Did Jesus advocate nonresistance?

Gxg (G²) said:

I had a great time celebrating it earlier this year...but concerning Hanukkah, I thought it was interesting seeing some of the perspectives that others in the MJ Camp have saiD when it comes to enjoying the Holiday. Was going through "Jewish New Testament Commentary" by David H. Stern, who lives in Israel. And as he said on the issue:

John 10:21-23
The Unbelief of the Jews

22Then came the Feast of Dedication[a] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade.
​

Chanukkah, the Feast of Dedication, in which the Jews since 164 B.C.E. have celebrated the victory of the Makkabim over Antiochus IV, King of Syria.....this is the earliest mention of the holiday in all literature and the only mention of it in the Bible, since Tanakh was completed before that date (the book of Daniel contains prophecy about the event celebrated). The apocryphal books, I, II, III and IV Maccabees, present historical and other perspectives on what happened.


Antiiochus, recently defeated in Egypt, expressed his frustration in attacking Judea, ruthlesly slaughtering men/women and children...and invading the Temple. There he carried off the golden altar, menorahs and vessels.and to show his contempt for the God of Isarel, sacrificed a pig to Zeus on the altar. He forbade circumcision, observing Shabbat, and keeping kosher...and commanded that only pigs be sacrificed in the temple. Syrian Officers were dispacthed to enforce these cruel and blasphemous decree...and one day, when the Syrian officer in the Modi'n commanded Mattityahu HaMakkabi (Mattathias the Macabbe or Hammer), head of a family of cohanim (priests), to sacrifice a pig, he and his five sons killed the first Jew to comply...and then killed the officer and his soldiers. Thus began the start of a rebellion...and after Mattityahu's death, his son Y'hudah (Judas Maccabeus), about whom Handel wrote his oratorio so named) assembeled a number of courageous Jews and led them to victory over the Syrian, first in guerilla warfare, then lateer in open battle. And on the 25th of Kislev, they redicated the temple and consecrated a new altar. The ner tamid ("eternal light") was relit, but there was only enough consecrated oil to keep burning for one day---and it would take a week to prepare more. By a miracle of God reported in II Maccabess, the light burned for eight more days, by which time a new supply had been prepared.

For this reason, Jews celebnrate Chanukkah for eight days, staring on Kislev 25, which can fall between November 27 and December 27.

The Bible does not state when Yeshua was born.......perhaps as a prophylactic against our worshipping the day instead of the One who is worthy. But it is interesting that early believers in the Messiah apparently saw a link between Chanukkah and the birth day of the Messiah..

Chanukkah has become a Jewish refuge and defense against absorbtion and assimilation into the Gentile majority: "We don't celebrate Christmas; we celebrate Chanukkah, because we're Jewish.." ........Messianic Jews use Chanukkah as an occassion for rededication to God and his Messiah.​

For me, something coming to my mind is the issue of how anyone studying what happened within the story of I & II Macabbes will quickly realize how much of a nationalistic mindset the Jews had...similar to what occurred with others who were militant nationalists. From the era of I & II Macabbes is where we understand that the groups of Pharisees and Zealots (the sister group) arose....and with this in mind, I must wonder what the backdrop was like for Jesus when the Holiday was going on.

For the Zealots celebrating the Holiday in honor of how one of their own fought back, would Jesus have posibbly been considering how the Zealots were righteous in their desire to use lethal force to hold back the enemies of God? For as many Jewish scholars have said that the teachings of Christ were in support of pacificsm & against the concept of "Just War Theory" because of the emphasis on love for one's neighbor rather than physical force, its interesting to consider how it'd be with Christ celebrating a holiday that in many ways condones the use of force to have one's way.

The contrast between The Zealots and Christ seems similar to what occurred with Martin Luther King & Malcom X---as they had convergence on many things and yet they were very different...and with the dynamic of Christ possiby supporting the Zealots, Perhaps it is best to say that in many ways, Christ was a Hybrid. As another said best on the issue:

The Pharisees....were men of religious stature; they were the antithesis of the `Establishment' Sadducees, who operated a policy of appeasement and accommodation with the Roman occupiers. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were the religious representatives of the mass of the Jewish people, and were as a matter of fact the party of resistance to Rome (the Zealots were Pharisees). Jesus, whose beliefs establish him as a Pharisee, advocated a "half-way-house" approach for expelling the Romans and paving the way for the kingdom of God on earth. He confidently expected God's intercession on behalf of the Jewish people, which would however only be forthcoming as a result of prayer and repentance (the presence of swords at Gethsemane was to be merely symbolic).​

Concerning more information on the Zealots, One of the ministries I frequent has more information on the issue that may help —as one can go online/look up a ministry known as Follow The Rabbi: Zealots . For it is from there that one can see how the Zealots were apart of the movement known as Hasidim (called “The Pious Ones”)—of which the Pharisees were a SISTER branch of TOO—when it came to total resisting of Outsiders. And in many respects, the Zealots were very PRIESTLY/Devout as the Pharisee.

