The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionJesus' illegal Holy Week activity
by John Dear SJ on Apr. 19, 2011
Mairead Maguire advises those who have doubts about the nonviolence of Jesus to spend a quiet afternoon in their local church looking up at a large crucifix. Steady meditation on Christ’s passion and death reveals his steadfast nonviolence and the spiritual explosion of love and peace that he unleashed, she believes.
In Houston this past Saturday for a retreat day on “Jesus’ Holy Week Journey of Peace,” we discussed why Jesus was killed. The story has become so warped for the benefit of the ruling elite that we forget that Jesus was executed by the empire as a terrorist. Indeed, he was a revolutionary, but a nonviolent revolutionary.
Luke lists three charges against Jesus: inciting the people to revolt, urging people not to pay taxes, and claiming to be a king. This nonviolent Jesus was decidedly not passive. He did not sit under a tree and practice his breathing. He walked regularly into the face of danger, spoke the truth, and demanded justice.
As far as decent law-abiding, religious people were concerned, he was nothing but trouble. He hung out with the wrong people, healed at the wrong time, visited the wrong places, and said the wrong things. His active nonviolence was dangerous and threatening.
It’s clear from the basic plot line in Mark, Matthew, and Luke that Jesus organizes the poor and disenfranchised in Galilee and then heads toward Jerusalem on a walking campaign of nonviolence. He enters the city riding on a donkey in a peace march, cases the Temple, and the next day, engages in peaceful civil disobedience by turning over the tables of the money changers and preventing people from coming and going.
After denouncing this “den of robbers,” Jesus teaches the good news of love, compassion and justice.
But note: in the Synoptic Gospels, there is no mention of a whip, no talk of violence, no notice of the animals. The whole event probably lasted a mere five minutes. But the crowds might have stayed for hours to listen to the Teacher. As anyone who has engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience knows, this was classic symbolic direct action. And it needed to be done.
The Jerusalem Temple, built by Herod Antipas at the beginning of the century, was held up as the one and only place where God dwelt. We have nothing quite like it today. It combined worship, commerce, local government, execution sight and imperial control.
As I understand it, it would resemble some massive Washington, D.C. building containing the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, the White House, Wall Street, the World Bank, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, the National Cathedral and the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception -- all rolled into one, as God’s home.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
The faithful were told to pay God a visit each year. Every Passover, they made the long trek to Jerusalem and paid a hefty fee to enter God’s sanctuary. The population tripled to over 180,000. Over 18,000 lambs would be purchased and slaughtered for holy sacrifice in the Temple. A heavy tax was charged for all of this commerce.
In effect, the Temple held a national bank, offered loans, kept track of debts and changed money for unclean sinners so they could pay with “holy” Temple money. Another fee would be added for the money-changing.
Women, poor people, and other outcasts had to purchase expensive doves so they would be “purified” and then able to offer worship. The various fees robbed the poor and did so in God’s name under the greedy eye of the Roman Empire.
Anyone who cared about justice or read the prophets would be outraged at such institutionalized injustice. It is only natural that Jesus took action to protest this big corporate, imperial, religious rip-off.
As various commentators have noted, Jesus did not merely want lower prices for the poor. He did not seek to reform the Temple. Through his symbolic action, he called for an end to the entire Temple system.
With this action, he announced that God was present within every person; present whenever two or three gathered to pray in his name; present in the hungry, sick or imprisoned; present in the breaking of the bread and the passing of the cup; present in Spirit and in Truth.
Of course this action and those teachings threatened and outraged the religious authorities. Their economic and political privilege would end if Christ’s teachings were adopted, so they had him killed.
But in Houston and elsewhere, the question inevitably comes up: “Yes, but didn’t Jesus chase people out of the Temple with a whip? Isn’t that violent?”
Many remember El Greco’s unhelpful painting, “Christ Cleansing the Temple,” which depicts Jesus with a raised arm, grasping a twenty foot long whip, ready to strike a group of people, including terrified women.
I insist: El Greco was wrong. Jesus did not use violence. He never hurt anyone. He never struck anyone. He never killed anyone.
But he did not tolerate injustice, greed, hypocrisy or untruth. He confronted systemic injustice head on -- as his disciples Gandhi and King would later do -- and gave his life for God’s reign of justice and peace. But he always did so through meticulous nonviolence.
