One Monk's Journey Through Faith

This passage is one people seem to use often in defense of the idea of a pro-military Jesus. As one example, we've got this reply to my first student opinion article. But enough of that. Let's look at what the text of Luke 7:1-10 (NIV) says:

When Jesus had finished saying all this in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, "This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue." So Jesus went with them.

He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: "Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.

Pretty surprising that Jesus would say that to a Roman centurion. He never seems to praise Jewish freedom fighting guerrilla groups. In fact, the New Testament almost never mentions any of those groups. But Jesus says a good thing about a Roman soldier. And Luke specifically writes favorably about the Romans.

In chapter 7 Jesus helps a Roman soldier with a sick slave. Immediately after that incident Jesus raises a widow's son. In short, Jesus is exemplifying what it means to live by Leviticus 19:32-34 (NIV),

Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD. When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Thus, we see a very inclusive concern for others in Jesus' actions. The centurion also serves as an ironic contrast in faith with John the Baptist later in the chapter. Luke uses the lowly for ironic contrasts often enough, such as in Luke 18. That chapter has a widow seeking justice and an apathetic judge. Justice happens because of a poor helpless old woman. The Pharisee and tax collector is yet another such contrast. The following episodes about the little children and the rich ruler both have their own contrasts, but they're less obvious.

Note that nowhere is the centurion said to become a disciple. Jesus heals those who turn to him, and that's that. In Luke 5:12-26 we have two episodes of healings that did not necessarily lead to discipleship. The man possessed by Legion in Mark 5 was not allowed to be a disciple, but was told to go back and be with his family (5:18-20).

Healing/miracle stories do not concern themselves with whether a healed person ends up living "happily ever after." The focus is on what Jesus said and did. As far as what happened to the person healed, the only things reported are (usually) the fact that healing did happen and that people were amazed in response. Therefore, we can't really say at all that this centurion became a disciple. Besides, a Roman centurion can't just quit his job and convert to Judaism and follow a Rabbi around. Going AWOL (or just displaying cowardice at all) was punishable by death.

And lastly, let me add this. People are willing to use this as a prooftext for saying Jesus approves of soldier-disciples, but nobody seems to notice the same logic could use this passage to approve of slavery. This slaveholder was not told to free his newly-healed slave either, as the text has it. So, if this passage proves that Jesus was not non-violent, it also "proves" slavery is perfectly acceptable in God's eyes.

I don't like slippery slopes, but I dislike double standards even more. People are inconsistent and use whichever interpretive style fits the point they want the text to make. Ugh.

Well, it's a new year! I've been reading quite a bit from the Old Testament lately (which means in English), and it makes me impatient. My strength lies in New Testament studies, and I don't want to get rusty. So, I've decided to make a post about Jesus' statements on the Sword. The first passage in question is Luke 22:35-38, which says

He said to them: "When I sent you without a purse or bag or sandals, you didn't lack anything, did you?" They answered, "No; nothing." Then he said "But now, let whoever has a purse take it, likewise a bag also; and may whoever doesn't have a sword sell the shirt off his back to buy one. For I tell you that this which is written will soon find its end in me: 'He was counted among the lawless,' and that [which is written] about me is at its time of fulfillment." And they said: "Lord, ah! Here are two swords." He replied: "That's enough!"

I've heard something to the effect that Jesus can't really be made to fit pacifism completely, that Christian pacifism must be a personal ethic, more or less. With all due respect, I believe careful study of the New Testament, its historical context, and the writings of early Christians would quite strongly support the idea that Jesus was indeed one-sided on this debate.

So, without further stalling, let's look at this passage. We're at the evening of the Lord's Supper. The disciples just quarreled about who is greatest, then Jesus solemnly told Peter he would deny Him. Now Jesus gives a dramatic warning. Given that this occurs between Peter's denial and the final prayer, Jesus has His own death in His mind.

In this passage He reminds them of when they were sent out (see Luke 9) and gives them the idea that, after the Passover, they will again be scattered. If they believe His claims about Him dying, then they realize they'll be fleeing. If they don't believe He'll die, then they think He's gonna send them out again.

In either case, He tells them to take a purse (wallet) and a bag (backpack) -- if they have one. They don't necessarily have to buy one if they don't own one. But they'd better have a sword, each and every one of them. There's a powerful emphasis on them having a sword, even if they have to sell the shirt off their back to get one. [Strange, also, that swords replace sandals.]