As said best by them:

The philosophy of the Zealot movement was simple: There was only one God, and Israel was to serve him alone; the Torah and other writings of the Bible were the only guide to righteous living; and serving the emperor in any way, whether in worship, slavery, or paying taxes, was apostasy against God.

Josephus, who knew the Zealots, described their passion for freedom as unconquerable because they would serve no one but God. Violent resistance was considered a God-ordained responsibility since they believed God was on their side, they knew that they would triumph in the end. This led to their reputation for incredible bravery and tolerance for suffering.

The Zealots lived by the strictest conformity to the Torah. In addition, they refused to acknowledge anyone as king, since “you shall have no other gods” (Exodus 20:3). These defenders of freedom influenced Galilee in particular. They were committed to the Scriptures’ promise of a coming anointed one who would be a great military leader and king, like David of times past. They knew they would soon prevail over the detested Romans and their collaborators, the Herodions (Jews who supported the Herods) and the Sadducees.

..............Ever since the Romans arrived on the scene in 64 BC, the Jewish people were divided over how to respond to the rule of their often corrupt governors or the Herod family who served them. The religious community, particularly the Pharisees, believed the Jewish people were to be God's instruments on earth, from whom the Messiah would come to institute that glorious age when Israel would be a great and free nation. Many others, especially the secular community and apparently some of the Sadducees, noted the present reality of the rule of Rome and determined that cooperation was the best policy. The tyrannical rule of Rome and the paganism of its religious and Hellenistic culture heightened the contrast between the situation at hand and the messianic hopes. This difference produced increasing frag-mentation of the people, and several movements developed in response.

The Zealots, an ultra-nationalistic group, proclaimed revolution to be God's solution (Acts 5:37). The Essenes withdrew, waiting anxiously for the Messiah to lead a violent overthrow of the Romans and their Jewish supporters. The Sadducees apparently practiced a form of cooperation since it was Rome who kept them securely in their position over the temple and therefore over the people (John 11:49?50). The Herodions appeared satisfied with the Herod dynasty (Matt. 22:16). The Pharisees, condemning Rome's pagan excesses, were removed from politics and viewed the foreign oppressors as God's hand punishing his people for their unfaithfulness to the Torah. The country was in turmoil, each faction longing in a different way for the freedom they desired. To this climate of confusion, hatred, and division, many so-called messiahs came, each preaching his own brand of salvation (Acts 21:38). Jesus presented his unique message of redemption. Some followed his lead, but many did not. During feast days, especially Passover, tensions reached fever pitch and the Romans increased their military presence to prevent open revolt. The climate existed, however, for revolution to begin.



JESUS AND THE ZEALOTS

Jesus chose Galilee for his ministry, using Capernaum as his home base. Though several miles from Gamla, the hotbed of Zealot fervor, Capernaum certainly was influenced by the Zealot passion for freedom and the anticipation of a Messiah. The presence of this fierce devotion to God in Galilee had both direct and indirect influences on Jesus' ministry (1) One of his disciples was Simon the Zealot (Mark 3:18). (2) Jesus often needed to correct his audience's interpretation of his message as political rather than spiritual (John 6:15; John 18:36; Acts 1:6), and on several occasions, he urged those who experienced his power not to report the miracles, possibly to prevent such misinterpretation (Matt. 12:16; Mark 1:44). (3) The Zealots expressed great interest in Jesus' answer to the query about paying taxes (Mark 12:13?17). (4) The Romans apparently considered Jesus to be part of the Zealot movement (John 18:36).​

Again, processing.