The only mention of the “rope” or the “whip” is in John’s Gospel, written decades after the Synoptic Gospels. John changes the entire plotline. He begins his Gospel with Jesus’ nonviolent direct action in the Temple (2:13-26). He has a completely different agenda. His Gospel describes various signs and wonders, offers a series of self-descriptive “I Am” sayings, and culminates with the dramatic raising of Lazarus from the dead. With that, he takes us to the Last Supper, where Jesus offers a lengthy reflection and teaching before his arrest.
Throughout John’s Gospel, like the others, Jesus is perfectly nonviolent. Indeed, he speaks more about nonviolent love -- agape -- than in the other gospels. With the cleansing of the Temple, John paints Jesus as a prophetic Jeremiah figure. With the mention of the whip, he amps up the drama, then resets the focus on Jesus’ impending resurrection.
We’re told Jesus made a whip from cords and drove out the oxen, sheep and doves and everyone else. Long ago, at the Jesuit School of Theology, my scripture teacher explained that this was the only instance in the entire Bible of that particular obscure Greek word, translated as “rope” or “whip.”
To get thousands of sheep, oxen and doves into this enormous structure, the cattlemen used ropes to lead them up the high stone walkways into the building. Jesus simply took those ropes, which the cattle, sheep and oxen would have recognized, to lead the animals outside. Then, he overturned the bankers’ tables and launched into his speech.
But didn’t he take a rope or a whip and start striking people? Some translations would have you believe so, but my scripture professor said no. That would be entirely inconsistent with the Jesus portrayed throughout John’s Gospel, as well as the Synoptic Gospels.
Jesus was nonviolent from Cana to the cross and back to Galilee. With such spectacular nonviolence, one cannot even imagine Jesus striking the poor animals. Indeed, he was liberating them from their impending execution!
This one word has been used to justify countless massacres, crusades, wars and nuclear weapons. Perhaps we want Jesus to have some trace of violence in order to justify our own violence. We desperately hope he was violent so we can dismiss his teachings and wage war and build nuclear weapons guilt free.
Remember John’s different agenda. He has a different punch line: “Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days.” Jesus is the new temple, and he will rise, John writes.
If the climactic action of Jesus’ life, in John’s version, is the raising of Lazarus, then Jesus’ allusion to resurrection here at the start makes sense. In my forthcoming book, Lazarus Come Forth!, I suggest that Lazarus represents the entire human race, which Jesus calls out of the culture of war, empire and death into the new life of resurrection.
With this prophetic action, Jesus points to himself right from the start as “the Resurrection.”
Perhaps the real Holy Week question is: “What does Jesus’ dramatic illegal, nonviolent direct action against systemic injustice mean for us? If he gave his life to confront Temple injustice, what would he want his followers to do in the face of the Pentagon, Los Alamos, the School of the Americas, or our other war facilities?”
I think Jesus would expect his followers to take similar bold, nonviolent action for justice and peace.
In this light, the climax of Holy Week is utterly amazing -- and equally illegal. After the Roman Empire killed Jesus, they put their imperial seal on his tomb.
As Daniel Berrigan writes, in effect they were saying, “We killed you, you’re dead, now stay dead! We order you to stay put!”
Jesus was not allowed to rise from the dead. But once again, Jesus breaks the law! He commits civil disobedience, rolls away the stone and starts organizing all over again!
If we accompany this nonviolent Jesus through his passion, death and resurrection, we may find ourselves in trouble for carrying on his disruptive campaign of nonviolent resistance to the big business of injustice, war and empire.
But that would be a great Easter blessing -- proof that he is alive and well in our midst. Alleluia!
***
To hear a new podcast interview with John, go to www.jesusradicals.com. His latest book, Daniel Berrigan: Essential Writings (Orbis), and other recent books, A Persistent Peace and Put Down Your Sword, as well as Patricia Normile’s John Dear On Peace, are available from www.amazon.com. To contribute to Catholic Relief Services’ “Fr. John Dear Haiti Fund,” go to: http://donate.crs.org/goto/fatherjohn. For further information, or to schedule a lecture or retreat, visit: www.johndear.org.
| We can send you an e-mail alert every time an On the Road to Peace column is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add On the Road to Peace to your list. |
Thank you, John!
Thank you, John!
