Continued from Chapter 22q
53:9: “although he had done no violence”
The violent side of Jesus
The Gospels record a number of instances where Jesus did commit acts of violence.
- Whip in hand, causing a fracas, he attacked the merchants in the Temple area (Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15-16, Luke 19:45, John 2:15).
- He destroyed a fig tree for not having fruit out of season (Matthew 21:18-21, Mark 11:13-14).
- He caused the death, by drowning, of a herd of swine by allowing demons to purposely enter their bodies (Matthew 8:32, Mark 5:13, Luke 8:33).
Were Jesus’ actions justified?
Biblically, it would not matter if Jesus actions were justified. The question is, “Did this individual literally perform violent acts?” All New Testament applications of Isaiah 53 to Jesus presume a literal fulfillment. A literal application to Jesus of the phrase “he had done no violence” is not possible. The Gospels inadvertently indicate that forms of violence were perpetrated by Jesus. By the very fact that an individual committed violent acts, even if they can be justified, he does not qualify as one having done no violence. These are acts of violence under any circumstance and if applied literally to an individual that person could not be the fulfillment of verse Jesus’ acts of violence demonstrate that he did not literally fulfill this description of the servant as prescribed by the New Testament citations of Isaiah 53. On the other hand, Israel as a corporate entity has, in the overall course of its history, sought to avoid violence Christians provide novel reasons for Jesus’ destructive actions, but they still remain acts of violence. All the excuses cannot hide the fact that these violent acts disqualify Jesus from being the servant.
One cannot excuse his actions as those of a supernatural being, who allegedly had the authority to do as he pleased. Do what he will, Jesus would still be disqualified from being the servant.
Jesus and his philosophy of violence
Jesus was not adverse to using violence and held no general principle against violent action. If Jesus was truly non-violent he could not have uttered his call to family strife and divisiveness. He proudly avowed that his is a mission which will cause discord and disturb the universal peace and bring war to the world (Matthew 10:34-35, Luke 12:49-53). Jesus called for his opponents to be brought before him for summary execution. He declared: “But these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and slay them in my presence” (Luke 19:27). The use of violence is not always an act of evil. But, in exploring the teachings of Jesus, we are not just dealing with his physical violence, but also with a philosophy of violence.
When one is a teacher, especially when one is considered an authoritative teacher to his followers who’s every word has power to transform into actions how one acts is as important as what one teaches. And if you teach and do violent actions—you are violent!
Words of forgiveness or hypocrisy
Could Jesus have preached violence or hated anyone when he spoke words of forgiveness and non-resistance to wickedness? Did he not say: “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27), “Do not resist him that is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39) and, alternately: “To him that strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also” (Luke 6:29)? These verses are taken as representative of the extraordinary forgiveness supposedly taught and exercised by Jesus himself. However, “turn the other cheek” was not practiced by Jesus himself. Jesus, it is said, preached turning the other cheek, loving one’s neighbor and praying for them, and forgiving those who wrong you. But, when did Jesus manifest such behavior in his personal relationships, during his lifetime? Was it his cursing of the Pharisees (Matthew 23), his threat of violent retribution on cities that rejected his message (Matthew 11:20-24, Luke 10:13-15), or his condemnation to death of Jews who would not accept him (Luke 19:27)? Jesus himself never turned the other cheek. He never forgave anyone who rejected his claims. He never forgave anyone who wronged or criticized him. He responded to his opponents, not with passive resistance, but by answering criticism with criticism, and by reviling and threatening his adversaries. John’s Jesus, when beaten by an officer, instead of offering quietly his other cheek argues with him (John 18:22-23).
Jesus displayed irrational hatred. He condemns the Jewish people for things that happened even before the time of Abraham, their father, saying: “[U]pon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you slew between the Temple and the altar” (Matthew 23:35). The Gospels’ Jesus irrationally denounced the entire Jewish people for murders neither they nor their fathers committed. He holds them liable for sins in which they could have no part because they were committed even before the birth of Abraham, the progenitor of the nation of Israel. Instead of forgiving Judas for betraying him, he said: “But woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24).
What a chance to show the utmost of forgiveness and Jesus missed the opportunity. Who did Jesus forgive? Jesus only forgave those who wronged others. Whenever an opportunity to personally forgive those who he felt wronged him presented itself he always declined. Where is Jesus’ non-violence where is his love and forgiveness of enemies?
Jesus disqualified to be the servant
Don’t blame God if Jesus didn’t live up to the imaginary Jesus his followers believe in. Perhaps those who believe Jesus was God or authorized by God have no problem with his teachings and actions. However, he still cannot qualify to be the servant of Isaiah 53. If this passage is a literal fulfillment by Jesus then there must be total fulfillment by him.
Continued