I'm afraid that I wasn't as clear as I should have been in my previous post. I don't believe that Jesus was cowardly.
I was trying to point out that if the use of force was good, why didn't Jesus use more of it? If force is a good thing, then Jesus was lax by not employing it to advance His kingdom. But instead of promoting the use of force, He tells us to "resist not evil", and to turn the other cheek, and to go the extra mile. (Sermon on the Mount again, Matthew 5, 6, 7)
I think it takes a lot of bravery to live like that, to do good no matter what, and to never return evil for evil.
And Jesus didn't teach people to disobey. In fact, He told His disciples that they had to obey the very men He called hypocrites, simply because those hypocrites were in a place of authority. (Matt 23:1-3) As long as obeying was not sin, obedience was required.
Yes, He did indeed shine a light on the evil of the day, and He didn't let up. He was very persistent, and never compromised. But He never killed anyone, nor picked up a sword. Instead of killing, He brought the dead back to life.
The only reason the disciples had a sword at that time was to fulfill prophecy. (Luke 22:36-38) And that very prophecy called those sword-bearers "transgressors".
With all these examples and teachings against violence and force and rebellion, I think the question is more: why did Jesus use a whip in the temple at all? Personally, I think it is to show us that Jesus cannot abide evil. Evil will die on its own. To be with Jesus means to leave evil behind. If we cling to evil, He will drive us from His presence, just like He did the money changers.
Because if we insist on living under the "eye for an eye" system of law, returning evil for evil, then we should not expect to hang out with Jesus when He lets us have what we asked for, and leaves us in that very evil that He will not mix with. If we insist to be judged by a just law of "eye for an eye", He will! And we will die.
As the saying goes, those that live by the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52)
So if force is evil, it explains Jesus's teaching and actions, and we also need to leave it behind. But if force is good, we are left with a perplexing contradiction, since His teaching and behaviour don't seem to support it.
Hi again! The operative phrase here is; "They had swords..." They were armed and willing use them - He said not to. Obviously he couldn't let them fight on THAT night he knew better any one else on alive that he was part of a prophesy that had already been hinted at in Genesis. Certainly he preached that people should obey Ceasar - but ONLY if in doing so they did not contravene God's will. Again I'm with Jesus on this score. He NEVER stood idly buy and allowed unrighteousness to continue. He called them up on it he insulted them and their heritage. He challenged the laws of the day he encouraged people to disobey he preached change and he believed we could be better. The people of the day considered him an anarchist and murdered him for his views. If this seems cowardly to you I will have to disagree.
Thanks for your reply.... I just have a few questions to add.
If sometimes force is required, why is the story of Jesus and the money changers the only place where He uses even a hint of physical force? Was there no other cause in His day that was worth fighting for?
What about the Pharisees? Why didn't He fight against them for leading the people astray instead of just rebuke them? For He even said that the Devil was their father!
What about the Romans who ruled over Israel? Why didn't he lead an insurrection against them? Or at least preach against the tax collectors? He had the people on His side, for there were times when the Jews wanted to kill Him, but they were afraid of the people. Why didn't He use that popular support?
And why didn't He let His disciples fight to prevent His arrest and execution? They had swords. Wasn't it better in human terms to continue preaching and teaching and healing, rather than surrender to the authorities and be put to death?
If force is good, Jesus seems awfully inconsistent, even cowardly, in using it.
Hi Kyle I think this must be tongue in cheek. :-) Why would anybody bother to worship a god with human plumbing. God does not need to procreate. As a being surely God has trancended all this petty human stuff? Axel
Hiya Iru - Thanks for your comment, it's been my experience that keeping your fingers crossed and hoping for the best is a worthless undertaking. There is no time or place for timidity. (See Paul's letters to Timothy.) I was broought up to believe that the only way for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. I'm with Jesus on this - when you see evil in action react and react immediately. Throw the money lenders out of the temple and do so expiditiously.
