Lord, here are two swords!

Perhaps Jesus was telling his disiples that they were going out in public indicating that it was dangerous. By saying where are my tools of protection, the disciples thought that they could use swords as a form of protection and Jesus was put out with the fact that they still didn't understand him.
Bringing a sword along may have served two purposes, one as a veiled threat to muggers or desperate people and secondly to point out the disciples that he was ready to test his nonviolent actions. Surely if there were more than two swords the soldiers would have been provoked to the point that they were ready to show their bravery by attacking this group of dissidents.

Maybe the problem rests with the co option of the church by Constantine who believed that the victory at the Milvan Bridge was proof that God was on his side. We don't know if the Roman Army suffered any losses at this battle, but unless there was none it is doubtful that God was defending them.

I don't know if Jesus was God. I still try to follow his teaching because it makes more sense than an eye for an eye.

Peace.

wonderful illustrations of the passage :Nonviolent Jesus, who leads the way to wholeness.Thanks john Dear for helping us through your hard work.

John 2:15 "And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen: and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew."
- I think Fr. John Dear is dancing around this issue, as he seems to go out of the way not to talk about it. He simply mentions it is an act of 'civil disobedience'. Call it what you will, but lashing men and animals with an improvised scourge is not 'non-violent'. If it is, I'm wondering why Fr. Dear hasn't tried this method of 'non-violence' at the anti nuke rallies he goes to. I'm sure the security guards and the cops wouldn't mind it, since it is non-violent.

Fr. Dear also provides a quote: 'Carrying a sword on a journey in those days was not making war or preparing for it.'
This is very true. Many were carried for self defense, if you were of a social class that could afford a sword. An interesting thing here is that at least two of the Apostles here are shown to be carrying weapons. Now, Jesus KNEW that. And yet he never tells them to throw them away.

All that being said, no, I don't think one can use the words of Our Lord as some kind of promotional tool for the Iraq/Afghanistan war like I see some of the neocons trying to do.

Side note: I read some ideas somewhere that when Judas figured out that Our Lord was not going to be the 'raise an army against the Romans' messiah that some many of the Zealots expected, THAT'S when he decided to betray him. Again, mere speculation, but food for thought.

An interesting look at pacifism/just war can be read here.

Great article. John Dear is so good to read. I loved the ending. If you want to take Jesus literally than just use two swords. I love the wit of this man. John, thanks for you insites. Love and peace to you.

John Dear's column sent me scurrying to Raymond Brown's THE DEATH OF THE MESSIAH. p. 270 "During Jesus' ministry when the disciples were sent out on a journey, God would provide and protect; but Jesus' death inaugurates times of struggle and persecution (such as Acts will narrate), and they need to be prepared for travel and defense....The items mentioned as preparation, namely, purse, bag, and sword, are quasi-symbolic was of concretizing the necessary readiness for such contingencies. The response of the disciples that they have in their possession two swords shows that they have (mis)understood literally. (Here Brown has this footnote: "One may add that they have not been the only ones to misunderstand: This text has been (mis)-used as a general declaration of the right of Christians to bear arms; as support for the right of the medieval papacy to exercise both material and spiritual power (two swords); and as proof that Jesus encouraged armed revolution!) The disciples misunderstanding leads Jesus to use the phrase hikanon estin. 'It is fitting' would be a highly ironic rendition, equivalent to 'That's the way you normally misunderstand.' More characteristic of the Lucan Jesus would be resignation: 'That's enough.' ...Fitzmyer insists correctly "the irony concerns not the number of the swords but the whole mentality of the apostles."

I have always felt that Jesus promoted non-violence. That is why I think the hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers" is somewhat less than meaningful. The last legitimate war we fought as a nation was World War II. We were attacked and we had to defend ourselves. All our wars since then are questionable at least, including the two we fought as members of the United Nations -- Korea and Kuwait (the first Gulf War.) We should hold our elected officials to a strict policy of diplomacy first, and then war ONLY if diplomacy fails and we are about to be attacked.

