by
Damien F. Mackey
“Love of one's enemy constitutes the nucleus
of the "Christian revolution", a revolution not based on strategies
of economic, political or media power: the revolution of love, a love that does
not rely ultimately on human resources but is a gift of God which is obtained
by trusting solely and unreservedly in his merciful goodness”.
Pope Benedict XVI
Anyone who reads pope Benedict XVI”s series on Jesus of Nazareth will appreciate just how
pitifully weak is any argument attempting to make of Jesus Christ some sort of
political revolutionary bent upon overthrowing the Romans. According to a 2011
review of his book: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/8374056/Pope-Jesus-was-not-a-political-revolutionary.html
In a new book, 'Jesus of Nazareth', Benedict XVI said Jesus comes to the
world "with the gift of healing" and to reveal God's power as
"the power of love".
He wrote that Jesus "does not come as a destroyer. He does not come
bearing the sword of a revolutionary."
In the biography, Benedict also says that Jesus separated religion and
politics "thereby changing the world: this is what truly marks the essence
of his new path.
"This separation... of politics from faith, of God's people from
politics, was ultimately possible only through the cross," he said.
The 83-year old pontiff also speaks out against religious violence,
following a wave of attacks on Christians in several parts of the Muslim world.
[End of quote]
How can
one who promotes his “kingdom” as being one of “truth”, and of service - exemplified
by the washing of his disciples’ feet - and who commands us to love even our
enemies, be, at the same time, a sword-bearing militant?
In 2007
(18th February), pope Benedict XVI had considered this matter in an
Angelus address:
Dear Brothers and
Sisters,
This Sunday's
Gospel contains some of the most typical and forceful words of Jesus'
preaching: "Love your enemies" (Lk 6: 27). It is taken
from Luke's Gospel but is also found in Matthew's (5: 44), in the context of
the programmatic discourse that opens with the famous "Beatitudes".
Jesus delivered it in Galilee at the beginning of his public life: it is, as it
were, a "manifesto" presented to all, in which he asks for his
disciples' adherence, proposing his model of life to them in radical terms.
But what do his
words mean? Why does Jesus ask us to love precisely our enemies, that is, a
love which exceeds human capacities?
Actually, Christ's
proposal is realistic because it takes into account that in the world there is too
much violence, too much injustice, and therefore that this situation
cannot be overcome except by countering it with more love, with more goodness.
This "more" comes from God: it is his mercy which was made
flesh in Jesus and which alone can "tip the balance" of the world
from evil to good, starting with that small and decisive "world"
which is the human heart.
This Gospel passage
is rightly considered the magna carta of Christian non-violence. It does
not consist in succumbing to evil, as a false interpretation of "turning
the other cheek" (cf. Lk 6: 29) claims, but in responding to evil with
good (cf. Rom 12: 17-21) and thereby breaking the chain of injustice.
One then
understands that for Christians, non-violence is not merely tactical behaviour
but a person's way of being, the attitude of one who is so convinced of
God's love and power that he is not afraid to tackle evil with the weapons
of love and truth alone.
Love of one's enemy
constitutes the nucleus of the "Christian revolution", a revolution
not based on strategies of economic, political or media power: the revolution
of love, a love that does not rely ultimately on human resources but is a gift
of God which is obtained by trusting solely and unreservedly in his merciful
goodness. Here is the newness of the Gospel which silently changes the world!
Here is the heroism of the "lowly" who believe in God's love and
spread it, even at the cost of their lives.
Dear brothers and
sisters, Lent, which will begin this Wednesday with the Rite of Ashes, is the
favourable season in which all Christians are asked to convert ever more deeply
to Christ's love.
Let us ask the
Virgin Mary, docile disciple of the Redeemer who helps us to allow ourselves to
be won over without reserve by that love, to learn to love as he loved us, to
be merciful as Our Father in Heaven is merciful (cf. Lk 6: 36).
With
this in mind, I must have serious reservations about writer/director Lena
Einhorn’s suggestion, in her admittedly intriguing article "Jesus and the Egyptian Prophet" (http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jesus-and-the-Egyptian-Prophet-12.11.25.pdf)
that Jesus may have been involved in a battle on Mount Olivet just prior to his
arrest, enabling for Lena to make an association of Jesus with Josephus’s
Egyptian prophet.
This is how she introduces her
article:
ABSTRACT
Unlike
the Synoptic Gospels, John 18:3 and 18:12 state that Jesus on the Mount of
Olives was confronted by a speira – a Roman cohort of 500 to 1,000 soldiers.
This suggestion of a battle preceding Jesus’ arrest is reminiscent of an event
described by Josephus in the 50s (A.J. 20.169-172; B.J. 2.261-263), involving
the so called ‘Egyptian Prophet’ (or simply ‘the Egyptian’). This messianic
leader – who had previously spent time “in the wilderness” – had “advised the
multitude … to go along with him to the Mount of Olives”, where he “would show
them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down”. Procurator
Felix, however, sent a cohort of soldiers to the Mount of Olives, where they
defeated ‘the Egyptian’.
Although
the twenty-year time difference would seem to make all comparisons futile,
there are other coinciding aspects: The preceding messianic leader named by
Josephus, Theudas (A.J. 20.97-99), shares distinct characteristics with John
the Baptist: Like John, Theudas gathered his followers by the river Jordan,
and, like John, he was arrested by the authorities, and they “cut off his head,
and carried it to Jerusalem”. Curiously, although the names of dignitaries may
differ, comparing the New Testament accounts with Josephus’ accounts of the
mid-40s to early 50s in several respects appears to be more productive than a
comparison with his accounts of the 30s: It is in this later period, not the
30s, that Josephus describes the activity and crucifixion of robbers (absent
between 6 and 44 C.E.), a conflict between Samaritans and Jews, two co-reigning
high priests, a procurator killing Galileans, an attack on someone named
Stephanos outside Jerusalem, and at least ten more seemingly parallel events.
Importantly, these are parallels that, judging by Josephus, appear to be absent
in the 30s. The significance of this will be discussed.
[End of quote]
In
a reply to Lena Einhorn, I wrote in part:
....
As I suspected, there is much of interest to be found in your intriguing
article, “Jesus and the Egyptian Prophet”.
One
point that jumped to mind when reading of your discussion of the arrest of
Jesus involving a battle, and a ‘speira’ of some 500-1000 soldiers, is that
poor old Razis of 2 Maccabees, who wasn’t then part of a battle, had 500
soldiers sent to arrest him by Nicanor (14:39-40): “Wanting to show clearly how
much he disliked the Jews, Nicanor sent more than 500 soldiers to arrest Razis,
because he thought his arrest would be a crippling blow to the Jews”.
A
show of force rather than a battle.
Razis
is, in my historical reconstruction, the great Ezra (Ezras = Razes), a ‘Father
of the Jews’, the same approximate appellation given to Razis. See my article,
“Death of Ezra the Scribe”: https://www.academia.edu/36736367/Death_of_Ezra_the_Scribe
No comments:
Post a Comment