Brother in Christ, thank you for telling me about this post! Your transparency is so attractive - truth is truth and there is nothing like it. The story of 'never getting around to it' is so true of so many of us and the excuses are common and sound so feeble. They ARE feeble. Read on, my friend in the Lord. One day soon we will talk face to face about the things we love. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus and more Jesus! D. O. C. / DeAnn
Dear Brother. I pray for you everyday,my prayer is that God keeps you safe and gives you peace. I am proud of you, I want you to know that lessons have been learned. Joe I don't think I would be in the Prison Fellowship Ministry if it were not for what I have learned from you being in prison.I have learned to give my burdens to Jesus and not pick them back up.I have learned to praise Him through it all. I hope you know that you are loved and missed everyday. If you need anything call me. I Love You Bro Your Middle Sis. Mary
Joe, I know it is so hard for you to look back on the past, so don't. Look for what God has for you in the future and pray you have learned from your past. I am praying for you and I love you very much. Aunt Jenny
Hello Joe, I am Chuck Hall. Mike and Mary are good friends of mine. Mike and I are best friends from back when we worked at AT&T. I have heard your story from them and have prayed for you and Mary's family in the past and will continue to do so. God is good so keep the faith.
I agree, this is very interesting stuff, and it sure makes me think as well.
I'm not calling for people to protect and nurture the old system. Rather, in order to let it die on its own, we need to leave it behind, not fight it, because fighting means we're still part of the old system.
And when I say, don't fight against it, I'm also saying, don't fight for it.
You ask how we decide what is truly righteous and what is not. I am basing my arguments on the Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew 5, 6, and 7. In those chapters, Jesus tells us to do good, do good, do good, and even in the face of evil, to still do good.
This is a high calling. And I believe it is the only way we can really leave the old system behind. Because the old system uses evil (force, prison, guns, death, coercion) to suppress other evil. This is necessary in this world, because so many people only resort to evil. But if we resort to evil to suppress evil, then we are not rising above it to truly reach the good.
So yes, maybe the laws in the USA are indeed too restrictive, but they are based on a national or state negotiation, trying our best to avoid hurting each other on a coarse national level, which ends up making blunders on the fine grained level of the individual. But if we rebel against this with an evil revolution of force, we will most likely find that we just replaced one evil system with another.
This is primarily what I was replying to: the lines that I quoted promoting the breaking of laws and destruction of statutues. This may have been poetic language that I took too seriously, and if so, my apologies to Kyle. But I think there is a vital difference between stating the truth that harm is happening, vs. fighting against it to stop it by force. It's one thing to state that the law is hurting us and should be changed. It's another to break that law and fight against those that are trying to enforce it.
I would support a re-examination of the age of consent laws in North America. I think we promote staying in "childhood" longer and longer these days, which is not necessarily to our benefit. But I also think that more freedom in this regard requires more maturity on the part of citizens, and I'm not sure we're heading in the "more mature" direction on a national level. Would more freedom cause more pain and hurt in general? I don't know, and I'm not in a position to know. But I think it is a serious question that should be answered during any re-examination. And it probably should be seriously considered, and if possible, answered, by anyone calling for change.
RSS
Thanks for your reply!
I'm afraid that I wasn't as clear as I should have been in my previous post. I don't believe that Jesus was cowardly.
I was trying to point out that if the use of force was good, why didn't Jesus use more of it? If force is a good thing, then Jesus was lax by not employing it to advance His kingdom. But instead of promoting the use of force, He tells us to "resist not evil", and to turn the other cheek, and to go the extra mile. (Sermon on the Mount again, Matthew 5, 6, 7)
I think it takes a lot of bravery to live like that, to do good no matter what, and to never return evil for evil.
And Jesus didn't teach people to disobey. In fact, He told His disciples that they had to obey the very men He called hypocrites, simply because those hypocrites were in a place of authority. (Matt 23:1-3) As long as obeying was not sin, obedience was required.
Yes, He did indeed shine a light on the evil of the day, and He didn't let up. He was very persistent, and never compromised. But He never killed anyone, nor picked up a sword. Instead of killing, He brought the dead back to life.
The only reason the disciples had a sword at that time was to fulfill prophecy. (Luke 22:36-38) And that very prophecy called those sword-bearers "transgressors".
