Q. On pp. 151-52 surprisingly you use Jesus’ action in the temple to suggest that Jesus was not opposed to violence. The problem with that example is that it does not involve violence against human beings nor does it appear any animals were harmed in the process either! Indeed, some were liberated. There is a difference between using force to some end, and doing violence against other human beings, something Jesus does prohibit his disciples from doing. [BTW, Heiser has an interesting argument saying that the conquest of the land in Joshua has to do with the elimination of the descendants of the Nephilim, not some sort of general genocide of a particular ethnic group. In other words, the human or divine violence in Joshua has to do with a judgment on the mixing of two creation orders, supernatural and human and is not in principle different from the flood as a judgment on sin].
A. I guess I am not convinced that Jesus did not land or intend to land the whip on someone. I’ve read Heiser (and indeed endorsed his book) but I don’t remember this particular argument. As a matter of fact, I don’t know of anyone (but there must be) who would argue that the conquest of the land has to do with the elimination of the descendants of the Nephilim. The Bible certainly doesn’t style it that way, so Mike must be speaking to some “urban legend” about the Bible. Also not sure that Jesus completely prohibits his disciples from using violence. He certainly does in terms of promoting his message, but I can’t make sense of his statement as recorded in Luke that they should take “two swords” with them other than thinking he is giving them permission for self-defense. [N.B. Actually, what the Greek says Jesus said when the disciples say ‘we have two swords’ is ‘Enough of that [foolishness]’ which is hardly an endorsement of using weapons But even if Jesus permitted weapons when disciples were on the road, it may be for protection against wild animals, not to be used to do violence on other human beings. BW3]
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In