Jesus’ Final Act of Anti-Violence—Crucifixion

For the past several posts we examined passages in the gospels to determine whether Jesus is violent (see the links just below this article). The purpose of this survey was to answer both believers and unbelievers who claim that Jesus is violent—at least upon occasion.

One reason for this claim is that many people embrace violence and use Jesus’ purported violent acts to justify their own tendencies. Some also revolt against the depiction of a wimpy, timid Jesus who won’t even fight back when he is bullied.

Of course, I think they are mistaken. Jesus is certainly no wimp; he stands up to opponents without wavering. But he is not violent toward them. While he sometimes speaks very strongly, especially to some of the Pharisees, he is neither violent nor does he allow his followers to be violent. In fact, he teaches them just the opposite.

The Crucifixion by Philipe Champaigne

Philippe de Champaigne [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The Common Sense of Violence Against One’s Enemies and Why Jesus is Different

Most people if attacked, physically or verbally, fight back. They defend themselves against any assault—even as small as an insult or a slight. It’s natural for people to ‘get back’ at the other person or persons in order to maintain personal dignity. They often identify groups of people as default enemies and respond to them with hate and violence—sometimes subtle violence.

We live in a world of division and hostility with potential enemies all around. So when they try to hurt us in some way, we will hurt them more—that’ll teach them! This is considered common sense all over the world, but Jesus goes against this ‘common sense’.

Jesus teaches his followers to love everyone—even our enemies. And he doesn’t mean ‘love’ in some shallow, insipid way; he means we should genuinely love them with empathy, compassion, and care. This is the opposite of hate, retaliation, and revenge. This love excludes vindictiveness.

Jesus begins his mission by announcing the coming of the kingdom of God. Some people seem to think the kingdom of God is in ‘heaven’ or the far-off future. It is not. Some think the kingdom of God is synonymous with the visible, organized churches. It is not. The kingdom of God is present right here on earth, and it expands silently and invisibly among the nations.

The kingdom of God embraces an ethic at odds with power, force, and domination. One might say the kingdom ethic does not represent the world’s ideas of common sense but rather peace and reconciliation.

Jesus’ Final Acts of Anti-Violence

I agree that Jesus does not oppose conflict; his message inevitably creates conflict because it clashes with religious and cultural systems. But I believe he opposes violent conflict for himself and his followers. His purpose is to impact the world by changing individuals–not by force but through the invisible spreading of the kingdom of God.

Jesus demonstrates his anti-violence to the extreme during his last few days on earth in a way that should be a lesson to all his followers.

1. Jesus’ first demonstration of anti-violence happens during his arrest. Matthew 26 tells us:

When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs?”

His disciples were ready to defend him, but Jesus stops them and essentially says he is not leading a rebellion (against Jewish leaders or against Rome); this was not his plan. Jesus faced a choice: lead a fight against religious, political, and social oppressors or promote a new community of love, peace, and reconciliation.

He chose the way of peace.

2. John 18 shares his second declaration of anti-violence. When Pilate asks him if he is ‘King of the Jews’, Jesus answers:

My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders.

Jesus explains that his is not a political kingdom, like the world’s kingdoms, to be established by means of power and violence.

3. Jesus’ final demonstration of anti-violence, and his attitude toward his ‘enemies’, is by far the most dramatic and the most teachable for his followers.

After his brutal treatment by the Roman soldiers and his being painfully nailed to a cross, one could understand Jesus’ anger and resentment toward his enemies—knowing he was going to die. But nothing of the sort manifested during his final hours. Instead, we read these words from Luke 23:

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Even in his last breaths Jesus did not castigate his ‘enemies’. He did not hate them or curse them. Instead he responded consistently with what he had always taught about loving others—because God’s love was deep in his being. Jesus died largely because he was perceived as a political threat, yet he did not fight. More was at stake than political goals. Fighting, instead of dying, would have derailed the movement he established.

Jesus teaches anti-violence for his followers. This is not a secondary issue but an essential principle of the kingdom of God. If we do not embrace it, I think we should consider why.

