Jesus and His (S)words

In "Simply Jesus," NT Wright makes the point that for those who hoped Jesus was the long-awaited messianic military leader, the clearing of the temple would have been very exciting - like the first strike in a long battle. But then he stops. Dude always keeps us guessing.

Brian, I disagree with most scholars in giving priority Mark priority over the Toledot Yeshu in terms of its historical backdrop and setting, but I would accept that if one had to attempt a reconstruction of the sayings of Jesus, then Mark, Q, and Thomas would be the best sources to use. St. Epiphnaius supported a legend that a royal prince crowned Jesus after Alexander Jannaeus died, although the bishop was so bad at history he didn't know the Jewish kingdom had been conquered by Pompey in the century before Pilate. The Syrian writer Mara Ben Serapion said that the Jewish kingdom fell just after the Jews put "the wise king" to death. The epistles and older sources used in Acts confirm that Jesus was "hung on a tree," following Hebrew law, just as portrayed in the Toledot, the blame being put entirely on the Jewish officials with no mention of the Romans. A source analysis done by Delbert Burkett in his book "Rethinking the Gospel Sources" confirms that the Trial of Stephen in Acts is based on an earlier synoptic source in which Jesus was tried solely by the Sanhedrin without any Roman interference. Alvar Ellegard, the Swedish linguist who positively identified the 18th century political writer Junius through linguistic analysis actually wrote a book on the same hypothesis called "Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ," only he made his argument entirely on an analysis of the epistles and apocrypha without any knowledge of the Toledot, the Talmud, the Epiphanius passage, or Mara Ben Serapion. Going back to the original point, if Jesus really threw out the merchants of the Temple, then he would not have done it all by himself and it would probably be too much to assume it was all done nonviolently and with only two swords and a whip. So here are my questions: Does anyone else see a problem with Jesus being able to pull off a stunt like this without being arrested by the Romans immediately, regardless of whether the scribes and teachers of Law pushed for it or not? If Jesus was a Torah-following peasant, then what was his problem with sacrifices being sold at the Temple? Why did the people support him? Did they really think his band of Galileans were going to defeat the Romans or did all these Jerusalem supporters somehow know that was not his intent? Jefferey Querner

seems to me that to focus on pacifism as a political tool/means is to miss the existential point, what Jesus was not doing was ending one political system by revolution to found another but perhaps instead trying to focus his followers on another, otherworldly/nonhuman, sense of Peace in being-Loved. just as one might miss seeing the moon by focusing on the finger that points us to it one should be wary of the tyranny of the means perhaps even more than the tyranny of the just plain mean.

Alright then, with Bo's permission, OF COURSE JESUS WAS A PACIFIST. j/k To Jeremy's question, can one be a pacifist and not be committed to non-violence? I can't speak for Jason, I think we all define violence differently, so what we call non-violence will differ. Most anabaptist churches are historically patriarchal, so for the prior generations (and some still living) I doubt familial violence has always been defined under "pacifism". So yes, one could be a pacifist and not be committed to non-violence in all its forms. As to Miranda, I don't know Greek, but apparently my flabby theology DOES think he exhorted people from the Temple (isn't the same usage in Matthew to "send out" the laborers into the harvest?). But conceding the violence of Jesus in the moment, could it be a prophetic enactment of the coming Temple destruction and thus some forcefulness is needed to portray the urgency of the dire warning? In the end though, I don't remember Jesus saying "go and do likewise" after cleansing the Temple. As thinkingoutloudinsarajevo mentions, I think most pacifists would give Jesus a pass. He is the Christ, and such is his perogative; we seek to model ourselves on his earthly actions and not his future, heavenly actions. Although there is some great non-violent theology being done to tamper even the fiery talk (Denny Weaver, Thomas Finger, Vernard Eller). Obviously Jesus wasn't a pacifist since that school of thought didn't exist, but is it that far a stretch to be see Jesus' teaching of brotherly love and (mostly) practice of non-violence, and understand that some may be guided by the Holy Spirit to take this ministry to its greater conclusion (anyone who has faith in me will do... even greater things than these)? As Tripp Fuller believes in a God that is at least as loving as Jesus, so do I believe that I should be as well (although I'm far from it). Peace

I am not denying that some of the stories found in the Toledot have origins in earlier oral and written traditions, but I do think we should urge extreme caution when using this source for the historical Jesus. I imagine you'd agree most fair minded scholars will give priority to the canonical Gospels or even something like the Gospel of Thomas over against the Toledot. It is odd that legends like being connected to a queen would appear no where in earlier sources, show up in a later polemical source against Jesus, then be given priority . While the thing about five loaves leaving twelve et cetera is interesting it seems like quite a stretch to postulate that there is some secret message to be found here.