Why does He say this? He has His death in mind. He is going to be counted with the lawless. And then He predicts His death quite painfully in v 37. Literally it's "for indeed the about me has an end." If we supply "written" as context would urge us to do, then this phrase means "for that [which is written] about me is about to be fulfilled." But there's more! The way this is phrased seems to have an undertone of him referring again to His death.

Now how do the disciples respond? They remind Jesus that there are two swords there [in the house they were using for the Passover. Ownership of the swords is not specified]. Wait a second. What happens when the disciples respond to Jesus, as a general rule? Think of a few times when the disciples' response is recorded. They are seldom right, and pretty much never completely right. Usually the disciples are incorrect in their statements, and then Jesus clarifies for them as a good rabbi would do.

But not this time. He doesn't correct them. He casually dismisses the conversation "that's enough!" Perhaps more colloquially, "forget it" or "drop it." (Here I reference Richard Hays' Moral Vision of the New Testament.)

Now, I apologize if this is a complicated explanation. But what is the alternative explanation for "that's enough"? Jesus switched from "no bag, purse, or sandals" (Luke 9) to "a bag and purse if you have it, and make absolutely sure you have a sword." And then when they said there were two swords among them, Jesus just changed His mind about many swords were needed? That explanation simply won't do, so I argue that taking "that's enough!" as a dismissal of the conversation is the more coherent understanding of this passage.

Oh, and He dismissed the conversation because they mistakenly took Him literally (a mistake many casually make today with regard to this passage, yet I've just shown that taking Him literally here would make Him inconsistent). So what did He really mean? Well, He didn't elaborate because He dismissed the conversation. It's fair to say it was another prediction of His death and a warning of coming persecution.

Now, much more quickly, I'm going to discuss Matthew 26:52, which says

"Then Jesus said to him: "Return your sword to its place! For all who wield the sword shall perish by sword! Or do you not think ..."

What happens to all those who wield the sword? They will perish by sword. "Sword" is one of God's calamities that He uses to judge nations and individuals. Note also the verb: perish. What does it mean to perish? It's worse than dying. Everyone dies, but bad people get their just punishment when they perish. Go to biblegateway.com and do a keyword search. See how many occurrences of it have to do with wickedness! Try Psalm 1 or John 3:16 or Luke 13:1-5. I don't know if the NIV usually retains the perish-die distinction, so you might want to try KJV.

So, in short, Jesus is saying that God will cause punishment on those who wield the sword. The kind of punishment that makes you perish. A case can be made that those who perish end up going to hell, but that argument is inconclusive. It can't be denied, however, that perishing is for the wicked.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says:

You have heard that it was said 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you: don't resist an evil person. Rather, whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him also the other. And whoever wants to sue you and take your shirt, give to him also your coat. And whoever charges you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to the one who asks, and do not refuse the one who wishes to borrow from you.

He goes on to say:

You've heard that it was said: 'Love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven. For He makes His sun rise upon the malicious and the benevolent, and makes it rain upon the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what have you really done worth mentioning? Do not the tax collectors also do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what exceptional thing have you done? Do not the gentiles do the same? So then, be holistic as your heavenly Father is holistic.

In Matthew's teaching on retaliation, Jesus quotes Ex 21:24. Mainly because of Jesus' reference to this passage, many people mistakenly see this as a dichotomy between the Old and the New. The Old Testament teaches retaliation, while the New teaches forgiveness. That's way off to left field, though. This law forbids turning justice into vengeance, an execution into a bloodbath. What happens if someone insults the mafia? Do they just insult you back? No; they'd kill you. What happens if you kill a member of the mafia? They'd kill you, your pets, your family, and everyone you've ever had a crush on. The natural instinct is to hurt someone much worse than they hurt us, and this law actually forbids that.

"Eye for an eye" is not the ideal response, but enforcing this limit of vengeance will prevent people from committing worse sins. The point of this law is that the punishment may not exceed what the crime merits (so the poor are not overpenalized) and it may not fall below what the crime merits (so the rich do not escape with a slap on the wrist). To quote Alexander Hamilton's Handbook on the Pentateuch: "What Jesus does in the Sermon on the Mount is elevate the response to evil beyond the concern for simple justice to voluntary assistance for the oppressor" (p. 206).

Then He specifically points out the godly response to public humiliation (the Greek verb in this context means a slap to the face, though the word is also used of roughing someone up), being taken to court, and enforced labor. No matter what sort of person wishes to borrow from you, you are supposed to give.