I am very grateful for these solid theological thoughts in this matter by which much not of Jesus is rationalized away

how many thermonuclear devices would Jesus do?

how much enhanced interrogation?

how long a life sentence?

This is the very best explanation of the topic of non-violence that I have yet heard. Men have been historically charged with the safety of the family and community in our culture. There has been a very serious leadership failure. We need to sit down and have a long conversation about the meaning and costs of security. The advent of the era of weapons of mass destruction has paradoxically provided an opportunity for humility. The overwhelming price of armed conflict is now being borne by the alleged recipents of the security blanket. The diversion of an unresasonably large volume of resources to the maintenance of an inefficient beuraucracy that is conveniently held secret is an unspoken tax. This doesn't even address the cost to the civilian populations in targeted areas whose unstable societies are thrown into interminable chaos with vague promises of redemption by those who have little to no understanding about what that means.

Will we soon hear this homily from our pulpits ? Or, isn't it good for business ?

Militaristic terminology is also used in Eph 6:10-17. Most of these statements in Scripture are aimed at a spiritual warfare,something very necessary today in this culture of rampant sexuality and materialism. (Look at MTV and VH1)Imagery of combat is not unknown in the Christian tradition eg. Saint Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises and Scupoli's Spiritual Combat.

Thankyou John for all your efforts to bring the real Jesus to all of us. I agree that many in your nation and mine---I am Scottish-- have long believed that God is on our side when we are engaged in Wars and so called "conflicts" which apparently are not wars!!

Jesus wept over the city of Jerusalem and must weep still as we indeed pay our taxes in order to boulster military might and justify taking pre-emptive action against those who clearly struggle to simply subsist.

I am vexed that I have my income taxed before I ever see it so cannot refuse to pay or to withold a part which might represent the portion allocated to war-mongering. Jesus has few real disciples who truly hear his words and seek to follow him in that counter-cultural way which he invites.

Even as I write I feel my own cowardice and hypocracy lodge like vomit in my throat. I applaud your courage and the efforts you make to shake us awake and I ask God to bless you with success in your ministry.

So if I see a violent man bashing an innocent or vulnerable person, maybe even stabbing or mutilating what am I to do? Ask him nicely to desist? It seems to me that Fr John Dear's obvious sanctity and sincerity is matched only by his naivete.

The key to understanding is the seeking of understanding. It is the innate ability in every individual to seek love and nurturing to be united and at peace. Gods love, compels us to form a relationship of loving peace, with our loving god, through the innate gentle love within ourselves, through the energy of Gods love the intended, which precedes the anger imbued in a personified God and ourselves. From out side ourselves, and all creation, Gods love will transform our anger realising love fulfilling the intended. ''Fulfilling the intended'' explains why and how you can achieve the happiness and peace of love we all seek....This is true fundamentalisim. Fulfill the intended..

Perhaps Jesus was saying: "They are coming after me now; they will come after you as well." Every true follower of the path of nonviolence is willing to lay down his/her life rather than commit violence, but, of course, they are not willing to "force" others to forego self-defense unless and until they are willing to do so. So, perhaps, Jesus was saying: "Defend yourself if you think you must" hoping that they would say, "No, master, we are ready to take up our cross and follow you." But the disciples were not ready. Later, however, as the message of Jesus seeped in following the Resurrection and the Pentacost, they became willing. Does that, then, justify our militarism? I don't think so. Defending oneself against individual attack is a far cry from bombing civilian populations even with conventional bombs let alone devastating an entire planet in a nuclear holocaust. These latter things are horrifically evil even from the standpoint of a conventional morality which allows violence for self-defense.

"As for me, questions arise: Why are male disciples attached to the idea of a violent messiah? Why is it so hard for us to understand the nonviolent Jesus?"

Violence is in man’s nature.
While women are designed to bring life into the world, men are designed to take it out. That is the balance of life.