For what? For twisting the
For what? For twisting the Gospels to make Jesus sound like a 1970's peace hippie with too much time on his hands. Such a long explanation on the whip/reeds for what? To explicitly contradict one of the most clear passages in the Bible.
This whole piece reflects a serious politicization of the word of God. Its shameful.
John, Rather than a rant, I
John,
Rather than a rant, I would like you to expose the errors in Father Dear's essay. Can you find any?
"as his disciples Gandhi and
"as his disciples Gandhi and King would later do." Gandhi was a disciple of Jesus? When you distort the truth to suit your purposes, you damage your argument.
I think Fr. Dear could have
I think Fr. Dear could have explained what he meant by disciple. There are those who would say if someone is living a life that reflects the values Christ taught he/she is a disciple; that it was how one lived more than what faith to which one belonged that makes one a disciple. While those who claim to be a disciple and not live the values Jesus taught, are not a disciple no matter how much they use his name. Certainly The Sermon on the Mount would support the latter and, I suspect Jesus's answer to who are my brothers can be seen as supporting the former. This may be what Fr. Dear meant when he called Gandhi a disciple.
I disagree. Let's picture for
I disagree.
Let's picture for a moment several minor ancient Roman officials reclining at a table at dinner and talking.
One says "I have decided to be initiated into the mysteries of Mithras." He then expounds on what he knows about the cult so far.
One of the others says "Well, there was this person called Jesus of Nazareth, in Judea. He spoke much about assisting the poor and avoiding vice. I have decided that I will follow his prescriptions for living, as I think I will be much improved by living in such a way."
Now, is this second person a Christian disciple?
The answer, which I along with every early Christian would think obvious, is NO. He is NOT a Christian disciple, regardless of how laudable his work. Why? Because he does not profess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, come to redeem our sins. Indeed, he may even reject the entire idea of sin and therefore any need of redemption. He may be taking the first steps in that direction, but he is not there yet. Indeed, such a man, while supporting the poor, and avoiding selected vices might still go to the temple at night shrouded in a cloak and bathe in the hot blood of the slaughtered bullock to bring him good fortune and offer incense to the statue of the Emperor. And many would have. Supporting the poor isn't an idea that only existed after the Jesus came into the world, or something we Christians have a monopoly on.
Your use of the title 'disciple' here has lots of qualities except a very critical one: that of being useful for any meaningful description. If the title of Christian disciple simply means "someone who does some good things", then it is meaningless. Everyone from Mother Teresa to the atheist Christopher Hitchens to even Joseph Stalin would fit the title.
Being a Christian disciple means accepting the call to Faith of Jesus and answering that call through Baptism. Accepting Jesus, ALL of Jesus, not just the parts that look good on TV, or simply acting in a certain way for certain situations, BUT ALL OF HIM, is what it means is what it means to be a Christian disciple. From that, actions will follow.
Definitions are important, particularly those relating to religion.
Pete, I think you are moving
Pete, I think you are moving a bit too defensively here. My post did not advocate one position over the other. Yes, I do have my feelings, even some questions, about what makes a disciple, but I did not include it because I didn't think that was the point. I was only explaining what might be the explanation of some, who would call Ghandi a disciple and what is their base in the Gospels. You and others can disagree. That really doesn't matter to me here because I was not trying to answer that question. I was only trying to show how some others may see it. None-the-less, I thank you for your perspective. And by-the-way, enjoy the Easter holiday.
John David
Marina, you need to study
Marina, you need to study Gandhi much better than you have, as Gandhi closely read the Bible, and the Gospels, and the Sermon on the Mount, far better than do we who merely call ourselves disciples of Jesus, inactively.
Gandhi explicitly stated the inspiration for nonviolent action which he drew from these readings of Jesus.
"But note: in the Synoptic
"But note: in the Synoptic Gospels, there is no mention of a whip, no talk of violence, no notice of the animals."
- "And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple"
I'm not sure how much farming experience Fr. Dear has, or how much he dealt with grazing animals during seminary, but I'm guessing it's close to none. Ditto for whoever taught him Scripture. You don't lead animals with a scourge. You drive them. That's what Scripture says, He DROVE them from the Temple.
So your Scripture teacher thinks that all our Lord did was to pick up one rope after another and pull each animal in turn out? (needless to say, Scripture uses different language for this kind of action. See elsewhere where 'leading the sheep' or other passages regarding such in the Old Testament are used. Different verbiage for different actions.) That's silly.