Articles in this series: Does Jesus Demonstrate Threats and Violence?
Does Jesus Demonstrate Threats and Violence?
Does the Cleansing of the Temple Show Jesus’ Violence? – I Don’t Think So
Addendum to the Cleansing of the Temple—What about the Fig Tree?
What does it Mean that Jesus Brings, not Peace, but a Sword?
3 Possible Reasons Jesus Told His Followers to Carry Swords
Isn’t it Violence for Jesus to Tell Us to Cut off our Hands to Avoid Punishment?
Jesus’ Final Act of Anti-Violence—Crucifixion

***

This entry was posted in behavior, hate, Jesus, Kingdom of God, love, love your enemies and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Jesus’ Final Act of Anti-Violence—Crucifixion

  1. Pingback: Jesus’ Final Act of Anti-Violence—Crucifixion — Jesus Without Baggage | Talmidimblogging

  2. There is a lot of truth packed into a few words there and this is a “theology” that I have come to believe in over the past couple of years. But it is not easy, the principle is much easier to believe than the practice of it, and who knows what we would do in a situation where our loved ones are in danger. May God help us by His Spirit 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

      Andrew, you are right; it is not easy. But I have found that the more we internalize the Father’s love for us and realize that he loves each person the same way, we can begin to see others as the Father sees them and it becomes easier. I think, as believers, we should treat all people with empathy, compassion, and care.

      However, this does not mean I will stand by and allow someone to attack or abuse someone else, but my emphasis would be on restraint with the least amount of damage possible, which is different from many people who would use excessive force or death. But you are right: once we are in a situation we must make instant judgments, which is why I think it important for us to know our principles and think through what they mean ahead of time.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Chas says:

    Tim, The most precious message here is that of non-violence, although it does not mean that we should not stand against oppression. It is my view that the most telling non-violent protest is that led by Ghandi, against the rule of India by the British Empire. This worked, and quickly. However, protests that have resorted to violence often take longer. The Suffragette’s movement to promote votes for women in UK used violence to try to gain publicity, but this just hardened opinion against them in Parliament and it was the great contribution of women working in the place of their absent menfolk during WWI that succeeded in breaking down the resistance of men to votes for women, i.e. a creative contribution, rather than a destructive rebellion. Would Nelson Mandela have been successful more quickly if he had not agreed to the use of destruction to try to gain leverage for the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa?

    Liked by 1 person

    • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

      Chas, I agree that being nonviolent does not mean we cannot stand against oppression. I also admire Gandhi and Mandela. I wish I could have marched with King but I was too young to know the issues properly. I don’t know anything about the UK suffragettes, but the US suffragettes became victorious using nonviolence.

      Violence rarely, if ever, leads to true justice, peace, and reconciliation.

      Like

  4. newtonfinn says:

    Over the years of armchair theologizing, I have, following the lead of many others, come to a more unorthodox and universal take on the crucifixion. First, I think God sent Jesus to succeed in changing human hearts and minds, that he was not necessarily set up to fail. This would explain Jesus’ lament that he wanted to gather the children of Israel together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but that they “would not.” In no way, however, would I rule out what seems to be Jesus’ gradual realization that he had become a doomed man, because of the discomforting and disruptive challenges he brought and the ruthless and powerful enemies he made.

    Second, I believe that it was humanity as a whole that nailed Jesus to the cross, not solely the Roman Empire, which merely had concentrated and potentiated the evil that lies within most all of us, as does the American Empire today. Thus, when Jesus asked God “to forgive them for they know not what they do,” his appeal, I believe, was for each and every one of us who participates in evil, either by intent and action or by complacency and complicity. Which leads me to two additional faith statements: a) that Jesus’ prayer from the cross was granted, and b) that we are all saved whether we like it or not, despite our best efforts to live contrary to the Kingdom.

    I suppose, if you push this line of thinking, you come to the conclusion that there is indeed a kind of “violence” or “coercion” involved in the salvation process. God, no matter how hard we struggle for our “freedom” and “autonomy,” simply refuses to let us go.

    PS: Please note that Jesus’ plea that his Father forgive us, because of our ignorance, comes at the end of his life, subsequent to all of his teachings about the final judgment–the separation of the wheat from the tares, the good fish from the bad fish, the sheep from the goats, the rich man from Lazarus, the fires of Gehenna, etc. I do not see this as contradiction in Jesus’ thought but rather as evolution, which the institutional church has tragically neglected to acknowledge for 2000 years. It is mind-blowing to imagine what Christianity would look like today if universal salvation had been a core component of its theology from the beginning.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

      Newton, you have a lot of rich thought in this comment. I like the way that your reasoning leads to two conclusions: “a) that Jesus’ prayer from the cross was granted, and b) that we are all saved whether we like it or not.” I believe something very similar to this but not quite identical.

