JESUS AND VIOLENCE

As Christians we remain deeply convinced that the ultimate aim, that

most worthy of the person and of the human community, is the abolition of
war. We must therefore always commit ourselves to building bridges that unite
rather than walls that separate; we must always help to find a small opening
for mediation and reconciliation, we must never give in to the temptation of
considering the other as merely as an enemy to destroy, but rather as a person
endowed with intrinsic dignity created by God in his image.

- Pope Francis

A Christian would always be confronted with the issue of the use of

violence whenever there is an unjust and oppressive but strongly entrenched
regime. Can we use armed force against a leader who is responsible for killing
many of its innocent citizens? In other words, when the violence coming from
the political and economic establishment has become institutionalized to such
an extent that there is no legal remedy to help the victims, can a follower of
Jesus take up arms to end an evil situation? If the answer is yes, how can it
conform to the demands of Christian charity?
The issue is not exclusive to our times. There has always been a tension
between pacifism and militarism. In this context, Augustine formulated the so-
called just war theory that would put some conditions before violence can be
considered morally justified.1
The issue continues to our day. In its short reference to the issue of
armed struggle, Populorum Progression of Paul VI first points out that “There
are certainly situations whose injustice cry to heaven.” This encyclical then
rejects the recourse to violence, but adds an exception, ”where there is a
manifest, long standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental
personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country…”
However, Joseph Ratzinger warns against
For some, the answer is not only that it is morally legitimate to take up
arms, it is in fact a moral obligation to do so. 2 Such was the option taken by

1
The context of this theory is the issue of waging war against what he considered barbarians. Among the
conditions for a war to be justified are that the cause must be just, that it must be waged by a lawful ruler, and
must exclude atrocities. This theory was considered the official Catholic position for centuries although there
are those who criticized it. The critics today say that the condition are never met in modern wars. Cf. “Marie
Dennis, ed, Choosing Peace: The Catholic Church Returns to the Gospel Nonviolence (Maryknoll, Orbis, 2018)
2
Contrary to stereotypes, many of those who went to the hills to wage armed struggle against the Marcos
dictatorship were in fact driven by their faith. Cf. Ton Danenberg, Caloy Ronquillo, CSsR, et al, Fired from
Within: Spirituality In the Social Movement (Quezon City: Institute of Spirituality in Asia, 2008).
some priests like Conrado Balweg and Luis Jalandoni during the lamentable
martial law years.
But armed resistance by clerics was not limited to the time of the
Marcos dictatorship. In the revolution against Spain, Fr. Pedro Dandan was in
close contact with the revolutionary forces of Emilio Aguinaldo. According to
the Jesuit Church historian John Schumacher, although we do not know much
about the nature of his involvement with the revolution, he together with
another priest named Fr. Teodoro de la Cruz, seems “to have exercised
considerable influence in rallying the revolutionary forces as well as the
clergy.”3 Quoting (or translating) Telesforo Canseco’s Historia de la Insureccion
Filipina en Cavite,” Schumacher adds,

Father Dandan and Father Teodoro, who came from the province of Manila to join
the insurgents of the province, were without any doubt the reason why the secular priests
of this province who were not in favor of the insurrection were persuaded to follow it, or at
least not to work against it.4

In an earlier period of history, and in a context different from armed

resistance against an unjust regime, there was also a Jose (or Josep, the
Catalan form that he used) Ducos, a Jesuit. He commanded a naval armada
tasked to protect coastal settlements in Northern Mindanao. He was bestowed
the title “Captain General” by Governor General Pedro Manuel de Arandia. It is
said when the royal government in Spain was asked to confirm the title, they
did so but asked for a report whether this Jesuit had enough knowledge of
navigation. But Ducos proved himself more than capable when he won crucial
battles against the Moro raiders and successfully defended the Christian
settlements.5

But there are others who believe that passive acceptance of an unjust
situation is the only Christian option. After all, Jesus exhorted us to turn the
other cheek and to pray for our enemies. He himself was a victim of injustice
but he accepted his crucifixion.
What option did Jesus take? Was he a militant revolutionary or was he a
radical pacifist.