I'll leave alone the idea that He didn't also drive out the evil moneychangers, let's just focus on the animals for a second.
Hundreds, perhaps MANY more animals then that packed that area of the temple. We know that from other descriptions of the Temple in Scripture and from secondary outside sources. There were times when the Temple would resemble a packed stockyard. Trying to lead a one, or at most, a few animals at a time out is not fitting with the description we are given. However, DRIVING them with a few whip cracks IS. Have you ever witnessed cattle, for example, being driven quickly out of a confined space? You don't have to do that much. You smack a couple cracks on the rump (they have very thick hides and hardly feel it) and those couple start to move. Smack a couple more and they also start moving with them, although quicker. In short order you can have the entire group charging out the exit, even those you didn't hit with the whip (herd mentality), and there is really nothing anyone can do to stop them.
The most realistic idea of what Jesus did to get rid of the animals would have simply been that: Go to the far corner and smack a few, get them moving, and then soon EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL in the place on four legs would be charging out the exit. No one, not a priest, servant or the palace guard could have prevented it at that point.
Which is another interesting point. If all Jesus did was take a few hours (at least that long) of walking back and forth leading one or two animals at a time out of the Temple, why did no one even step up and ask what He was doing? Walking away with someone else's animal is a VERY serious offense after all. Other places record people doing the equivalent of asking "HEY! HEY! What do you think you're doing?" See the description of when the Apostles take the ass for Our Lord to ride.
Now in light of this idea of near stampeding the animals out. Could that also have wrecked the money changers, overturned tables, etc? Cattle and sheep are not that graceful afterall.
My explanation, while that of a layman, has one benefit that Fr. Dear's explanation lacks: Mine actually makes sense and is in line with what the actual description of the event is in Scripture.
If you want to try to ignore what John's Gospel says because it doesn't fit with your political agenda, or perhaps insinuate that John was being dishonest by including the scourge, that's your issue. The Church teaches differently. You can insist all you want.
The idea of a scourge wouldn't have shocked early Christians because they didn't try to shoehorn Jesus into being little more than a political agitator, a Ghandi minus the military rank and enima obsession.
For example, here is what St. Jerome has to say about the incident (and it is worth noting that St. Jerome, living around 350 AD, was a little closer to the actual event than Fr. Dear or his teacher.):
"This appears to me more wonderful than any miracle that he did—that one man, and at that time so vilely esteemed as to be afterwards crucified, while the scribes and Pharisees were raging against him, and seeing their gains were destroyed, should have been able by the lashes of a single scourge to cast out so great a multitude, and overturn the tables, and break the seats, and do other things which an immense army could not have done!"
I think you all need to try to quit reading Scripture through the lens of your political ideology, and just READ it. Relax... Jesus stampeding the animals out of the Temple with a few whip cracks does NOT mean He would have been some horrible warmongering Proto-Hitler.
A brilliant reply. Good job.
A brilliant reply. Good job. Thanks for that.
I rather think Jesus may have
I rather think Jesus may have cracked a few animals on the bakside to start them out of the temple/slaugherhouse to prevent their killing. Rougly 18,000 innocent animals gathered for ritual slaughter. Jesus not only against the money changing, but against the killing of innoecent animals - "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." Just opposing the money-changers is a bit like an abolitionist saying, "You're charging too much for the slaves you're selling, but go on selling them at a fair price." but not opposing the very institution. A non-violent Jesus was opposed to the entire temple sytem, which is what made him so dangerous. Check out Keith Akers website: "Compassionate Spirit" for a more learned, detai
True Christian witness stands
True Christian witness stands or falls on the nonviolence of Jesus Christ. If we get this wrong the whole thing falls apart.
Actually, the whole thing
Actually, the whole thing stands or falls on the Resurrection, according to St. Paul. If that falls, all our Faith is in vain.
"Jesus organizes the poor and
"Jesus organizes the poor and disenfranchised" ????
Jesus came so that we might live...he came not to "organize" the poor but to save man's soul from eternal separation from God.
It continues to amaze me at how the Gospel of Jesus has been twisted to support political agendas and social "justice".
Christian love flows out of christian salvation...but the gospel is about salvation, not "social justice".