I was also blessed to recently view a video of the struggle that Indian Jews have had with terrorism, as seen here:

India celebrates Hanukkah ( YouTube - India celebrates Hanukkah )​

In light of what the heros of Channakuh did, one would think that others would be inspired to fight back...yet they've chosen peace/simply remembering those who've lost their lives. Something to think on

Gxg (G²) said:

I think for others, the issue with Hanakuah is that the Lord being present for it is interesting to consider in light of how the Holiday itself was celebrated by the very people whom He refused to act militant before when it came to being a Conquering King - for the holiday was a reminder of the need to resist those invading Israel and to stand for God in definance via physical force against any who'd defame the Lord. With the message Yeshua preached, one wonders how they'd think that the Lord could say he was for Hannakuah and yet not willing to join with others in fighting against Rome.

To be clear, from what I've seen, the Lord was not necessarily counter to being aggression during his ministry on Earth. During the Channakuh celebration I went to last year, we had a very in-depth dialouge about the reality of how Channakuh would've meant so many differing things to the various groups within Judaism during the times of Christ....and understanding the issue of humanity can make one empathize with why there was so much expectation during the season, especially as it concerns the pressure they may've applied to Christ in trying to get him to do something since they were very frustrated with being oppressed/really wanting God to give them justice....even though true justice could/would come during the Resurrection.

How they so often missed who He was is amazing, yet its also amazing to see how quick we are to look back and judge them as if they should've known better when they often had FAR less knowledge than what we have today. For its more than easy to look back and think "Well, Duh!!! You should have been listening to the Messiah!!!" when they really may've been clueless...and if we were there, we'd probably be right there with them.

With the Mennorah we had, I got the blessing of being able to light all the candles...and it was truly an amazing moment to reflect as one was doing so. Fire is a beautiful thing in general, as it truly does bring either life or death depending on the context.....and paradoxically, even when it brings destruction, life still seems to come about from it----such as brushfires/forest fires that clear away much and yet leave room for new life to begin.

The fire on the candles reminded me of how those zealous for freedom (as it was with the Maccabbes) may've been in the clear and trying to use their fire properly....but on the same token, when it became about PHYSICAL freedom at any costs, it became dangerous....for it caused the Jews of Jesus's day to look right past him when He was offering them a freedom that'd be far more glorious and secure than one gained from destruction of enemies.

They began to think that freedom for its own sake was all that mattered----& that to be nationalistic was better than being patient/humble before the Lord in looking for HIM to bring salvation. It was as if they witnessed times where God worked mightly on behalf of His people, with his power giving them victory as He promised....& yet they concluded that God would always act the same way as He did in every instance.

There was a lack of remembrance when it came to the many times in scripture that God didn't always answer prayers in the same manner as He did before----but when thinking of God in terms of a servant existing to meet your demands as you see fit rather than one who cannot be contained or manipulated to do anything until He's ready---its easy to be pressumptious in one's actions.

Its very similar to Numbers 14-15 ( Numbers 14:43-45 ) where the Israelites disobeyed God, with the Lord punishing them......& then warning them to get ready to camp in the Desert. They in their pressumption decided they were going to go forth anyhow---as if God was still fighting for them/would give them the victory as it was before the time of disciple began....and later, they got beaten severely. The same could be said for many of those remembering on Channakah how the Lord may've aided the Jews in their revolt--despite forgetting the entire reason they were in exile for centuries.....& many had not had their hearts changed by their time of discipline. They still wanted God's benefits without being devoted to the Lord in all thing as He commanded.....

Sadly, as seen in many of the later revolts that celebrated revolution like the Maccabees, it failed horribly due to them thinking it was THEIR fire alone that could do the job. ...& they were sent into exile for centuries, with the darkness being akin to being away from the Heat of God's Love, which is brought by being near His Fire.

It's akin to thinking God's looking to us to "light the way"/make us of our own fires in OUR timing rather than waiting for Him & realizing that HE is the TRUE LIGHT...the TRUE Fire that cannot be contained----and only when He's ready to be set ablaze can things truly not be stopped.

Deuteronomy 4:24

For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 4:33
Has any other people heard the voice of God speaking out of fire, as you have, and lived?


Deuteronomy 5:24
And you said, “The LORD our God has shown us his glory and his majesty, and we have heard his voice from the fire. Today we have seen that a person can live even if God speaks with them.


Deuteronomy 9:2-4 2
The people are strong and tall—Anakites! You know about them and have heard it said: “Who can stand up against the Anakites?” 3 But be assured today that the LORD your God is the one who goes across ahead of you like a devouring fire. He will destroy them; he will subdue them before you. And you will drive them out and annihilate them quickly, as the LORD has promised you. 4 After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you.




.Psalm 50:3
Our God comes and will not be silent; a fire devours before him, and around him a tempest rages.