Fr Dear - It might be worthwhile to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which reiterates the centuries-old teaching on Just War Theory, and even the official teachings of the popes, to include, very recently, JPII, wherein he referred to military members who carried out their duties properly as "ministers of the security and freedom of people," before you decide to make "authoritative" interpretations on what scripture means. You, too, wouldn't want to come off as a fundamentalist!

This is very helpful and I realize what a culture of violence we live in and accept as normal. The U S seerms to accept a culture of war; since the end of World War II, we have been innvolved in many wars, most, oif not all of which could have been settled by other and better means than force.

Scriptural proof-texting and linguistic casuistics of this variety are unbecoming, both to the message and the ORIGINAL messenger. One expects MAGIS from the author.

"The U S seerms to accept a culture of war; since the end of World War II"
- You're late by about 100 years, as the Spanish, Moros and Mexicans will be more than happy to tell you.

I admire Fr. Dear's commitment, though I disagree with his politics and have to say his attempts at exegesis are amateurish and self-serving.

I would admire him even more if he simply stated that he's an advocate of absolute non-violence, and didn't try to force his own convictions down Jesus' throat.

The New Testament portrays Jesus as a complex figure whom the Romans put to death by crucifixion because they considered him a threat to the empire. The notion that he constituted a threat to imperial Rome because he preached love and non-violence flies in the face of both history and biblical theology, and Fr. Dear should know better.

I think the world needs to be reminded that non-violence is an option we can and should choose whenever possible, and that it's an argument that can stand on its own.

Response to what robertG wrote:
I admire Fr. Dear's commitment, though I disagree with his politics and have to say his attempts at exegesis are amateurish and self-serving.
I would admire him even more if he simply stated that he's an advocate of absolute non-violence, and didn't try to force his own convictions down Jesus' throat.
The New Testament portrays Jesus as a complex figure whom the Romans put to death by crucifixion because they considered him a threat to the empire. The notion that he constituted a threat to imperial Rome because he preached love and non-violence flies in the face of both history and biblical theology, and Fr. Dear should know better.
I think the world needs to be reminded that non-violence is an option we can and should choose whenever possible, and that it's an argument that can stand on its own.
My response:
How could anybody think that Jesus would promote violence? What about the verse about turning the other cheek?
Matthew 5:39 (New King James Version)
39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Also, I thought the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead because He was growing in popularity, He had raised Lazarus from the dead, and the people were probably going to declare Him as the Messiah.
John 18:13-14 (New King James Version)
13 And they led Him away to Annas first, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas who was high priest that year. 14 Now it was Caiaphas who advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
John 19:6-12 (New King James Version)
6 Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!”
Pilate said to them, “You take Him and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him.”
7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.”
8 Therefore, when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid, 9 and went again into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus, “Where are You from?” But Jesus gave him no answer.
10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?”
11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
12 From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.”

meanwhile please see this

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/opinion/29fri1.html

why is it that our most publicly Catholic members of the US Supreme Court consistently find any pretext to enforce the death penalty, no matter how cruel and unusual, and contrary to our Roman Catholic Faith?

Thank God and President Obama for Justice Sotomayor, capable of representing the actual Catholic Faith.

Wow. There are a lot of angry people on this thread.

What I found most interesting was Fr. Dear's suggestion about Jesus' tone. The language of the Gospels--perhaps because of flat translations, like the NAB--is often stilted. Like a good Jesuit, Fr. Dear tries to imagine himself in the scene, and tries to 'listen' to Jesus instead of just hearing him. It's an interesting way to view this troubling passage.

Keep up the good work, Fr. Dear. I can not honestly count myself among the pacifists, but I continue to work toward nonviolence...with the caveat that I will always, always, protect the weak and the innocent. God will just have to forgive me.
If anyone is interested, there is a wonderful book on nonviolence by a retired professor at Berkley called "Is There No Other Way?" His name is Michael Nagler. It's well worth reading.

Peace, friends.