"...the gospel is about
"...the gospel is about salvation, not social justice". I read a lot of both in the gospel and find it difficult and believe dangerous to have them so mutually exclusive".
I think perhaps your
I think perhaps your statement is coming from seeing those who put the cart before the horse, rather than agreeing with the Glen Beck "Run from any Social Justice" thing.
Here's the thing with the Gospel. I don't mean the 'Social Justice Gospel' or the 'Prosperity Gospel' or any other fad ideology that assigns itself the name of 'Gospel' and uses Biblical language to push it... If you accept the full Gospel, revealed by Christ and propagated and taught by the Church, the concept of TRUE Social Justice action flows naturally from that.
However, if you cast aside the Gospel and the teaching of the Church and focus on what you want 'social justice' to be outside of it, you are cutting the flower off the vine. Sure, the flower my smell sweet and look pretty for a little while longer, but it will soon wither and die, as you have cut it off from its source of life.
Agree Pete, without the
Agree Pete, without the resurrection, Jesus is no more than a profit, so the basic to the faith does, indeed, stand or fall on the resurrection. But, I think the poster was talking about our call to a Christian witness; to being a follower of Jesus.
No. Without the Resurrection,
No. Without the Resurrection, Jesus is not even a prophet. He is a despicable liar, if not a demon.
That's the thing about Christ. If he isn't the Son of God who rose from the dead like He said He would, then He is either history's most despicable liar, or He was totally insane.
The one choice Jesus does NOT leave open is for Him to be just a prophet or simply a 'good man'. People who think that have not taken what He said in the Gospels seriously.
Yes, Pete, I see your point
Yes, Pete, I see your point and agree. Thank you. Yet, still this is a different discussion than the one the poster is talking about. Also, Pete, could you be a little less harsh on those who have not made the connection you have? I think one can take something seriously, but miss an issue or two along the way.
Actually John, I wasn't
Actually John, I wasn't trying to be harsh at all. That's the curse of the blog post comment. Without one on one conversation, eye contact, inflection, etc. it's very difficult to make sure people understand you're not attacking them, especially when, like me, you have only a few moments to post something between tasks at work.
If you think there is something aggressive in my posts, it's actually nothing more than an attempt to convey an idea while typing at great speed. :-)
I appreciate your
I appreciate your explanation, but it did read like a broad judgment. You, also have a good point how not seeing how someone is saying something can give a very different meaning to their intention. I believe, I have witnessed that over and over again. Yet the danger of having direct contact has it own land mines. It is very easy to project, particularly when you dislike someone (a smile becomes a sneer). And one can be pulled into the charisma of a personality or pushed away by the lack of one, rather than the content of what one is saying.
Love thy enemy stands on its
Love thy enemy stands on its own.
And, I would add, His pivotal
And, I would add, His pivotal resurrection is a non-violent one. By all accounts Jesus does not resurrect as a killing machine bent on revenge and retribution. If we do not see the import of this fact, we must still be counted as a people walking in darkness.
So why not just catch him and
So why not just catch him and kill him again and cremate him this time?
This whole story makes no sense. You're reading into it to support your agenda, just like the fundiegelicals.
Religion is such a waste of time.
"let him who has no sword
"let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one" (Luke 22:36)
there is "a time to kill" (Eccles. 3:3)
Your interpretation of the
Your interpretation of the mission of our Savior is quite shriveled and reductionist. Please read Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth.
why do you anonymously and
why do you anonymously and presumptuously assume the learned and holy and Reverend Father John Dear SJ has not?
Why do you rnat words you do not understand, like reductionist?
I find the grace-filled writings of the Rev. Father John DEar SJ in fullest flower, and in no way shrivelled, as am I, and thus I gratefully receive his fresh and full waters in my desert land, like the dry bones groaning out in the desert waiting to be made known under these persistently life bringing rains of the Revernd Father John Dear SJ
shrivelled, my dear anonymous one?!! the opposite of shrivelled, my dear sir or anonymous madame
On top of that, he no doubt
On top of that, he no doubt committed "liturgical abuse" at the Last Supper!
the liturgy was made for us,
the liturgy was made for us, not us for the liturgy
whatever works for you
simply
love one naother
this is liturgy
everything else is abuse
I was struck by the paragraph
I was struck by the paragraph in your article.