Psalm 68:2
May you blow them away like smoke— as wax melts before the fire, may the wicked perish before God.

Hebrews 12:22-29
But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

25 See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? 26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.”[c] 27 The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29 for our “God is a consuming fire.”[d]

​

Gxg (G²) said:

On what you noted, some of this I've shared before elsewhere in one of the references. But in regards to what Christ said on violence/swords, part of me is always amazed at how it wasn't just an "OT" thing. Just prior to his betrayal and this incident, Jesus had said to the disciples (Luke 22:35-36),

Luke 22:36

35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"

"Nothing," they answered.

36He 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. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[a]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.​

Many interpreters take this to be a metaphorical statement commanding the disciples to be armed spiritually to fight spiritual foes...as seen in Ephesians 6:10-17. In favor of this view: (1) In Luke 22:38, the disciples misunderstand Jesus' command and produce literal swords....and on this view, Jesus' response that "it is enough" is a rebuke, saying essentially, "Enough of this talk about swords."....and of course, just a few minutes later Jesus will again prohibit the use of a literal sword in Luke 22:49-51, Matthew 26:51-52, John 18:10-11, etc).

Others, however, take this command to have a literal sword for self-defense and protection from robbers. In support of this view: (a) The moneybag and knapsack and cloak in this same verse are literal, and so the sword must be taken literally as well...and Jesus disciples that "it is enough" actually approves the swords the disciples have as being enough...and Jesus's later rebuke in verses 49-51 only prohibits them from blocking his arrest and suffering in John 18:11, that is, from seeking to advance the Kingdom of God by force. The very fact that the disciples possess swords suggests that Jesus has not prohibited them from carrying swords up till to this point....and Jesus never prohibited self defense.

Clearly Pacificism is not what Jesus had in mind–especially when considering as many scholars have said that the journey of the disciples would indeed be a dangerous one to make. As it stands, its interesting to see the interpretation of Peter’s thoughts in I Peter 2-4 as submitting to oppressive governments on all things since Peter Himself was not known for being a punk....


If objecting to pacifism, most disagreeing will go to Matthew 5:38 on "Do not resist the one who is evil"....but for the sake of context, people forget that "eye for an eye" was the "law of retaliation"...which was Gods means of maintaining justice and purging evil from among his people---as seen in Deuteronomy 19:20-21 Deuteronomy 19 and Exodus 21:23-25 Exodus 21. It was intended to prevent inappropriate punishment (the punishment should fit the crime) and was imposed by civil authorities rather than individuals.


I think it’d be a negative thing to try discussing what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:38-39 on self-defense without understanding how the Jewish mind operated/would have understood the issue then…….as what often happens is that we come to the scriptures with a 21st century lens/view it through that rather than through the lens of 1st century Judaism. I’ve greatly enjoyed fellowshipping more so with many Jewish believers in the faith/learning of the more “Hebraic” side of things…and ne of the books I’ve been reading lately is by a Messianic Jewish scholar known as “Dr.Michael Brown”…..as he’s a brillant man of God…and one who often does apolegetics toward non-believing Jews. As he said best on the issue in his book, “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus”

​

Interestingly, while it is not uncommon for anti-missionaries to attack some of these passages, it is often the Jewish background to the passage that elucidates its meaning. Note, for example, that Luke 6:29 states, “If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also,” but Matthew 5:39, which occurs in the context of legal retaliation (see Matt. 5:38!), provides an important detail: “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Does this mean that if someone breaks into your home and tries to kill your spouse and your kids, you should sit idly by even if you could easily stop them, or, perhaps even turn your family over to the intruder to be brutalized? Does it mean that you don’t call the police or offer any resistance? Of course not. The issue is one of legal retaliation, in this case, for being publicly shamed, which we know because of the words, “If someone strikes you on the right cheek,” implying a backhanded slap against the face. That is to say, a right-handed orientation is assumed in similar legal cases, and, since a right-handed slap would strike the left cheek and a right-handed person would not strike with the left hand, being struck on the right cheek means being struck with the back of the hand.

As Nolland and others have noted, the Mishnah dealt with this very situation in m. B. K. 9:6. To summarize, ‘a slap with the back of the hand calls for twice the payment in recompense for other blows; in terms of dishonor it is on the same level as tearing an ear, plucking out hair, spitting on someone, pulling a cloak off, and loosing a woman’s hair in public.’