Since determining the validity of a source is part of the task of dating it, then dismissing a source entirely on the basis of its presumed date is circular reasoning. The earliest literary evidence for the Gospel of Mark is from Papias in the 130s A.D., a full century after the popular date for the crucifixion, but the apocalyptic content leads most scholars to date it shortly after the First Jewish War in the 70s. The earliest literary evidence for the Toledot Yeshu, the only surviving story of Jesus written in the language of his own people, may be very late (826 A.D.), but the content similarly proves it to have originated much earlier. Around 200, Tertullian refers to a Jewish tradition that Jesus' body was moved by the gardener, called either Gaisa or Judas, so that "his lettuces might not be damaged by the crowds of visitors," a reference that only appears in the Toledot Yeshu. The Gospel of John also implies that Jesus looked identical to Judas since Mary Magdalene mistakes him for the gardener, most likely a reference to the Gnostic belief that Jesus and Judas were twins since earlier versions of John were used by the Gnostic Valentinians like Heracleon, and the Cerinthian Adoptionists before them. References to the Toledot story are also found in the earliest parts of the Talmud, redacted by 220 A.D., such as the names of the five disciples of Yeshu. The Gospel of Mark also contains a hidden tradition of 5 disciples: in the first "Feeding the Multitude" story, Jesus splits 5 loaves of bread, with 12 left over. In a nearly identical story from a later version of Mark, called "Bethsaida Mark" by Koester or "Proto-Mark A" by Burkett, Jesus splits 7 loaves of bread with 7 left over and then makes it abundantly clear that the number of loaves is symbolic (8:17-21). Acts 6:5 speaks of 7 evangelists (Philip, etc.), so added together, we have: 5 disciples, 12 apostles, and 7 evangelists. We can see the parable was meant to say that even though the original 5 disciples of Yeshu were martyred, the "multitudes were fed" by the Spirit, with 12 apostles left over. Bethsaida Mark then used the same story to emphasize that even if the 7 evangelists are martyred, there will be 7 more to take up where they left off. http://bahumuth.bitfreedom.com/the-jesus-of-a-previous-century

Wouldn't the very late composition of Toldot Yeshua make it an unreliable source for determining the mindset of the historical Jesus on this matter? Why should we consider it a more reliable source than the Gospels?

I think the two swords are a theological construction to answer the question: "If Jesus wasn't leading a rebellion, why did that follower have a sword to cut the soldier's ear off?" In the Toledot Yeshu, Jesus and his sons lead some kind of an uprising in Jerusalem in the 1st century B.C., a more realistic time period for leading a revolt that wouldn't immediately be crushed by the Romans. The answer to the riddle may be associated with what Jesus was doing when he was clearing the Temple of merchants. If he was a just a Torah-following peasant, then the only problem could have been that the animals should have been sold outside the Temple's perimeter and walked in by the Passover attendees themselves, a pretty lame last stand that ultimately brings the scribes to have him killed. But if he was trying to claim rights over the Temple as suggested in the Parable of the Vineyard (the Toledot says he was related to a queen and it's possible he's linked to the Onias dynasty who originally owned Levitical rights to it) or to have it destroyed, as possibly implied by Thomas 71, then Jesus perhaps was not as nonviolent as postwar Greek-speaking evangelists would make him out to be. http://www.lost-history.com/onias.php

No worries! I love the dialogue. The only reason I put in the 'no Jesus as a Pacifist' clause in part 1 is because after 20 years of watching this conversation I knew where it was most likely to go :) [which it did] but it was good and intelligent exchange and we are doing the TNT segment 1 about this on next Wednesday! so thank you for the exchanges and I look forward to the ongoing debate! -Bo

Thanks for the link. I repent for derailing the conversation. Helpful feedback guys, thanks.

@Jeremy - I don't think we should derail Bo's conversation (Sorry, Bo). You should check out Tripp York's Q&A on Rachel Held Evans' blog which discusses definitions of violence (and thus non-violence) and pacifism: http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-a-pacifist-response

Sorry. I meant one can be a pacifist and not be committed to non-violence?

Right, I understand that pacifism is bigger than just non-violence (including the position it takes vis-a-vis military conflict, war, etc). I'm just confused with what Jason means when he says pacifism is different than being anti-violence. So one can be a pacifist and be nonviolent? Is that right?