"As we continue through Holy Week, perhaps the real question for this holiest week of the year is: "What does Jesus' dramatic illegal, nonviolent direct action against systemic injustice mean for us? If he gave his life to confront Temple injustice what would he want his followers to do..." I had considered standing outside a local church with a "I support Fr. Roy" sign this Wednesday. I think I must do this now.
Happy Easter Fr. John! Jesus
Happy Easter Fr. John! Jesus told us he had to leave us in order to send the Holy Spirit and he would teach us what to do and what to say. Mary, our Mother, never was crucified, nor wrote any books in the Bible, she did her thing, and we do our thing, guided by the Holy Spirit-our friend! I agree with your column a 100%. Thanks!
Great article which makes it
Great article which makes it clear that Jesus was a man of peace, love and compassion for all men and women.He makes it clear that we should love our
neighbors as well as our enemies. As Father Dear points out, that "through his symbolic actions he called for an end of the Temple system." If Jesus were here today he would also call for an end to the current clerical power structure of the Catholic Church which through its behavior wants to silence all who disagree with the man made laws of the Church.
Cyril, Religion is so stupid
Cyril, Religion is so stupid that you're wasting your time.
You don't believe that. If
You don't believe that. If you did you wouldn't be here.
You don't see any of us wasting time commenting on the Flat Earth Society blog.
If folks want to use the
If folks want to use the "whip" or "rope" reference to justify war, I say: "Fine! You can go to war, provided the only weapon you are allowed to use are bundled cords." I don't think too many people would go off to war so armed.
Speaking as someone who sat
Speaking as someone who sat underneath falling bombs as a two year old, I suggest that we not go off to war at all....isn't that the point of Father Dear's reflection here. Jesus was put to death by the collusion of both empire and institutional religion, in a most expedient way...."is it not good that one man die and not an entire nation?" it's in one of the Gospels...or somewhere in the New Testament. I don't claim to be a scriptural scholar but I do understand the challenge of translation, of finding an equivalent word in another language and maintaining the sense and use of that word. Let's not nit pick...the message of Jesus is clear...love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, if you can't love your brother who you can see, how can you claim to love God...and Love one Another....all the rest flows from this....and we all have a real difficult time loving "the other" whether he/she is "other" because of color, religion, race, ethnicity, gender/sexual orientation, political persuasion or because of some trite and petty annoyance.
Why do you say “Jesus was
Why do you say “Jesus was executed by the empire as a terrorist”?
The Gospels don’t say this. As you yourself pointed out, Luke says that Jesus was accused of inciting the people to revolt, but not terrorism. I’m sure you know the difference between revolution and terrorism.
As far as the accusations against Jesus regarding inciting the people to revolt, Pilot saw this as an accusation that was baseless (Luke 23 vs. 13-16). I wouldn’t create a theology based on false accusations.
To say that the Roman seal on Jesus tomb was in effect saying “We killed you, you’re dead, now stay dead! We order you to stay put!” is absurd. Surely you don’t believe the Romans were concerned about Jesus breaking the law by rising from the dead. There’s no such statement in the Gospels. The concern was that Jesus disciples would steal the body and then say he rose from the dead. (Matthew 27 vs. 62-66).
I do believe that Jesus promoted peace and justice. I see this from the Gospels. However, your attempt to distort scripture so as to paint Jesus in the image of Gandi, Martin Luther King, or yourself is being dishonest with your readers. It ends up being a turn off to those who otherwise would be open to your non-violent message.
I think the basic problem
I think the basic problem with so many of Fr. Dear's columns is that, instead of, say, measuring the likes of Gandhi against Jesus, he measures JESUS against GANDHI.
I think there is a basic paranoia that if we accept the idea of Jesus smacking a few of cattle into a stampede out of the Temple, that suddenly means we allow a moral argument for mass murder, genocide, nuclear war, etc. This of course doesn't follow logically, but the ideology that is presented prevents people from understanding that.
This is why it is a better to simply understand what the Church teaches about this and why. The Holy Father's books on Jesus are invaluable in this, btw.
Fr. Dear finds it necessary to attempt to explain away parts of Scripture that don't totally mesh with his doctrine of absolutist pacifism. In a similar way, those who promote the silly Prosperity Gospel have to explain away the fact that the righteous will suffer also in Scripture. Also, NeoCon Fundamentalists pushing for international military intervention everywhere have to explain away various parts of Scripture that aren't favorable to their position.