Political Situation in Galilee During the Time of Jesus

3
John Schumacher, The Revolutionary Clergy: The Filipino Clergy and the Nationalist Movement, 1850-1903
(Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1981), p. 54.
4
Ibid.
5
Cf. Miguel Bernad, “Father Ducos an the Muslim Wars 1752-1759) in Miguel Bernad, The Great Island: Studies
in the Exploration and Evangelization of Mindanao (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2004), pp.
63-105.
 Before we tackle the issue whether Jesus was a pacifist or a militant, it is
imperative to describe, albeit briefly, the political situation that engulfed
Galilee at the time of Jesus.
For most of their history, Jews have struggled against different vast
imperial powers. Indeed, it is part of Jewish identity to believe that Yahweh,
through Moses, liberated them from the mighty Egyptian empire. The exodus
story led them to the promised land where they became a nation mostly
compose of peasants. But subsequent centuries also saw the Jews being
subjugated by other empires like the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian.
In 63 BC, General Pompey of Rome conquered Jerusalem. But it was
only during the time of Augustus that Galilee was under the tetrarch Herod
Antipas. It was a compromise made by Augustus since three sons of King Herod
were disputing the throne after the death of their father. Archelaus, one of
the sons, governed Judea but after some time, Rome had to appoint its own
prefect because of his perceived weakness. Direct Roman rule of Judea started
in 6 AD. Pilate, the Roman prefect Pilate ruling Judea during Jesus Roman trial,
started his reign in 26 AD.
The temple was still under the chief priest with the cooperation of other
authorities. But the chief priest, to remain in his position, had to show
complete loyalty to Rome.
Jesus’ earthly life was framed within this period.
Although it was a shame for a people who believed to be God’s chosen
to be ruled by people they considered pagans, still they reacted in various
ways. The Pharisees believed that the Roman occupation was a punishment
from God for their failure to observe the law. The Pharisees were aggressive in
their efforts to make their fellow Jews accept their understanding of what
Judaism should be. There were times they used political power to further their
view of Judaism. The Sadducees on the other hand, mostly aristocrats, basically
cooperated with the Romans. This was to be expected since they benefitted
much from Roman rule: Many members of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees, and
so were many high priests as well. Another group is the Essenes. This group
lived a community life of simplicity, which was a critique against society’s
dependence on money.

Jesus the Militant Revolutionary

The scholar who first proposed the theory that Jesus was a militant
revolutionary against Roman occupation was Herman Reimarus. He presents
Jesus as a failed revolutionary who would have wanted to wrest power from
the Romans.
In the second half of the 20 th century, S.G. F. Brandon elaborated more
on the arguments first forwarded by Reimarus. 6 This thesis has gained little
scholarly support but still the picture of a revolutionary Jesus remains
attractive to Christians who, in their discernment, have opted for armed
struggle.
Let us examine the arguments often forwarded by those who propose
this theory. At best, these arguments are circumstantial in nature for there is
no direct evidence that Jesus favored violence.

1. Jesus did not condemn Zealotism. Jesus often vehemently attacked the
Pharisees (e.g. Mt. 23, Mk, 8. 15) and is recorded to have many
controversies against them (Mk. 2: 23-28). He also had an argument
against the Sadducees on the issue of the resurrection (Mk. 12: 18-27).
But nowhere is he recorded to have said, “Woe to you Zealots!”

This argument “from silence”, if it stands by itself, is weak. But it

becomes even more weak if there is a plausible explanation for the silence.
And historians and exegetes today provide us an explanation why Jesus may
not have condemned the Zealots. The reason is, in the first place, there was no
Zealotism yet during the time of Jesus, if by that term is mean an organized
party whose aim is to violently overthrow the Romans with the use of armed
force. There may have been isolated cases of banditry but such did not
constitute a party. Reza Aslan expresses the scholarly consensus when he
writes,

These zealots should not be confused with the Zealot Party that would arise sixty
years later, after the Jewish Revolt in 66 C.E. During Jesus’ lifetime, zealotry did not signify
a firm sectarian designation or political party. 7