Now, it must be remembered that the Mishnah was often dealing with actual laws and procedures, along with legal theory, just as a court today would get into great detail in terms of determining culpability and assessing fines and punishments. That is perfectly understandable as an ongoing application of Torah law. Yeshua (Jesus), however, was saying to his disciples, ‘This is not for you. I’m calling you to something higher. When you are publicly shamed and have the right to exact payment, turn the other cheek. Make yourself vulnerable and don’t try to fight your opponent on his terms. Step higher!’

– Michael L. Brown: Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 4​

Pray this adds to the discussion.

Of course, I don't wish it to come off as if I’m advocating a “tit for tat” mindset. In example, if a gang in my city came and bombed my house and set it on fire and it burnt to the ground, of course Christ forbids me to go over to the gangs house and blow theirs up. But if they come into my home DEMANDING to rape my wife—-and I’m present—someone’s going to be taken out.

With Jesus’s views on Matthew 5:38, the difficult part of applying Jesus’ teaching for me, and probably for all of us, is to determine its scope of applicability. For it is suspected that it applies to a lot more situations than we want it to, or with which we are comfortable. And Peter builds on the thought later on when saying, “Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; 9 not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing” (1 Peter 3:8-9).

However, historically, and in some church groups today, these verses are used to argue for governmental pacifism in relation to war or even capital punishment. This is where I feel we need to look at Jesus’ audience. At this is where I think people need to be cautious. For Christ is not addressing the Roman government or even the Jewish judicial authorities….for as it stands, in Matthew 5:1, when He is seated, that “His disciples” come to Him, the teaching was about what a disciple of Jesus should do when personally confronted with these types of situations. ….as in one on one rather than on behalf of another.




When it came to what Jesus said, it doesn't seem to be the case that Jesus was prohibiting the use of force by government, police, or soldiers when it comes to combating evil. More can be found in Luke 3:13-15 / Luke 3 , ,Romans 13:3-5 Romans 13 (on government), and 1 Peter 2:13-15 1 Peter 2 --where people discusses submitting to civil authorities given power to protect others.

Interestingly enough, anyone reading the NT can see where God was more than for Retribution of his saints, as seen in the lives of those who are murdered--as seen in Revelation 6:9-11 / Revelation 6

But I think that the violence used in self-defense & how often we may praise it may need to be considered carefully. For it never seems to be the case that Jesus was for allowing swords/living by violence predominately to spread his Kingdom....as it would have been when the people tried to make him king by Force in John 6/John 6:14-16..or when James and John wanted to call down fire on a village in Luke 9:53-55 / ..or, as the disciples often did, hindering Jesus from fufilling his mission...like with Peter in Matthew 16:22-24.

As I've shared elsewhere, on the issue, I think it's more than relevant to see that Jesus chose a Zealot to be apart of his ministry team---and one whom would be taught the teachings of Christ when it came to loving ones enemies.


This is seen clearly in the life of Simon the Zealot ( Luke 6:14-16 / Luke 6 / Matthew 10:3-5 / Matthew 10 /Mark 3:17-19 Mark 3 ), who was the "terrorist" of the group (and most likely a problem, especially when dealing with tax-collectors and understanding the History between them and the Zealots..already against government in a myriad of ways ). Christ chose others among DIFFERENT Camps--some who were against government occupation/not having their own PHYSICAL land & others that were all for it, as seen when HE simultaneouly chose both ZEALOTS and TAX-Collectors to be apart of His inner circle. BOTH sides had significant issue with the other, with Zealots wishing to overthrow Rome and feeling as if Tax-Collectors had "Sold out"....yet Christ looked past that.

And as Levi/Matthew was a Tax-Collector, one has to wonder how much there were times of starring each other down/him feeling uneasy around someone who was known to support others killing off folks in his line of work. Simon was called a "Zealot" in his lifestyle before ministry with Jesus, probably a member of the Zealot party, which was a party determined to overthrow Roman Domination in Palestine. Interestingly enough, the "Zealot" term is still used for the man AFTER Christ rose from the Gravein Acts 1:13 & Acts 1:12-14.


IMHO, it gives room to indicate that even after being in the midst of Jesus, that which he may have been known for was probably with him to one degree or another---such as still possibly wishing for Rome to be overthrown or having sympathies for those against Roman Oppression. When considering how the man died, some say he was martyred---whereas others say that he was involved in a Jewish revolt against the Romans, , which was brutally suppressed in A.D 70. Regardless, the man was one who had to be exposed to what it meant to serve others in love----for it was highly RADICAL/Counter-Cultural...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...