      You follow up with: “I suppose, if you push this line of thinking, you come to the conclusion that there is indeed a kind of “violence” or “coercion” involved in the salvation process. God, no matter how hard we struggle for our “freedom” and “autonomy,” simply refuses to let us go.” I don’t push the line of thinking to this point.

      I am not a universalist; I am a HOPEFUL universalist. I don’t think God will force eternal life on us against our will. I speculate that all of us will be offered eternal life at a time that our mind is free of misunderstanding and psychic scars; this will likely be after our death. I would hope that everyone would accept this gift of eternal life, but it is possible that some would prefer extinction to living in God’s society. This extinction is not punishment, but simply the natural consequence of rejecting eternal life; it is self chosen with a clear mind.

      I agree that Jesus had a growing awareness about who he was and his mission. I don’t know at what point he realized he was going to be executed. At his death, I think his statement, ‘Father forgive them’ was likely directed at those involved in his execution rather than in some cosmic sense that includes us, but I do think it is appropriate for us to acknowledge that it was not just those of that day who are responsible for his death–but the entire world system–therefore appropriating his forgiveness to us as part of that world system.

      Good stuff!

      Liked by 1 person

      • newtonfinn says:

        Your interesting response, Tim, causes me to ponder whether hell may be, in a strange sense, included in my view of eternal life. Because I believe that life is inherently eternal–that, as Kierkegaard said, the ultimate form of despair, that of wanting to be rid of the self, is utter futility, beyond one’s power to effectuate, even by suicide–those who at the deepest level oppose or even detest the Kingdom of God would be compelled to exist in that state of alienation from God and themselves…unless and until they repented and found the salvation that remained eternally open to them.

        Liked by 1 person

        • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

          Newton, you could be right; and I agree that if we continue to exist after rejecting eternal life then the offer would always be available to us if we changed our mind. However, this assumes that a we are inherently eternal, which is more in line with Plato.

          Another perspective, one that I have come to favor, is that a person is not inherently eternal; so that eternal life is offered instead of our natural consequence–eternal death. This view is called conditional immortality. I have written a couple articles on it if you are interested.

          These are interesting questions, but any thoughts I have about them are speculative. I just don’t know.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Ruth Womack says:

    I was old enough to March with King but the wrong side of the pond! I am enjoying your studies as I find Bible study difficult over here in England.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

      Thanks Ruth. What is difficult about Bible study in England?

      Like

      • Chas says:

        Tim, as an English man, I was wondering the same thing.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Ruth Womack says:

          Basically, too much baggage. It would take too long to type out and explain on a small tablet. I was brought up Christian but not fundamentalist but the house group attached to my church when I was young were which I found very confusing. Also I find the idea of eternal conscious torment terrifying especially as neither of my parents now deceased were evangelical Christians. Which is how if have discovered non fundamentalists blogs like yours.

          Liked by 2 people

          • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

            I see, Ruth. It is difficult, but I am not sure it is less difficult here. Those who teach ‘baggage’ here are many and they are very combative. Perhaps one advantage we have is that there is a significant network of bloggers and teachers who oppose the baggage; I don’t know whether or not this is true for England.

            Like

          • Ruth Womack says:

            Which is why I stick to the blogs at the moment. My son lives in Brookline near Boston Massachusetts and I enjoy going to the United Parish Church of Brookline when I visit which is openly “liberal”. Apart from that I have just seen the fundamentalist super church pastors on the Christian Chanel on a friends TV. I have noticed the “prosperity” preachers are influencing some friends from church. My dad used to describe our English churches as “still suffering from Billy Graham”

            Liked by 1 person

          • Chas says:

            Ruth, I begin to see your problem, because there are few liberal churches in England, as far as I am aware. Your Dad’s comment about Billy Graham was perceptive. The gospel that he preached was not the one that I received.

            Liked by 1 person

          • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

            Ruth and Chas, are there not Anglican churches in England that are not High Church? How do they fit in with progressive church options? I ask because I really don’t know.