The more scholarly John Meier makes the same point

…the organized revolutionary faction that Josephus calls “the Zealots” came into
existence only during the First Jewish War, specifically during the winter of AD 67-68 in
Jerusalem. To make simon the Cananean a “Zealot in the narrow sense of a member of this
organized group of armed rebels is hopelessly anachronistic. 8

6
S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967). Cf. also, The Trial of
Jesus of Nazareth ((London: Batsford, 1968).
7
Aslan Rezam, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (London: Westbourne Press, 2013), p. 41.
8
John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Volume II; Companions and Competitors (New York: Doubleday, 2003), p. 205
 But how then can we explain Lk. 6:15 which describes Simon, one of the
twelve who formed Jesus’ inner circle, as Zealot? First of all, the designation
serves to be distinguish him from the other Simon, who is Simon Peter himself.
But to go to the term itself, It should be taken to mean “zealous” or full of zeal,
but never a member of yet non-existent Zealot party. Let us again quote Meier.

…in the early 1st century A.D., any pious Jew who was zealous for the strict
observance of the Mosaic Law, who publicly harassed nonobservant Jews and tried to coax
or bully them back into observance, and who was fiercely opposed to the incursion of
pagan-gentile influence into the life of Palestinian Jews might well merit the accolade of
“the Zealot” from his admiring coreligionists. 9

2. Jesus’ violence in the temple.

That Jesus created disturbance within the temple is one of the

undisputed historical facts of Jesus’ life.10 Indeed, what Jesus said in the
temple “I will destroy the temple that is made with hands, and in three
days I will build another not made with hands,” formed one of the
principal charges against him in the hearing against Caiphas (Mk. 14: 58).
11
Furthermore, it would not have served the interests of the early
evangelizers who wanted to preach un impeded by the Roman empire to
invent a story that would paint their savior to be a hotheaded firebrand.
In the Synoptics, this event happened in the last week of Jesus’
earthly life.12 While Jesus ministry was always full of conflict, the incident
in the temple may have been the straw that finally broke the camel’s
back. It is written that when the chief priests and the scribes heard what
happened, they kept looking for ways to kill Jesus (Mk. 11.18). The
morning after, the chief priests, the scribes and this time together with
the elders questioned Jesus’ authority.
Although there is almost unanimity that the event is historical,
there is no consensus on what was the issue behind the cleansing of the
temple. The question on why Jesus reacted violently within the temple
9
Ibid., p. 207.
10
E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin Press, 1993), p.11.
11
For an analysis of Mk. 14: 55-59, cg. J.D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, Vol. I: Jesus Remembered
(Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 628-634. Dunn argues that Mk. 14: 55-59 may be a partisan account but
may have been based on nonpartisan reports. He argues that what Jesus said and did in the temple constituted
the principla charge against Jesus during the trial before caiphas.
12
This incident happened early in the ministry of Jesus in John’s Gospel. The chronology found in the Synoptic
Gospels is more trustworthy on this point since it would have been unlikely to act very provocatively in the
temple early in his ministry and still be allowed to go unpunished. But even among the Synoptic Gospels, there
are slight differences in the chronology. In Mark’s Gospel, the incidence in the temple happened a day after
Jesus entered Jerusalem. In Matthew’s Gospel, the entry to Jerusalem and the incident on the temple
happened on the same day. If we follow the chronology in Mark’s Gospel, the incident in the temple seems to
have been the result of a premeditated plan.
 can be better understood if we understand the function of the
moneychangers and those who were selling animals in the temple. Since
there were pilgrims from far-away places, it was expected that they
would be bringing different currencies. Thus, the moneychangers served
a practical purpose. The same is true with those who were selling
animals. It would be burdensome to bring animals for offering from their
places of origin. Besides, the system was to make sure that only animals
which were ritually appropriate could be offered. Thus, if these people in
fact made the lives of pilgrims easier, what was Jesus angry about?
For Sanders, what Jesus did in the temple was a symbolic act,
understood by his contemporaries. Jesus intended his gesture “to
indicate that the end was at hand and that the temple would be
destroyed, so that a new and perfect temple might arise.”13
Another interesting opinion is the cleansing of the temple, Jesus
“seems to have been inspired by a vision of a purified and renewed
Temple that would also welcome non-Jews.” 14 After all, Jesus said,
quoting the Prophet Isaiah (56:7), “My house shall be called a house of
prayer for all nations” (Mk. 9:17).
For other scholars, the issue was not purely a religious question.
Bear in mind that the principle of separation of Church and State still
was non-existent. Besides, the temple was co-opted by the empire. The
temple authorities cooperated with Rome. As a result, the colonization
was given religious legitimacy.
Another possible non-religious issue was corruption. Although
money changing and selling of animals were legitimate activites, we
cannot completely rule out corruption within the temple.
But whatever was the reason for the cleansing of the temple, it
would strain the imagination to say that it was the beginning of a
rebellion against the Romans. The Gospel of John recounts that that he
used a “whip of cords.” Surely, one cannot wage a rebellion even in its
initial stage, with only that weapon. Furthermore, the accounts o not
suggest that the disciples helped Jesus driving out those who sold and
bought in the temple and overturning the tables of the moneychangers.
Thus, the image of Jesus leading a band of revolutionaries does not find
any evidence from the gospel accounts.