Swear jar. $5 donation to HBC. On my phone, else I'd give a substantial response.

"pacifism is a different thing than being anti violence" So what the fuck is pacifism?

Keep in mind, with the whip and temple thing, pacifism is a different thing than being anti violence. I think it was wisely said that pasifism wasn't really a mindset of anyone at the time and so it doesn't really fit in with the story. Also, it's good to note that it's hard to kill with a whip, a sword is a much different and more deadly matter.

I think your discussion about swords naturally is linked to wider discussions about about power, ultimate judgment, justice, reward and punishment. I think the quote from the pastor in Seattle is actually a reaction to what I call the "tribblization" of God in contemporary theology. (It's a play on words between trivialization and tribble, that furry cuddly eventually ubiquitous creature in Star Trek.) Many today and for some time now describe God as caring, compassionate and concerned, but ultimately unwilling and unable do anything to right wrongs, to vindicate those who are persecuted or to avenge violations of God's own holiness. This has been a trend in theology for some time now. What the Seattle pastor seeks to do, I think, is to bring the pendulum back the other way. I think the pastor brings the pendulum back too far because cage fighting is a sport, done for amusement and perverse pleasure. When Jesus describes judgment, reward and punishment he does so with very somber and sober words. It is utterly serious. His (Jesus') justice is not a match to see who is stronger, it is a final ultimate demonstration of his right and might to reign. Interestingly, Miroslav Volf, who himself honors pacifism explains in the last chapter of "Exclusion and Embrace" that most pacifists in history don't hold God or Jesus to the same standard that we ourselves are held to. In other words they do not look at Jesus' words as irony or parody. They expect Jesus to appear in power to ultimately right wrongs and institute justice. In this way, we can be pacifists because we are entrusting ourselves to the One who will ultimately vindicate us. That does not make us necessarily mean spirited as if we want those others to be punished, though we can fall into that temptation. In this sense God's wrath is directed against those who--after the long, prolonged patience and suffering by God and by God's people--refuse to repent and so are given over to be punished. Some criticize this as God behaving like "me on my worse day." But they forget that on my best day I can't judge whether someone will ultimately repent. God and only God can judge that and so God's judgment and God's punishment are always just and right. Our judgments and justice are a weak shadow of God's justice. And while I see Jesus teaching pacifism on the individual level, he still acknowledges that governments have power entrusted to them by God. And so, while it would be wrong for me to administer justice single handedly, the government may and indeed is, even expected to administer justice, though again with the understanding that human justice is always imperfect. I would agree that Jesus was (past tense) a pacifist to not use swords or rain down fire. But Jesus and the rest of the NT don't say that he won't (future tense) come with his powerful heavenly hosts nor does he exclude fire from his rhetoric about ultimate justice and righteousness. Please forgive some of my comments on previous posts. I interpreted your replies as being harsh. Some have told me I was being over-sensitive. Mea culpa, forgive me, I own my shortcomings.

According the NASB (and most translations I read) look like this: And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, WITH the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; I think you're reading is incorrect because both men and animals are referenced in 2:14. I realize the definition of pacifism is flexible, but this post goes to great length to prove that Jesus was against violence. Well, here's a verse where Jesus does something that is difficult to explain through that paradigm. I'd be curious to hear what people would say, and how they would respond to Miranda's provocative quote.

Jeremy - I think Bible translation makes a big difference in understanding John 2:15. My NRSV indicates that Jesus uses the scourge on the animals in the Temple, not the people: "Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle.". That is, unless John is being euphemistic. I've found that within the pacifist community there is no one standard definition of pacifism, it is more of a spectrum of belief. One might say that Jesus was a pacifist, not necessarily a passivist. Some might say Jesus was a pacifist to not use swords, or to rain down fire.

I like Witherington's analysis, and your tie to Moses. It's interesting that Peter asks if they should use the swords, but doesn't wait for an answer on whether to use it; and Jesus rebukes the priests for bringing swords. A sword is certainly ripe for the temptation to use it if you have it (consider Zimmerman - why does a neighborhood watch volunteer need a gun?). I concur with Joe and Greg Boyd, and wondering if Jesus isn't engaging in a bit of prophetic theatrics. They need the swords to look like revolutionaries so that Rome will have enough reason to count them as transgressors, and thus furthering the path to fulfill Isaiah's view of the suffering servant.