            Like

        • Chas says:

          Tim, there are some Anglican churches in which there is fairly lively worship, usually in a service held separately from the normal ones, which are very dry and formal and hedged around by the Book of Common Prayer and a fixed service format. For anyone who is at all Pentecostal, the normal services are likely to be very unsatisfying, but the ones which are held separately (at least the one of which I am aware) involves speaking in tongues and more satisfying worship.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. hoju1959 says:

    Hi, Tim
    Sounds like our journeys have been similar. I was never a creationist or a fundamentalist, but I was an evangelical/charismatic/liturgical Christian for 35 years. I was investigating the Orthodox Church when I ‘lost my religion.” I still believe that something called God exists but I don’t think it’s possible to have a relationship with Him/Her/It/They.

    So . . . to your post. How did Jesus envision his mission? Obviously, no one knows, but that doesn’t stop people from acting like they know!

    So here I go.

    Just kidding. I’m not going to be dogmatic about this, but my reading has led me to the conclusion that Jesus did not come to die on the cross. I think Jesus wanted to overthrow the Roman occupiers in Jerusalem. That was his mission. Obviously, “overthrowing,” is an action, but I don’t think Jesus was primarily interested in armed revolt. (Although I don’t think he was categorically against it. It seems to me that he was no pacifist.) Jesus’ expectation was that God would do the overthrowing. God would intervene on Israel’s behalf, just as he had drowned pharaoh’s army in the Red Sea and brought down the walls of Jericho.

    So, clearly, if I’m right then Jesus was wrong. God didn’t intervene in that way. I have no problem with Jesus being wrong. He was just a guy, in my mind. I don’t think he was God incarnate. I don’t think he thought he was God incarnate. All the verses where he seems to be saying that come from John’s gospel, which was written decades and decades after Jesus died and was heavily influenced by Paul. The way I see it, it was Paul that created the whole God dying on our behalf on a cross thing, the whole salvation by grace through faith. Or is that salvation by faith through grace?

    You know what I’m talking about.

    Anyway, when Jesus showed up and started preaching about the Kingdom of God—and all scholars, liberal and conservative say this was the heart of Jesus’ message—the meaning was all too clear to the “man on the street”: Jesus was here to bring down the Roman occupation. Jesus didn’t talk about the Kingdom of God being in the distant future. The Kingdom of God was at hand.

    To Jesus, re-establishing God’s reign was all about upending the present order. The powerful and rich would be brought low and the meek would inherit the earth. The Temple priests, the wealthy Jewish aristocracy, the Herodian elite, and the heathen usurper in distant Rome—all of these were about to feel the wrath of God

    At least that’s my take.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

      Hoju, I think you are right that when most people heard Jesus’ message about the kingdom of God they had expectations of an independent, political Judean kingdom similar to the one established by the Maccabeans.

      But I don’t think this was Jesus’ idea. It seems to me that Jesus was teaching about an invisible kingdom made up of individuals who lived and thought differently from the kingdoms of state–a network of individuals who would impact the world by their lives rather than through violence and political power.

      I agree with you that Jesus’ crucifixion was not for him to be punished for our sins. He was crucified because Jewish leaders saw his movement as a moral attack on them. Perhaps the Romans thought he was leading a political revolt; there were several such leaders in the area who were killed by the Romans. Anyone with a popular audience was probably suspect.

      Like

      • mark says:

        I must say hoju1959 brings to mind questions and thoughts I have had for a few years now. I am torn between two opposing views. Let me highlight that if I can.
        ……………………………………….
        When searching the OT for answers and understanding of our Father and our relationship to Him, I find what seems to be a split in the source material. What I mean is the Description of GOD and His character seems to have changed from before the Babylonian conquest to that of Him after the return to the land and the “re-building” of the Temple.
        The Yahweh described in the “after” appears to be hateful and full of bloodthirsty vengeance. A evil demiurge even. A tribal God who seems fickle and apt to change his mind frequently and allows his people to befall tragedy and defeat..over minor issues and also. at times even undependable.

        Now the GOD the Church has presented to us is a god that needs appeasement, sacrifice and strict adherence to his demands…Blood! ..and total submission. The angry righteous God/evil sinful man scenario.

