Was Jesus pro gun?
So I was zooming around on the Internet and I found someone who might have had some expertise on a question I had, Missionary Man!
So I asked him my question:
"Was Jesus pro-hand gun?"
I'm serious. This sprung from the mind of my local (SF) talk radio "Theocon", who seems to think that when Jesus sent out the many that he said something about taking their swords with them. He concludes that the sword was "the handgun of the day" At this point he says that if Jesus WASN'T pro-hand gun he would have said to NOT take their swords. That he missed a "teaching moment" for his supposed non-violent views.
What say you? Any sources you can direct me to so that I can slap down this nonsense? Maybe you can check with the Military Science Dept to get their take.
LLAP,
Spocko
Here are a few of his comments. Read the whole post here:
1) In the very book I mentioned in my post, John Howard Yoder's Politics of Jesus, Yoder explains that all of the "weapons" mentioned by Jesus in that biblical passage are defensive. The word for sword in the original text is more appropriately translated as "dagger" and refers to the short-bladed sword used for defense. I believe he also mentions shields. He does not mention the long sword or anything else used for attack. Perhaps Jesus was pro-bullet-proof vest.
2) Mr. Sussman should at the very least be prepared to make arguments that take into consideration the wider context of the Gospels, and specifically the incident in Gethsemane when Peter cuts off the ear of the soldier and Jesus rebukes him - not just by arguing that his particular arrest needed to go unimpeded to fulfill God's will or Hebrew prophecies, but with the explicitly general admonishment that he who lives by the sword will die by the sword.
3) Since Jesus himself did not write, in order to gain insight into what he communicated to his followers and what the scriptures themselves mean, we must look at the church that produced the New Testament. That disciple Church, at the same time that it was telling stories like that of Jesus sending his disciples forth with swords, was suffering horrific persecution and it's members refused to defend themselves with swords.
Thanks Missionary Man! (Doesn't that sound like a super hero's website?) Again, if you are interested, read the whole post here.
So I asked him my question:
"Was Jesus pro-hand gun?"
I'm serious. This sprung from the mind of my local (SF) talk radio "Theocon", who seems to think that when Jesus sent out the many that he said something about taking their swords with them. He concludes that the sword was "the handgun of the day" At this point he says that if Jesus WASN'T pro-hand gun he would have said to NOT take their swords. That he missed a "teaching moment" for his supposed non-violent views.
What say you? Any sources you can direct me to so that I can slap down this nonsense? Maybe you can check with the Military Science Dept to get their take.
LLAP,
Spocko
Here are a few of his comments. Read the whole post here:
1) In the very book I mentioned in my post, John Howard Yoder's Politics of Jesus, Yoder explains that all of the "weapons" mentioned by Jesus in that biblical passage are defensive. The word for sword in the original text is more appropriately translated as "dagger" and refers to the short-bladed sword used for defense. I believe he also mentions shields. He does not mention the long sword or anything else used for attack. Perhaps Jesus was pro-bullet-proof vest.
2) Mr. Sussman should at the very least be prepared to make arguments that take into consideration the wider context of the Gospels, and specifically the incident in Gethsemane when Peter cuts off the ear of the soldier and Jesus rebukes him - not just by arguing that his particular arrest needed to go unimpeded to fulfill God's will or Hebrew prophecies, but with the explicitly general admonishment that he who lives by the sword will die by the sword.
3) Since Jesus himself did not write, in order to gain insight into what he communicated to his followers and what the scriptures themselves mean, we must look at the church that produced the New Testament. That disciple Church, at the same time that it was telling stories like that of Jesus sending his disciples forth with swords, was suffering horrific persecution and it's members refused to defend themselves with swords.
Thanks Missionary Man! (Doesn't that sound like a super hero's website?) Again, if you are interested, read the whole post here.
7 Comments:
Thees question, she should be addressed to el Jefe, Jesus' General, he weel know.
Of course, I already have how-joo-might-say "a sneaky suspicion" of what he might say on thees topic.
so.
That was a good smackdown as any. Heh.. And I agree this is a Q for JG!
But... what about the Holy Hand Grenade?
these churchies don't give a shit about what jesus said- they read and believe what they want to hear. that is how the evangelical movement got started. mainstream church just wasn't doing it for them. jesus was a rabbi- he taught passive resistance to the roman occupiers. to read anything more into his life than that is sheer wilful ignorance. the new testament was written by followers of paul- and we all know how he died. so much for pacifism.
Hiya, Spocko!
Indeed, what about the Holy Hand Grenade?
betmo,
There are few things organized religions are better at than sheer willful ignorance. In the name of (either pro- or anti-) orthodoxy, of course.
Hey, spocko. OT, but Miss Melanie Morgan's been getting criticized pretty heavily in the press lately, thought you might want to see this:
http://observer.com/20060717/20060717_Niall_Stanage_politics_wiseguys.asp
A.
Jesus wasn't pro-gun.
It is a valid comparison to say that the handgun is essentilly equivalent to the gladius. (swords of any length were essentially defensive since roman doctrine was to kill from afar- roman daggers are not what was specified- now would a regular person carry one, it was equivalent to the swiss army knife of a soldier) Would Jesus have told the disciples to pack a piece? Yes. to both Luke 22:58 (used because Yoder is essentially a commentary on Luke) Jesus tells the disciples to grab their swords. A handgun is a defensive weapon (check any police incident where a cop fires his handgun- if you're not close, you missed)
Matthew relates the famous "live by the sword die by the sword" statement. That does not mean that Jesus was telling the disciples to be pacifists! Jesus was showing retaliation causes retaliation and the retaliator can be consumed by it. John Wesley commented that the key difference was the act of taking the sword rather than it being given by God. This would be in accordance with the commandment "thou shalt not kill" which more accurately would be translated as, that shalt not make a decision to kill (especially in the light of the fact that later on the folks who recieved the commandments are told to go slaughter entire cities) One of Jesus' early acts was to literally beat and whip some salesmen out of the temple. Not exactly the actions of a pacifist.
So was Jesus anti-gun, or anti-violence? Nope. He simply expects you to work on other solutions first. Somewhere (I'd have to dig for it) the bible implies that goverments are the only thing that can make life or death decisions
Sussman is an idiot if he made the assumption however that the apostles packed heat all the time. Notice that for 12 apostles- they had a whopping 2 swords.
Post a Comment
<< Home