3. The Logion on Fire

13
E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, p. 75.
14
Gerard O’Collins, and James Kroeger, Jesus, a Portrait (Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 2010), p. 13
 In one occasion, Jesus himself said that he had come to cast fire upon
the earth and wished that it is already burning (Lk, 12:49-51). This would
seemingly contradict the usual image of Jesus as a prince of peace.
However, this passage has never been traditionally interpreted to mean
that it was the intention of Jesus to wage war against the authorities of
his time. A more plausible interpretation of this logion is the inevitability
of opposition to the message of Jesus. Jesus and his message would be a
sign of contradiction for those who him. In this interpretation, fire does
not symbolize violence but a purifying instrument that would separate
truth from falsity.

4. Jesus instructed his disciples to bring swords.

In a strange passage and found only in Luke’s Gospel, Jesus said: “But
now, the one who has apurse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the
one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one,” (Lk. 22:36).
Previously, in Lk. 10:4, Jesus instructed his disciples not to carry a purse
and a travelling bag. Why the change? Was it because Jesus perceived
themselves to be in constant danger most especially after the cleansing
at the temple which happened three chapters earlier? There is no way
we can have a certain answer.
What we can be certain of is that even after he uttered this statement,
Jesus continued to reject violence and reprimanded the disciple who cut
off the right ear of one of those who composed the arresting party, the
slave of the high priest (Lk. 22: 51). Furthermore, the disciples were
never recorded as having carried swords even after the death and
resurrection of Jesus.
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary opines that the sword in Lk. 22:36
could not literally refer to a lethal weapon. It is rather a symbol of
crisis.15 This interpretation can be buttressed further by citing another
passage in teh same Gospel of Luke where sword is given a symbolic
meaning. In the presentation of Jesus, the prophet Simeon told Mary,
“...and a sword will pierce you own soul too.” (Lk. 2:35).
Following this interpretation, we can now better understand Jesus’
frustration over his disciples who took the word literally: Lord, look here
are two swords,” Lk. 22:38. Jesus then responded, “It is enough.” He
could not have meant that two swords would be enough, especially if
they were planning an armed revolt. Only a person out of one’s mind
would think that two swords would be enough to wage a revolution. It

15
Robert J. Karris, “The Gospel According to Luke” in New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond
Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Roland Murphy, (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990), 43;183
 could mean, “Enough of this,” to indicate his disgust over the disciples’
failure to understand.16

5. Jesus was crucified as a political rebel.

Though the heading of this section may be an overstatement, there are
elements of truth in it that may have been neglected in the past. Since
we affirm our theological belief that Jesus died for our sins, we often
neglect to state that there were concrete historical conflicts that led to
the execution of Jesus.
The very fact that Jesus was tried by Pilate, who represented the Roman
empire in Judea, indicates that the issue was not a mere intra-Jewish
religious question. Of course, it is said that Pilate had to come into the
picture since the Jewish authorities did not have the power to execute
convicts, (Jn. 18:31) This is not totally accurate. The Sandhedrin could
have ordered the execution of Jesus if the crimes charged against him
did not have any political dimension to it. In his monumental volume,
Raymond Brown states,

The Romans permitted the Jews to execute for clear religious offences, e.g., for violating
the prohibitions against circulating in certain quarters of the Temple, and perhaps for
17
adultery.