        We are told He knows the beginning from the end and all possible outcomes in every situation in life.
        If the foreknowledge was there like we are told….then why allow the scenario to play out?
        Was He so mad at us for being flawed that to keep from killing us He decided to Kill himself to satisfy His anger at creating us flawed? What was the purpose in the entire demonstration? To me it shows evidence of a sadistic mind to suggest such a story…Not GOD…but the sick minds of the scribes and Temple leaders who claimed to speak for GOD.

        If I as a father send my child to take the punishment for my screw up…to take the penalty as it would be..How does that show or prove love?
        How can I be loved or trusted when my judgements and actions are shown not to be morally upright or correct?
        Is that the standard we are to aspire to?…shift the blame?
        Where is the Justice in a scapegoat ?

        No I do not believe Christ was sent as a ransom…. I believe that Messiah was pointing people back to true worship of the FATHER…spirit an truth…loving our fellow man.
        The system was being challenged by the message He taught. So by having him labeled a dangerous Zealot and traitor to Caesar’s Empire it paved the way to have him killed and stopping the true “Gospel” of Liberty .
        Not to come die in our place for FATHERS mistake as the scribes would have us believe.
        I see an abundance of “manipulation” with a Talmudic flavor going on in our Bible…to me it seems the “chosen-ites” tried to take away the “KEYS” to life by throwing us all a curve ball.

        So Yes I am torn between opinions on the Gospel, but no longer will I allow the rambling stories and tales of 3 thousand year old goat herders to establish who or what GOD is for me any longer. I may stand or I may fall but it will be because I choose to be a DOER and not a Hearer .

        So for the long wind there Tim…what are your thoughts on that?

        Liked by 1 person

        • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

          Mark, you bring up an issue that I think is very important–angry god. In the OT God is often depicted as angry, harsh, and vindictive. These descriptions are not inspired information about God but come from those who wrote from the limitations of their era, culture, and understanding of God; they wrote about what THEY thought God is like; and he WAS a tribal god.

          I believe the best information we have about who God is, and what God is like, come from what Jesus tells us–and that is that God is a like a loving Father for everyone. This is good news, and should be how we believers think about God.

          But, as you point out, later theologians recreated angry god in their theories of atonement–especially Anselm and Calvin. I think this does great damage to Jesus’ message of the good news of the kingdom and his insight into God’s character. The penal substitution theory of angry god atonement has become widespread and strongly held today. In the process, I think they have again reduced God to a tribal god–the God of the true believers (them).

          Like

          • newtonfinn says:

            But isn’t there in Jesus’ repeated prophetic denunciations of the rich and powerful, who delight in exploiting and beating down the poor and vulnerable, a strong indication that God does indeed have righteous anger about this situation, a righteous anger that all of us who are in relatively privileged positions should contemplate with at least some degree of “fear and trembling?” I think that the loss of this prophetic edge in much of liberal Christianity has allowed it to morph into a kind of easy-going, consumer-oriented religion, which views its mission as attracting people by making them feel positive about themselves.

            When some 60 people now control half of the wealth of the world, while billions of our brothers and sisters struggle to survive on a couple of dollars or less per day, millions of children die annually from malnutrition and preventable/treatable disease, and the creation is being relentlessly un-created by the pollution and plunder involved in this obscene wealth accumulation, I can easily envision a God who is, shall we say euphemistically, NOT HAPPY.

            Liked by 1 person

          • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

            Newton, I would agree that God is not pleased with the condition of the world you describe so well. One might say, anthropomorphically, that he/she is angry or has a righteous anger; but I think when we balance that against Gods intense love for every individual, we cannot say God is furious, harsh, or vindictive.

            Rather, God wants to bring peace and reconciliation to all of us. Jesus might have had an angry tone as he addressed the Pharisees for oppressing the marginalized, but I think his invitation for us to come to him to have our burdens removed, and his invitation for us to identify with the good news of the kingdom, extended to every single Pharisee no matter how bad they were.

            Part of the agenda for the kingdom is to accept and help the marginalized. I think many believers have botched that, and it is appropriate for us to call them on it. I agree that churches that follow “a kind of easy-going, consumer-oriented religion, which views its mission as attracting people by making them feel positive about themselves.” are also misguided in that aspect. There is something much deeper than that driving the kingdom forward.

            We can call them out for it, and we might express a great deal of passion while doing so. We can look at ourselves and feel great regret and dissatisfaction over what we have done and what we should be doing, but I don’t think anyone should experience fear and trembling regarding God’s anger.

