The Merits of Violence Without Works

Show Notes
Your Own Personal Jesus

1.Was Jesus a pacifist?
Jesus taught non-violence. That’s what we have been told. Is it true?
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
Matthew 5:38–42

This is what comes to mind when discussing Jesus’ response to violence. It was an example mentioned in both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, in contexts that suggest that he mentioned in on two separate occasions. That would make it a teaching he meant to reinforce through repetition. What does it mean?

These teachings had a profound effect on Christian thinking over the centuries. Think about the break with the Mosaic law that Jesus’ words created, the teaching that reinforced the Lex Talionis.
Christian Anarchy is political-religious movement. It teaches, among other things, that any earthy government is inherently evil. It teaches that the principles of Jesus’ teaching demand a rejection of hierarchical power structures used by the organized church, and state. One of the most vocal and popular of it’s proponents was author Leo Tolstoy, who described the mainstream church and state, and its contrast with Christian Anarchy:

“That this social order with its pauperism, famines, prisons, gallows, armies, and wars is necessary to society; that still greater disaster would ensue if this organization were destroyed; all this is said only by those who profit by this organization, while those who suffer from it – and they are ten times as numerous – think and say quite the contrary.”

Tolstoy’s book, “The Kingdom of God is Within You,” (1894) taught that the proper way to interpret Jesus’ statement, “turn the other cheek,” was as a call to non-violent resistance. This interpretation has had lasting effects. Tolstoy’s correspondence with a young Mohandas Gandhi, and the absorption of those teachings by American civil rights leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King bore this idea out.

This seems to be the best way to interpret Jesus’ teaching, but is the idea of turning the other cheek situational? In other words, is there a time that reacting without violence is counterproductive?

Here is an example of Jesus’ teachings shifting over the span of his brief period on earth. Earlier in his ministry he sends his disciples out to evangelize alone, to tell neighboring villages about the good news.

Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts— no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. **
Matthew 10: 9-10**

Shortly before his death and glorification, Jesus reminds his disciples of the time that he spent apart from them.

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Luke 22:35-36

It seems that Jesus is telling his disciples to be prepared if they must defend themselves. Maybe he meant that there is no glory in being victimized.

Here is example of Jesus personally behaving in a way that could be considered violent:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the gr