Thus, since he was sentenced to death after a trial conducted by Pilate,

the only reasonable conclusion is that it was not a purely religious issue
that only concerned Jewish Laws. In fact, within the Gospels, we find
indications that the accusations were political in nature: In Luke’s
Gospel, Jesus is accused of “perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay
taxes to the emperor and saying that he is the Messiah, a king,” (Lk.
23:2).
We tend to think that these were false accusations intended to pin down
Jesus and force Pilate to execute Jesus. Yet, even if the Gospels present
Pilate as reluctant to crucify Jesus, he eventually relented.
However, just because there was a political dimension to the charge
against Jesus, we cannot conclude that he was for a violent overthrow of
the Romans. Several historical figures rejected the use of force but were
still considered political threats. Jose Rizal was executed by the
Spaniards although he disowned involvement with the revolutionary
group Katipunan. Others were assassinated: Martin Luther King Jr.
16
Cf. Richard Cassidy. Jesus, Politics and Society: A Study of Luke’s Gospel (New York: Orbis, 1978), p. 45.
17
Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Vol. I (London: Cassel, 1994), p. 438. Brown would also state
that the Jewish court wanted crucifixion to be the form of the deah penalty and such could only be granted by
the Romans. Cf. Ibid., p. 861.
 Mahatma Gandhi, Ninoy Aquino. One does not have to be a Che
Guevara to be considered a threat to the political establishment. A
peaceful but principled person, most especially if he has a following, can
be a threat to those who hold power.

Jesus the Radical Pacifist

Those who hold this theory believe that Jesus opted not only for non-
violence but also non-resistance. In other words, they believe that Jesus, in
principle and in practice, rejected any form of confrontation.

1. The Command to love one’s Enemies. The pertinent text deserves to

be quoted in full:

You have heard that it was said “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” But I say to you,
“Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also
and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone
forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give everyone who begs from you, and
do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, love
your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for
those who persecute you… (Mt. 5: 38-44).

We often think that the command to love one’s enemies is

distinctly that of Jesus. In other words, no other religious leader prior
to him explicitly gave pronounced the same teaching.
The above observation deserves to be carefully nuanced. We have
to make a distinction between the idea and the formulation of the
idea. The idea that we should not take vengeance into our own hands
is itself not new. For instance, we find in Proverbs 8:22, “Do not say, ‘I
will repay evil; wait for the Lord and he will help you.” There is also
an admonition to help the enemies in Proverbs, 25:21-22, If your
enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat; and if they are thirsty,
give them water to drink.”
Outside of the Bible, the Roman philosopher Seneca believes that
non-retaliation is means not going down to the level of the enemy.
One can humiliate an enemy by not minding him or her.
Yet, it is in the cryptic form “Love your enemies” where we can find
the originality of Jesus’ teaching. Whereas other thinkers gave
reasons for non-retaliation, Jesus simply says “Love your enemies.” 18
18
Here I am following the analysis of John Meier, The Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. IV:
Law and Love (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), pp. 528-551. Meier writes, The troubling content is
 But does the passage support radical pacifism? Is it an absolute
rejection of the use of violence?
The best interpretive key to the statements of Jesus would be his life
itself as recorded in the Gospels. From this hermeneutical principle,
we can say that the passage cannot be interpreted to mean that
Jesus was espousing passivity and acceptance of injustice and
wrongdoing. His verbal confrontations with the Scribes, Pharisees,
Sadducees, and the temple authorities would give us a picture of
Jesus actively fighting against what he considered wrong. Even his
death could mean that he was seen as a threat to civil and religious
authorities at that time.
With his life as an interpretive key, it is better to interpret “Do not
resist an evildoer” to mean that Jesus prohibited his disciples from
using violence or physical force in resisting an evildoer.
In this regard, it is interesting to summarize a persuasively argued
interpretation of the passage above. The passage specifies the
command not to resist an evildoer into three further commands

a. To give the other cheek if someone slaps you on the right cheek
b. To give the cloak as well if someone sues and take your coat
c. To continue to walk for the second mile if someone forces you to
walk one mile.

