their agenda. But, My Kingdom is not of this world (worldly), and My Kingdom advances in a very different way–the way of love. Instead of conquering enemies, we serve them. Instead of seeking our own benefit, we seek the benefit of others. In this Kingdom, we would rather be crucified at the hands of our enemies than to call down 12 legions of angels to violently defend our cause.”

I hope that this helps to clarify where I am coming from. I have not always felt this way. As Steve said in the podcast, it wasn’t that long ago that both he and I were calling for the heads of terrorists post 911. It has definitely been a process for me to come to the conclusions that I am here elaborating, but please know that I am open to dialog on this topic. I would love to hear any further insights that you have on this topic (or any other for that matter). There are many different parts in His Body, but when we come together, we have the “mind of Christ.”

Bless you brother!

To the point you made on conflicting with what He taught and lived, you made reference to Jesus before Pilot. In that dialog He said “if my kingdom were of this world, then my disciples would fight”. I believe that Jesus was(violently)defending His Father’s house which at that time was the closest thing to the kingdom of God in the earth (I guess it would be proper to say that it was His Kingdom).

I understand that the 2 incidents of Jesus clearing the Temple can, on the surface, present a problem with a believer’s embracing non-violence. However, the Bible says nothing of Jesus using the whip on any person or hurting anyone in the process of clearing out the Temple courts.

I think that we should always interpret ambiguous passages in the Bible in light of those which are obvious. As we discussed in this episode of the podcast, Jesus taught us to embrace a non-violent response to our enemies and then demonstrated the extent of this teaching by dying at the hands of His enemies rather than being delivered through violent means (12 legions of angels, etc.).

I see the clearing of the Temple as a real example of Jesus’ humanity. He looked around and saw people being ripped off in the name of His Father, in the place where they were supposed to be able to come into communion with God and He decided to do something about it. To me, if we read into this that Jesus whipped the men who were there, we are presented with a much greater problem than if we view this incident through Jesus’ teachings and demonstration of non-violence. This interpretation would seem to be completely inconsistent with both Jesus’ teachings and the record of His life as found in the Scriptures. We must be careful not to assume an interpretation that comes from silence and conflicts with the rest of what Jesus clearly taught and lived.

What does everyone else think?

BTW Sid,
That study is very disturbing indeed. I think that alot of the reason for such a sentiment is that so many believers have been taught to walk in lock-step with a political party that embraces these kinds of views.

To me, it seems unrealistic to believe that Jesus didn’t use it on the men. I can’t see Him flailing around wildly and turning over tables and running out the sheep and oxen without the intent of using the whip on anyone who got in His way.

I too, was once in the camp that justified violence. I was one of the voices that said “go get em’” after 911. Wow, it is amazing how Father can change your heart and mind!

Dana,
Glad you enjoyed this episode and great to have you along for the ride!

Oh, I can’t see Russia, but I can see a smoking volcano. Perhaps that’s my punishment for being a heretic.

Blessings guys!!!

Heather

I think that you’re right in saying that alot of the “righteous anger” theology comes from the Old Testament. It seems like so many people want to dwell back there. However, once again, if we let Jesus be our filter through which we view God and truth a very different picture of the Kingdom emerges.

Jesus did chunk a few tables, but I agree with your observation that He didn’t seem to inflict violence on any person. Why is it that people can read that passage about the incident in the temple and just assume that Jesus banged a few heads? First of all, Scripture says nothing to lead us to that conclusion, and second, Jesus teaches and demonstrates the exact opposite of that kind of behavior during the rest of His life.

As for throwing things–if this is the kind of violence that Jesus prohibits, then I’m in trouble. Dear God…please turn your eyes away during football season.

We have been ingrained with this idea of “righteous anger” as a justifiable cause of violence in certain cases of injustice. Where did this come from I wonder? If folks are looking for a “proof text”, if you will, for this line of thinking I suppose you could use any number of OT stories to justify violence against your enemies, if you don’t mind ignoring the NT. The one possible instance in the NT would be Jesus overturning the money changing tables and setting free the animals being sold at the Temple. Jesus did react angrily and violently in that situation. However, it’s interesting to note that Jesus did not inflict violence on any person.

Let me just say that while I believe Jesus has called us into the kingdom way of non-violence, I don’t believe that this equals passivity. Passivity simply doesn’t get involved, but Jesus calls us to get involved and make a decision to identify ourselves with those whom society forgets and treats unjustly.

I don’t think that there are any hard and fast answers when it comes to how we should respond in different instances. As ethereal as it may sound, I just think that we have to trust the Spirit of God to lead us in any given instance where action is necessary.

In the case of an intruder coming into someone’s home and threatening their family, it’s possible that God will give them an idea that will help them to either reason with the intruder, distract him, or maybe place themselves in harms way in order to allow the rest of the family to escape. The same principle could apply when witnessing a violent crime being perpetrated on someone else.

In his book “The Myth of a Christian Nation”, Greg Body tells the story of a godly woman who was attacked by someone who tried to sexually assault her. As the man pinned her to the ground with a knife to her throat, the words came out of her mouth “Your mother forgives you.” This woman had no idea where the statement came from, and did not know that her attacker’s behavior was rooted in something that he had done to his mother who was now deceased. The statement stunned the man who immediately transformed into a “sobbing little boy.” The woman took the opportunity to escape and call the police who later found the man in the park still sobbing. Later, the man credited the woman’s statement as being instrumental in eventually leading Him to faith in Jesus.

Many time it seems as if we are only presented with option “A” or “B”. But if we are open to the leading of God’s Spirit, I believe that He will show us a “C”.

I know that this all might sound idealistic and not very commonsensical, but I believe that this is the love that we are called in to. Sometimes it will look like we have lost in the eyes of the world. Sometimes we will simply look like fools. After all, choosing to identify with those who suffer could lead to our own harm or even death. But we must remember that for every Good Friday that appears to be hopeless, dark and final, there is a resurrection Sunday that promises victory and joy!

Sid, I did see that article on CNN.com. That’s a very sad indictment on the state of the church.

So Christians were being persecuted in the early church because they refused to bow down to Caeser. Doesn’t it seem that Christians today bow down to nationalism? Or even simpler, to democracy? It’s amazing how warped we get when we tie God to politics.

Yes, Christians do cry separation of church and state when it comes down to the peaceful message of Jesus as opposed to the warring message which comes with nationalism. But talk about removing the 10 Commandments from a court, and all the sudden we’re going to hell in a hand basket because we’re forcing God out of government. You can’t have it both ways, folks. I know I’m preaching to the choir…

I think a good point that should be made, or at least discussed, would be whether it’s OK to defend (violently if necessary) those who can’t defend themselves (and NO I’m NOT talking about killing doctors who perform abortions). I’m talking about if someone were to attack your 2 year old child – I think it would be justifiable to defend the child even to the point of violence (again, I’m not talking murder here, just a defense against the attack). Likewise, if you see an old lady getting mugged, I would think it’s justifiable to defend the old lady. At what point do we draw the line on what’s acceptable violence? Is there such a thing as acceptable violence? I’m not even talking about defending ourselves, but the defense of others.

Rodney

Since you brought up torture, this must be particularly dismaying to you: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/.

From the article: “The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.”

When are they going to realize that the politicians that pander to the American Christians misrepresent and abuse the religion for their own purposes?