Add new comment

I find this an intriguing historical perspective, but I still have my doubts.

It’s likely that disaffected priests, disgusted with the corruption of the temple, became obedient to the faith. Fitzmyer notes that the original nucleus of the Qumran community were priestly families, who were critical of the “last priests of Jerusalem, who amass money and wealth by plundering the people” (1QpHab 9:4).

There may be an anti-militancy note in Jesus’ teaching—the story of the seven evil spirits, for example. But Jesus’ criticism is directed pretty much entirely against the scribes, elders, Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians. Violent zealotry emerged at a later time, didn’t it?

The Galileans slaughtered by Pilate were innocently presenting sacrifices to the priests, not engaging in armed action.

Yes, the Gehenna warnings have the siege of Jerusalem in view, but I don’t think that Jesus has anything to say about the immediate causes of the war.

And what are we to make of Barabbas—a violent insurrectionary who is let off the hook?

In the John 11 passage, there is no suggestion that Rome will destroy the temple and the nation because Jesus was about to lead an armed revolt, only that people will believe in. The link with the resurrection of Lazarus is important. The subversion lies in the fact that resurrection points to a dramatic intervention of God (cf. Dan. 12:1-3), not a violent action. In the Daniel narratives, it is passive rather than active resistance that wins the day.

If there is an allusion to Isaiah 53 in Mark 10:45, then the issue is not the prospect of violent revolt but the suffering of a community that has been punished.

Finally, I would have thought that the general tenor of Jesus’ teaching is that the war was inevitable, not that it would be delayed.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.