With all these examples and teachings against violence and force and rebellion, I think the question is more: why did Jesus use a whip in the temple at all? Personally, I think it is to show us that Jesus cannot abide evil. Evil will die on its own. To be with Jesus means to leave evil behind. If we cling to evil, He will drive us from His presence, just like He did the money changers.
Because if we insist on living under the "eye for an eye" system of law, returning evil for evil, then we should not expect to hang out with Jesus when He lets us have what we asked for, and leaves us in that very evil that He will not mix with. If we insist to be judged by a just law of "eye for an eye", He will! And we will die.
As the saying goes, those that live by the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52)
So if force is evil, it explains Jesus's teaching and actions, and we also need to leave it behind. But if force is good, we are left with a perplexing contradiction, since His teaching and behaviour don't seem to support it.
If this seems cowardly to you I will have to disagree.
Thanks for your reply.... I just have a few questions to add.
If sometimes force is required, why is the story of Jesus and the money changers the only place where He uses even a hint of physical force? Was there no other cause in His day that was worth fighting for?
What about the Pharisees? Why didn't He fight against them for leading the people astray instead of just rebuke them? For He even said that the Devil was their father!
What about the Romans who ruled over Israel? Why didn't he lead an insurrection against them? Or at least preach against the tax collectors? He had the people on His side, for there were times when the Jews wanted to kill Him, but they were afraid of the people. Why didn't He use that popular support?
And why didn't He let His disciples fight to prevent His arrest and execution? They had swords. Wasn't it better in human terms to continue preaching and teaching and healing, rather than surrender to the authorities and be put to death?
If force is good, Jesus seems awfully inconsistent, even cowardly, in using it.
D. O. C. / DeAnn
I pray for you everyday,my prayer is that God keeps you safe and gives you peace.
I am proud of you, I want you to know that lessons have been learned. Joe I don't think I would be in the Prison Fellowship Ministry if it
were not for what I have learned from you being in prison.I have learned to give my burdens to Jesus and not pick them back up.I have learned to praise Him through it all.
I hope you know that you are loved and missed everyday. If you need anything call me.
I Love You Bro Your Middle Sis.
Mary
I agree, this is very interesting stuff, and it sure makes me think as well.
I'm not calling for people to protect and nurture the old system. Rather, in order to let it die on its own, we need to leave it behind, not fight it, because fighting means we're still part of the old system.
And when I say, don't fight against it, I'm also saying, don't fight for it.
You ask how we decide what is truly righteous and what is not. I am basing my arguments on the Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew 5, 6, and 7. In those chapters, Jesus tells us to do good, do good, do good, and even in the face of evil, to still do good.
This is a high calling. And I believe it is the only way we can really leave the old system behind. Because the old system uses evil (force, prison, guns, death, coercion) to suppress other evil. This is necessary in this world, because so many people only resort to evil. But if we resort to evil to suppress evil, then we are not rising above it to truly reach the good.
So yes, maybe the laws in the USA are indeed too restrictive, but they are based on a national or state negotiation, trying our best to avoid hurting each other on a coarse national level, which ends up making blunders on the fine grained level of the individual. But if we rebel against this with an evil revolution of force, we will most likely find that we just replaced one evil system with another.
This is primarily what I was replying to: the lines that I quoted promoting the breaking of laws and destruction of statutues. This may have been poetic language that I took too seriously, and if so, my apologies to Kyle. But I think there is a vital difference between stating the truth that harm is happening, vs. fighting against it to stop it by force. It's one thing to state that the law is hurting us and should be changed. It's another to break that law and fight against those that are trying to enforce it.
I would support a re-examination of the age of consent laws in North America. I think we promote staying in "childhood" longer and longer these days, which is not necessarily to our benefit. But I also think that more freedom in this regard requires more maturity on the part of citizens, and I'm not sure we're heading in the "more mature" direction on a national level. Would more freedom cause more pain and hurt in general? I don't know, and I'm not in a position to know. But I think it is a serious question that should be answered during any re-examination. And it probably should be seriously considered, and if possible, answered, by anyone calling for change.