Walter Wink gives us a thought provoking analysis of these

specifications.19 As majority of people are right-handed, it is difficult to imagine
someone using the right hand and slapping the right cheek. This can only be
done by a backhanded-slap. But it was precisely this method of slapping that
superiors would do to their inferiors. The words of Jesus therefore would
presuppose a situation of unequal relationship. In this context, to give the
other cheek is not a about passivity but a demand to be treated as an equal
even if the aggressor would in fact continue to slap the left cheek. To give the
other cheek would at least convey the message that the offender should not
see himself as superior.
To understand the second scenario, it is necessary to imagine that a
poor person would wear only a coat (the outer garment) and the cloak (the
inner garment). A poor person may have offered his coat as a collateral.
Imagine further that this poor man was unable to pay the loan and he was
ordered to give his coat. If the poor man would offer his cloak as well, he
would be naked. The nakedness would be a symbolic statement of how the
embodied in a troubling formulation, all the more forceful for its brevity and originality (p.550).
19
Cf. Wink, Jesus and Non-Violence, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 9-37.
poor has been victimized. One can imagine the fear of embarrassment in the
person who sued the poor and the latter was in the process of taking off his
cloak.
In the third scenario, a soldier was allowed to compel a peasant to carry
his heavy gear. But to avoid abuse, the soldier could not ask a peasant to carry
it for more than one mile. A penalty could be incurred by or a fine meted to
the soldier if the limits were not followed. Thus, for a peasant to continue
carrying would result into a comic scenario. The soldier would order the
peasant to give his gear back while the peasant insists on carrying it further.
All these are creative and non-violent forms of protest. They were not
intended to be moral imperatives which one should follow whenever we face
similar situations. Indeed, Jesus in the Gospel of John did not give the other
cheek when a police struck him in the face. He instead asked, “If I have spoken
wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike
me?”

2. Jesus Believed that Meekness is a virtue

We see in Mt. 11:29 the only passage wherein Jesus explicitly told his
disciples to learn from his character, and the virtue he wanted to
them follow was gentleness and humility in heart. Furthermore, he
declared the meek blessed (Mt. 5:5) and a few verses later (v. 9) we
read another beatitude with basically similar meaning, “Blessed are
the peacemakers.”
Yet, gentleness and humility do not necessarily mean servility and
conformism. Gentleness can come from someone prayerfully
confident that God is on his or her side. This confidence gives the
person that inner dynamism to live the life the way he or she believes
it should be lived. This person is thus unperturbed by external
pressures.

3. Jesus did not have hostile attitude towards Rome. He did not give a
categorical negative answer when he was asked whether one should
pay taxes to the emperor.
However, the passage “Give to the emperor the things that are of the
emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s” is often interpreted
to refer to a modern principle of the separation of Church and State.
It is often used to argue that the Church must confine her activities to
the sacristy. Such interpretation was far from the mind of Jesus and is
 anachronistic. The principle after all is relatively recent, occurring
only after the period of the enlightenment.
Let us present an alternative interpretation. The Pharisees and the
Herodians asked the question about taxes in order to trap Jesus. (Mk.
12:13). It would appear that Jesus was presented with a real
dilemma: if he would say no, he could be charged with sedition. If his
answer was in the affirmative, he would be discredited before the
people who resented Roman taxation.
Jesus masterfully evaded the dilemma and exposed the hypocrisy of
his interlocutors. He asked for a denarius and then further asked
whose head is inscripted in the coin.
A little background is in order for us to better understand what was
going on in the verbal exchange. Nationalist Jews viewed the usage of
coins with Ceasar’s image as violation of the prohibition against
having images. By showing coin with the image of Ceasar, they were
exposing themselves as, at the very least, unsympathetic to the
aspirations of the nationalists. More pointedly, their hypocrisy was
exposed. They who wanted to trap Jesus have actually shown their
leanings towards collaboration.
But there is more to Jesus’ answer. The first part, “Give to Ceasar
what is Ceasar’s” can mean “Go ahead, give it to Caesar since it has
his face on it.” The second part presupposes the Jewish belief that
everything in this world belongs to God and thus everything must be
given back to God.
Thus, interpreted in this manner, this pericope cannot be taken to
mean that Jesus was a Roman sympathizer.20