Now, Jesus quotes Leviticus 19:18, which says to love your neighbor. That chapter elaborates that one must love strangers/sojourners/foreigners as oneself, also. Interestingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls add to Lev 19:18 "...and hate your enemy." As if such a thing ever needed to be taught! Hating one's enemies is just common sense.

Jesus, however, considers hating one's enemies as something that needs to be untaught. What is our purpose in doing this? "So you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven." In this use, "son" means more than just parent-child relationship: here it means resemblance/imitation of your Father (this is a subset of the "members of a category" usage of "son"). By loving our enemies, we resemble our Father in heaven. Well Jesus, how does that work? How does God love His enemies?

"He makes his sun rise upon the malicious and the benevolent, and he makes it rain on the just and the unjust." Hmm. So, God allows sun and water to reach the crops and cattle of even those hostile to God? God actually gives the same life support to them? Well Jesus, good point. Loving those who love us does not necessarily reflect the change that comes from following after the Lord, nor does fellowship/greeting to our friends and relatives.

So, Jesus: God's love is universal, because he gives life to even those hostile to Him. What about us? What should we do, Jesus? "So then, be holistic as your heavenly Father is holistic." Let me explain why I prefer "holistic" to "perfect" here. Jesus' point is not that we must know exactly how to provide flawlessly and perfectly for each and every person even when we just met them. Only God can do that. Rather, His point is that we must be all-encompassing and indiscriminate in our love, giving it to everyone. Note once again that the example of God's love for His enemies is that he grants them life instead of either actively killing them or passively permitting them to starve. Oh, and I also prefer "holistic" because I am not translating on the 8th-grade reading level, as the (T)NIV does.

Luke's quote, in context, is also quite interesting. In 6:20-26, Jesus pronounces blessings upon those who are poor, those who suffer, those who are wronged. "You are blessed when the people hate you and when they single you out and treat you with reproach and throw away your name as evil for the sake of the Son of Man" (think of something gross that you'd reflexively throw off if you touched it). Jesus goes on to explain that the same happened to the prophets, whereas the people loved and applauded the false prophets who claimed that the Lord was with them all the time. Now Luke puts forth the love-for-enemies passage, and he even inserts the teaching about retaliation inside the love-for-enemies section.

But I tell you who hear: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you, pray for those who insult you. To the one who strikes you on the cheek, turn also the other, and do not refuse [to give] your shirt to whomever asks for your coat. Give to everyone who asks, and do not demand it back. And however you wish people to treat you, treat them likewise. For if you love those who love you, what special thing have you done? For even the sinners love those who love them. And if you show benevolence to those who show you benevolence, what special thing have you done? The sinners do the same thing, too. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what's special about that? Sinners also lend to sinners expecting to receive back their own things. Nevertheless, love your enemies and show benevolence and lend without expecting anything back. Thus will your reward be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for He is kind to the ungracious and malicious. Be compassionate just as your Father is compassionate.

Jesus blesses his audience "you who are poor," and "who hunger now" and "who cry now" (reference to fasting and weeping, perhaps?). He then tells us, the audience, that we are actually blessed when we suffer abuse. He does not say to resist such things. Actually, the fact that he points to our reward for suffering instead of specifically saying how to react implies that he expects us to, not necessarily welcome it, but certainly endure it. For doing so, we will be counted among the prophets.

Lest anyone say I avoid the prophetic woes section: Jesus then addresses the "rich" as if they were present, though they are not. The "rich" are those who do not listen to Jesus' message of radical service to God, and who instead are so blinded by the religious establishment's status quo that they do not see the need for immediate and decisive action to further the Kingdom of God.

Now, Jesus switches back to the blessed "poor," his disciples. This passage is similar but not identical to Matthew's parallel. Luke says to turn the other cheek to the one who strikes you -- this is not a backhanded slap of humiliation, but an act of violent aggression. Luke flavors this passage to show it in the light particularly of giving alms to the poor (a point that Matthew emphasizes just shortly after his parallel for this). Another difference in Luke is that instead of giving God the holistic attribution, he says that God is good/kind. For what that word means, read 1 Chr 16:34 or start reading the book of Psalms from chapter 100 to 136. When it says that God is good/kind, it also says "His love endures forever." To understand what Luke means in verse 36 about being "compassionate, just as your Father is compassionate," read Jonah 4:4 or Joel 2:13. That is what we must imitate if we are to be sons of the Most High.