The Fourth Reflection – The Fruit of Hate and Violence
To be quite honest, I find the debate between Jesus being a man of violence versus a man of peace somewhat bewildering. It was Jesus, a man who said:
“Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place, for all who take the sword will die by the sword.”
Matthew 26:52 NRSVUE
And also:
“But I say to you: Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also,”
Matthew 5:39 NRSVUE
Don’t forget this:
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.
Matthew 5:21 NRSVUE
This too:
“But I say to you who are listening: love your enemies; do good to those who hate you.”
Luke 6:27 NRSVUE
The weight of these verses speaks for itself. So I must ask then, where is the confusion? How is it that Jesus, a man who is recorded to have said these sayings, was made into a figure for religious oppression and violence?
Well, there is only one place in the gospels where one could interpret Jesus advocating violence:
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword.
Matthew 10:34 NRSVUE
This seems fairly unequivocal. Jesus is advocating violence. And yet, does that not directly contradict the first four verses I shared, three of those later in the same book?
While I’m not one to try and make the bible univocal or prove its inerrancy (As I spend a good time arguing against this in other posts), it would seem to be a major lapse in judgment for the author of Matthew to promote violence in this one scenario, and then unquestionably refute it three times later. So what is happening in this passage?
Well, If you read one verse later, Jesus explains what he means:
35 For I have come to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law,
36 and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.Matthew 10:35-36
Jesus goes on to talk about loving him more than the family unit, taking up your cross, and losing your life for his sake. The central theme here is Jesus’ ethics causing strife in the family unit. The sword is metaphorically “cutting” the family unit apart. Though, as Jesus notes, the sword may be literally brought to you, as in killing you for your belief in his ethics. Jesus then qualifies later that you are not to engage in violence, despite violence being brought to you. So the author of Matthew is a good writer after all.
Of course, we can’t move on either without discussing the book of Revelation. This may be the primary motivator for much of the violence caused by conservative Christians today. I do not have the word count to refute every point in Revelation, so I will leave you with this.
If the Jesus of the Gospels contradicts the Jesus of Revelation, which it does, then you have a decision to make. You must decide to live the life Jesus taught and showed through his example of selfless acts and sacrifice, or emphasize the revenge fantasies of a man exiled to an island, frustrated with both the church and the Roman Empire.
Small historical detour about revelation: It was included through a razor-thin margin when they were debating the books of the Bible; in fact, many individuals refused to include it in their Bibles.1 Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, hated the book so much that he put it in the back of his bible. He said, “I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.”2 He had much stronger words to say after, and I encourage you to read the source in its entirety.
Unfortunately for us, we live in a world in which many evangelicals warmly embrace the book of Revelation. And so these revelation-loving Christians praise the love of Christ on Sunday, and then they give praise when the military’s budget continues to balloon at the expense of the well-being of themselves and their neighbors, both at home and abroad. Not only that, but they also boast about how they will avoid the horrors described within Revelation and gleefully await the destruction of all creation (See my blog on end times trauma).
It reveals an uncomfortable truth about these types of Christianities. They put the Jesus of Revelation above the Jesus of the gospels. Revelation flies in the face not only of everything that Jesus taught, but everything that the apostle Paul taught. Was it not Paul that clearly stated:
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God,[a] for it is written, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 Instead, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink, for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 12:17-21
Viewing Jesus as this “kick-ass” god is perhaps the greatest misreading of scripture, and flies in the face of everything they state they believe. It makes me wonder, when was the last time they read the red letters? When was it that their pastors last taught from the gospels?
They are clearly willing to disregard things they find inconvenient or against their cultural identity. Which would be fine. Everyone does it whether they believe they are or not. I do it too, I disregard the bible’s support for the institution of slavery and polygamy, for example, because they are irrelevant to modern society and morally dubious at best. What is not fine is that they make it a justification for violence or oppression against the perceived other.
Footnotes/Citations