Here is my position. Perhaps we should FIRST look to and follow what the Church says before running off for the latest offering from the "Zealot of The Month Club". While I understand that Fr. Dear has 25+ years (I think) of experience, the Church has roughly 1,950+ years more experience than he, in addition to being "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
Very well said, Pete. Have a
Very well said, Pete. Have a blessed Triduum and Easter!
The Gospels do say this. Read
The Gospels do say this. Read them again, Don, and Clint and Pete, please.
And then read them to me, please.
and discover this:
Jesus "announced that God was present within every person; present whenever two or three gathered to pray in his name; present in the hungry, sick or imprisoned; present in the breaking of the bread and the passing of the cup; present in Spirit and in Truth."
pro multis means for all.
"pro multis means for all." -
"pro multis means for all."
- No, it doesn't. The literal translation of the Latin is "for many".
"For all" would be translated something like 'omnia' depending on its usage. The liturgy uses the Latin on purpose here. Elsewhere 'for all' is used, like in the phrase 'omnia facta sunt' (all things were made). 'Pro multis' is used on purpose and it doesn't mean 'for all'.
Your usage would be like me saying that 'para muchos' means 'for all', which it does not.
The herding of animals always
The herding of animals always requires the use of some sort of device to get them moving; be it a whip, a dog barking at their heels or a shepherd gently guiding the movement of the sheep with the prodding of a long wooden staff. I do not see any reason to conclude that if Jesus used a whip to move the animals out of the Temple that this would, somehow, justify war and violence.
Let's also not forget that Jesus was not a vegetarian, nor did he forbid the eating of meat to his disciples. In order to eat meat, the animals must first, somehow, be slaughtered. By the way, Hitler WAS a vegetarian.
I don't think that your last
I don't think that your last line helps your argument at all. in terms of what you're saying, (the rest of which I agree with and support) It's a complete logical fallacy, that doesn't even support the rest of what you were saying.
please do clear that last line up.
So was Gandhi. Me? vegan . .
So was Gandhi.
Me? vegan . . .
I don't see how Gandhi's
I don't see how Gandhi's consumption of quantities of dried bull feces can be squared with vegetarianism. From what I understand about his history, he believed consumption of dried excrement to be able to cure pretty much anything...
Regardless of the stories of
Regardless of the stories of Jesus, our own lived experience shows us the effectiveness of non-violent living. When can we trust our own lives?
Thank you Fr. John for this
Thank you Fr. John for this beautiful lesson on non violence.As you stated in your book Transfiguration one can not practice His Way until one spends many hours in prayer and mediation on His Way and how it can be implemented in ones life. Certainly Ghandi (who loved the Sermon on the Mount and said he loved Jesus Christ but not the way Christians lived) and Martin Luther King Jr did just that, that is spent many hours in prayer and mediation on His Way. So my dear Father (a play on words) carry on.
Thank you Fr. John for this
Thank you Fr. John for this beautiful lesson on non violence.As you stated in your book Transfiguration one can not practice His Way until one spends many hours in prayer and mediation on His Way and how it can be implemented in ones life. Certainly Ghandi (who loved the Sermon on the Mount and said he loved Jesus Christ but not the way Christians lived) and Martin Luther King Jr did just that, that is spent many hours in prayer and mediation on His Way. So my dear Father (a play on words) carry on.
There is nothing sadder than
There is nothing sadder than a man, a Jesuit, an aging mutineer still living in the 60s. Padre, the wars over, your side lost.
Francis
I don't believe in editing
I don't believe in editing posts that are addressing an issue being discussed, no matter what their position is. But, I wouldn't mind editing posts whose only purpose is to insult a writer or poster. Maybe Francis can tell us how he feels about the violence in this world, how he feels Christ wants us to deal with it and what he is doing about that.
John-- I hope the next time
John--
I hope the next time you cast your vote for Mr. Obama, you'll remember your peacenik platitudes and join me and other sincere people in voting for someone else. Bear in mind that your candidate has added to America's wars, and as a matter of course, indiscriminately bombs innocent civilians using unmanned drones.
Think about it.