            I agree that the rich terribly exploit the poor. I oppose that. You might say that I am angry about it. I will do what I can to change it. We should call them out on it–as the prophets did. But I also try to see the exploiters as God sees them: people who need inner healing, peace, and reconciliation. They really need it badly.

            God is NOT happy, but I don’t think God will respond to even such terrible people with anger, retribution, or personal rejection. This is what I mean about angry god. This is my opinion; not a claim of universal truth. I am not sure I have addressed your point; if not I will try again.

            Like

          • mark says:

            Tim ..thankyou friend for hearing me out…without judgement of my thoughts and spiritual anguish over these matters. Truly I am torn on this

            Liked by 1 person

          • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

            Mark, I can certainly understand your being torn on this; you are not the only one. I was also absorbed in the past with angry god. If you are interested, on my resource page for Angry, Violent, Vindictive God are articles on the subject by me and others. You can find them here:
            https://jesuswithoutbaggage.wordpress.com/books-and-resources/angry-god-and-the-father/

            Like

          • mark says:

            Tim ,by the SPIRIT of TRUTH many false teachings that have been entrenched for 17-18 centuries are crumbling now.
            the Angry God issue is the core of the matter..true ,.but Where I’m treading lightly is on the doctrine of Christ crucified for our sins and how the Church based an entire “Religion” on worshiping Jesus as GOD and the Shed Blood as atonement
            To learn that it “ain’t necessarily true” kind of rips apart the heart of the matter. That is the “torn” I’m speaking of .

            Like

          • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

            Mark, if I understand correctly, you seem to be saying that learning that it is not necessarily true that ‘Jesus died on the cross for our sins to satisfy an angry God’ is disconcerting. I understand why; it is foundational to some believers’ approach to their entire belief system.

            Considering this really DOES “kind of rip apart the heart of the matter.” It is understandable that one would feel torn. But how do you feel torn? Is it that you think penal substitution might be true after all? Or that without this aspect of penal substitution your entire theology falls apart? Or that you are still in the process of working through the issue of angry God?

            Is there a way I might help?

            Like

          • mark says:

            Tim I think as the shock from the truth subsides I will fit in quiet nicely. It always bothered me the story of Calvry and the coming as a Lamb to the slaughter. Much guilt from the “Gods gonna getcha for that” theology is being lifted day by day.
            What a relief to know our Creator just wants us to Love HIM without the fear and condemnation when we mess up each day. That in itself may be the JOY of THE LORD.

            Liked by 1 person

          • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

            Mark, I think I understand. It does take some time to absorb these things when we have been so indoctrinated into a different perspective.

            Like

  7. newtonfinn says:

    I think, Tim, that we see essentially the same world and the same God, which is why I find your blog so helpful in my spiritual journey. Where we may differ at bit (more in tone than substance) is whether a sharper prophetic stance by the church–involving inducing a level of discomfort and shame, if not guilt, over our complacency and complicity in the structural sin in which “we live and move and have our being” (to take the Paul, portrayed in Acts, out of context)–is called for, now more than ever, in our preaching and worship. But the last word must always be the Father’s love.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jesuswithoutbaggage says:

      Newton, we may even have less difference than that. I do think ‘prophetic’ calling out of injustice is appropriate and worthy. I admire King, Gandhi, Mandela, and the American suffragettes. They called out injustice but, of course, none of them resorted to violence or hate (though I am sure they were pretty angry at their respective situations).

      I think this is an appropriate response from believers.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: Isn’t it Violence for Jesus to Tell Us to Cut off our Hands to Avoid Punishment?–No! | Jesus Without Baggage

  9. Pingback: 3 Possible Reasons Jesus Told His Followers to Carry Swords | Jesus Without Baggage

  10. Pingback: What does it Mean that Jesus Brings, not Peace, but a Sword? | Jesus Without Baggage

  11. Pingback: Addendum to the Cleansing of the Temple—What about the Fig Tree? | Jesus Without Baggage

  12. Pingback: Does the Cleansing of the Temple Show Jesus’ Violence? – I Don’t Think So | Jesus Without Baggage

  13. Pingback: Does Jesus Demonstrate Threats and Violence? | Jesus Without Baggage

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s