I like the exegesis you guys offer here, especially the interpretation of Matthew 10. Curious how you guys would respond to this quote vis-a-vis- Jesus' supposed pacifism. “That Jesus used physical violence is a fact that cannot be denied. “And having made a scourge out of cords he drove them all out of the temple” (John 2:15). The aorist participle signifies here the instrumentality or mode by which the action of the main verb is carried out. What John really says here is, he whipped them all out of the temple. Or does flabby theology think he exhorted them out of the temple?” (Miranda, Communism in the Bible)

@ Joe Paprone, Oh I have definately known people who use those passages to justify violence. Especially in the context of our middle eastern affairs.

Great post. The exclamation point at the end of verse 38 does make more sense in that context of (That's enough of this nonsense!"). Otherwise it flows very awkwardly and seems like Jesus is just going into hysterics (which maybe he was a bit anyway, upcoming death and all). It makes sense that Jesus might play with the traditional (at the time) view of the messiah as an earthly conquered and liberator of the Jews through physical force. Perhaps the sword imagery was employed specifically to set himself up in direct opposition to that view of a messiah.

Interestingly, the NIV2011 (which I think is what you used here) includes an exclamation point after "That's enough!" where the previous NIV only had a comma. The translators must have realized there was an emphasis that wasn't coming across. Regarding swords as a powerful option that is resisted, in Luke Jesus has already taught the disciples about turning the other cheek etc (nonviolent resistance) and so that point has already been made. The swords seem like an amplification of that. I had not read Witherington's angle on it. Greg Boyd talks of it similarly, but suggests that the swords were for the purpose of JESUS being viewed as a revolutionary, a continual theme with Luke. I think your conclusion about all of these passages is spot on...but I'm not sure I've encountered people who ACTUALLY use these passages to justify violence. It sometimes seems that way, but really they're just using them as conversation-enders. As in "Because Jesus talked about swords, that supersedes everything else he said about violence." Even very thoughtful people have brought this up, and I'm always astounded. The issue seems to me less what Jesus actually taught about violence, but rather if God EVER sanctions violence. I think most people agree that Jesus at least PREFERS nonviolence and peacemaking, but they have an underlying picture of God that allows them to justify violence anyway. So the more problematic passages to me (in the NT) are the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira, Herod in Acts, and God in Revelation who presides over all kinds of violent judgment. So maybe we should go through all of the passages where God (or is it 'God'?) sanctions violence and deal with those? :)

Love it!

Thanks for the follow-up! I get what you are saying. And thanks for being irenic! It is much appreciated -Bo

hey Bo, meant it broadly within the context of quote (JC is the one who raised Alice in Wonderland), I'm a fan of both the via negativa and being community-minded just not sure how they go together so was bringing the tension to the attention of the collective wisdom. as for Jack's politics he isn't shy about broadcasting them, at least in his seminars and I believe throughout his texts as well but I will certainly try and be more specific in the future.

are the "poor" closer to G-d b/c he is a social justice advocate or b/c they were imagined to have fewer earthly attachments fewer connections to be severed by the sword/scalpel, less invested in earthy powers? interesting that here Caputo's earlier love for an Eckhartian disinterest/detachment gets dropped thru the looking glass in favor of liberation theology.

I vote for hyperbole, especially since the parallel passage in Luke says dissension. Paul's pointing to the word of God being the "sword of the Spirit" and the sword coming from Jesus' mouth in Revelation indicates the Christian metaphorical use of sword as words over physical swords. Plus Jesus' Micah quote doesn't have anything to do about hacking someone to death, but rather faithfulness. To seal it, Jesus doesn't even advocate taking up his sword, but his cross. Peace

I dig it. Jesus isn't keen on "family values." Looking forward to the subsequent posts

All this talk of Pacifism, next you will be quoting Hauerwas :)

thanks for posting Bo. I am glad you got around to post on pacifism.....LOL

Right on. Jesus' sword is an un-sword; he is the king who is an un-king (not a Davidic monarch after all); the messiah who is an un-messiah (not much like Cyrus); he uses his sovereignty that us un-sovereignty (he can't even stay alive or keep his friends around him) to become a sacrifice that is an un-sacrifice (un-doing the sacrificial system and rending the Temple curtain instead of maintaining it). He dies in order to break death open and when resurrected, at the moment of his greatest potential power in the world, ascends out of the world. Given all that, when I go looking for God, I usually just go looking for ironies and paradoxes, because Jesus is both through and through.