-Francis
Francis, where in my post did
Francis, where in my post did I state, or where does it indicate, that I am a "peacenik" (or for that matter gave any "peacenik platitudes") or that Obama is my candidate and I support his actions? I believe that I questioned the point of posting a post whose sole reason to write is to insult and that you share your views of violence and how Jesus asks us to respond to it. Yet, you have yet to address these issues. Are these not fair questions for a discussion among followers of the risen Lord?
Peace and prayers for you on your journey, Francis.
John David
it's just getting
it's just getting started.
The meek shall inherit the earth
nothing sadder than those who will not see.
One only has to look at the
One only has to look at the silent, serene face on the Shroud of Turin, which I believe is the face of Christ, to know that yes, Jesus was a man of non-violence.
So, anaonyous, why was
So, anaonyous, why was Wojtyla's investigation of that relic so swiftly halted?
The face of Christ is in the poor, in the outcast, in the illegal immigrant, or as written so much better here: Jesus "announced that God was present within every person; present whenever two or three gathered to pray in his name; present in the hungry, sick or imprisoned; present in the breaking of the bread and the passing of the cup; present in Spirit and in Truth."
We should feel sorry for
We should feel sorry for Sister Elizabeth Johnson.
Those bishops point out the boo-boos in her book. But it was only the usual modernist mush by an incoherent academic.
But they say nothings when the NCR puts out this nonsense, cause a Jesuit wrote it. And the faithful will be scandalized.
Take this: "Jesus breaks the law! He commits civil disobedience, rolls away the stone and starts organizing all over again!" The poor faithful, they read that, they'll think the clergy are goofs.
ok, i havent been reading
ok, i havent been reading your stuff for some reason, but today Holy Saturday i did, and i will from now on, you make sense, keep it up.
Isaiah 58:6 (New
Isaiah 58:6 (New International Version, ©2011)
6 "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
LOVED IT! In the light of
LOVED IT!
In the light of Japan--the nuclear world contamination EXPECTED TO CONTINUE FOR AT LEAST SIX MORE MONTHS--I think Jesus, if He was here in person, would be asking all Churches, in Solidarity, to petition that the six Japanese reactors (as the Chernoble remedy) be completely covered with dirt--STAT!
The alternative--at least 6 months of redioactive drift, over us, our children, our grandchildren. (And Cancer issues, think about it.)
The nuclear reactors of the world are a major, evil, "New Great Jerusalem Temple."
"“We killed you, you’re dead,
"“We killed you, you’re dead, now stay dead! We order you to stay put!”
And history is repeating itself as we speak. While Rome fiddles, BEIJING burns!
http://www.ucanews.com/2011/04/26/underground%E2%80%99-bishop-of-luoyang...
Three cheers to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard for officially calling them on the carpet for rampant and ESCALATING abuse of human rights! And Premier Wen Jia Bao's lame retorts about Australia detaining refugees is a poor response at best.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2011/04/20/2003501234
One highly DOUBTS if the USA representatives to the Sino-American discussions on HUMAN RIGHTS this week in Beijing will be as brave. They're too busy KOW TOWing for contracts, jobs and business deals. Money talks and freedom of speech, assembly and religion walks in mainland China. CARDINAL ZEN is absolutely spot on!
http://www.sinodaily.com/reports/US_China_to_hold_human_rights_talks_999...
I am so grateful for the life
I am so grateful for the life and work of this very brilliant and dedicated Jesuit, Fr. John Dear. This interpretation of Jesus makes Him real today for the work that we need to be about - loving ourselves as we want to believe God loves us so we may with His grace love our neighbor, including the unfriendly or "enemy"-looking ones, and that "enemy" part of ourselves - which keeps our fear alive and unable to hear Jesus' message of Easter, "Do not be afraid!"; I know it takes
all kinds of folks to make up this old world, and even a particular Church - so if John Dear's message is not real, what IS the real message of Jesus?- Several writers here are surely having trouble understanding - makes me wonder why they bother to read Fr. Dear's words at all - and then want to be so mean spirited when they fail to "get it'??? Beats my best understanding of any kind of Christian "loving". Disagree?? Fine - just SAY so - so that we know we choose to "see" Jesus in EVERY one of our neighbors as we choose to "speak to" them/Him What we do says a lot about how we are feeling at that time, not so much about who we are - that is a process of growing and learning. John Dear has much to teach us about the process by his words AND certainly by his example. Thank you, John, and all your friends and "enemies"! Cheers! And Easter JOY!! Peace.
Post new comment