4. “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will
perish with the sword,”(Mt. 26:52). This seems to be a clear rejection
of the use of swords. The context behind this passage is the arrest of
Jesus when an ear of a slave of the arresting party, the slave of the
high priest, was cut off. It is interesting to compare the different
Gospel account on who cut off the ears. The Gospel of Mark tells us it
was a bystander (“one of those who stood by,” Mk. 14:47) who did it.
But Matthew tells us that it was done by one of those who were with
Jesus, (Mt. 26;51) John then gives further detail by narrating to us
that it was Peter who did it. It is possible that the Gospel story
developed because the evangelists wanted to tell today’s disciples of
Jesus that it is wrong to use the sword to harm another person. It is
20
This interpretation is indebted to Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, The Last Week: A Day-by-day
Account of Jesus; Final Week in Jerusalem (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2006), pp. 60-64.
 the Gospels of Luke that tells us that Jesus restore the ears of this
slave. The message is that followers of Jesus are called to heal, not to
give harm.

5. Other Passages

There are other passages which can be appropriated to support the

thesis that Jesus was an absolute pacifist. i.e. someone who rejected
confrontation in principle. But they are grouped in one section here
because, in general, they don’t offer solid arguments for the said thesis.
They are enumerated here for the sake of exhausting all possible
arguments.

a. Jesus confirmed the Old Testament Law that prohibited killing. (Ex.
20:13)
b. Jesus associated with tax collectors. It can be argued that his
friendship with tax collectors, who collaborated with the Roman
taxation system, was unthinkable if he was troubled with the Roman
occupation itself. Association with tax collectors was an abomination
to the ordinary Jew, and much more to extremist patriots. Yet, Jesus
not only associated with tax collectors, but also chose one of the
twelve, Matthew, from among their ranks (Mt. 9:9). He often ate with
them. He took the initiative in calling Zaccheus, a chief tax collector.
He also presented the example of tax collector as a model of humble
repentance. (Lk. 18: 9-15).
c. Jesus had a universalistic attitude. Whereas the narrow nationalism
of the extremists excluded the possibility of doing a favor to pagans,
this was not the case of Jesus. Several incidents in his public ministry
can be mentioned to this effect. For example, he cured the servant of
a centurion (Mt. 8: 5-13 and Lu. 7:1-10_ and he healed the daughter
of a Syrophoenician woman (Mk. 7:24-30; the same woman is called
Canaanite in Mt. 15:22). On one occasion, he refused to cast fire on a
Samaritan town (Lk. 9:52-56).

Conclusion: Jesus the Peaceful Revolutionary

The first two theories present glaring problems even outside exegetical
considerations. With regards the first theory, if Jesus was opted for armed
rebellion, why is it that there is no record of his followers continuing the
struggle after his death and resurrection? On the other hand, the second
theory cannot explain the controversies Jesus found himself engaged in (with
the Pharisees, the chief priests, the Sadducees) and why he was eventually
executed. A person who does not resist evil does not pose any danger to the
powerful. If Jesus did not care (walang pakialam, as we Filipinos put it) about
what was happening around him, then why did he suffer the fate of
ignominious crucifixion, which was the punishment for political crimes during
his time?
Thus, we now go to the third theory: Jesus was a revolutionary but a
peaceful one.
It is not just merely the process of eliminating the first two theories that
we conclude that the third must be the right one. We can make this third
theory more understandable by formulating a simple question and an answer.
Did Jesus pose a threat to the political and religious authorities then? Was this
Jesus who hailed from Galilee a danger to the mighty Romans and their
cooperators in Jerusalem? The answer is he was a potential danger, but not
because he advocated violence.
Jesus questioned the abuses and even the system itself during his time.
And anyone who speaks the truth and is ready to die for it is always a danger,
even if he does not carry arms.