Jesus gets abused by his guards.

Mark 14.65, Matthew 26.67-68, Luke 22.63-65, John 18.22-23.

Historically, people have always abused prisioners. They figure there was good reason you were arrested and imprisoned, whether you’d been tried and convicted or not. Heck, maybe you even weren’t guilty of the charges brought against you… but you were in prison because you’d done wrong in some other way, and either the gods or the universe were punishing you for it in this way. Or whatever other justification bullies could come up with for smacking you around.

Our laws have since made prisioner abuse illegal. Not that these laws have stopped anything. Cops and guards will still smack a prisioner around if they don’t respect the law and think they can get away with it. Lynchings used to happen all the time in the United States. Not just during the Jim Crow era, when white terrorists did it to blacks to promote white supremacy, but whenever any angry citizens took the law into their own hands and tarred and feathered, or shot or hung, anybody they saw as troublemakers… or competition. Not for nothing do police body cameras need to stay constantly on. But let me get off that tangent and get to when Jesus was slapped by his guards. Happened during his pre-trial trial:

John 18.22-23 KWL

22Once he says this, one of the bystanding police

gives Jesus a slap, saying,

“This you answer the head priest?”

23Jesus answers him, “If I speak evil, testify about the evil.

If good, why beat me?”

In Mark, Jesus isn’t beaten till after the Judean senate found him guilty, but in both Matthew and Luke the guards didn’t care to wait for any trial; they made up their own minds about him.

Mark 14.65 KWL

Certain people begin to spit on Jesus,

to cover his face and punch him,

to tell him, “Prophesy!

Which underling gave you that punch?”

Matthew 26.67-68 KWL

67Then they spit in Jesus’s face and punch him.

with those slapping him

68saying, “Prophesy to us, ‘Messiah’!

Which of us hit you?”

Luke 22.63-65 KWL

63The men holding Jesus are mocking him,

beating him,

64and covering Jesus’s face,

{punching him in the face,

and} saying, “Prophesy!

Which of us hit you?”

65Many other slanderers

are saying likewise to Jesus.

This behavior offends Christians nowadays, because we know Jesus did nothing wrong. And yet all too often, these very same Christians don’t mind if another prisioner gets roughed up by police or prison guards, because those folks must be guilty, right? They can’t possibly have caught the wrong guy. Can’t possibly be hassling another innocent victim like Jesus. Right?

I’ve heard fellow Christians take perverse glee about convicts experiencing abuse in prision. Even jokes about prison rape, which are way too commonplace considering this is a crime which needs to be exterminated. But these folks love the idea of rough treatment in prison. Serves ’em right, they figure.

But of course violence is not a legal punishment, and doesn’t fit the crime. Somebody incarcerated for a lesser crime, like fraud or theft, can be attacked same as a murderer or rapist. Someone can be assaulted for their race, or because they’re gay, or because they’re mentally ill, or any number of other factors which have nothing to do with why they should be in prison. But even if they are in prison for murder: If that’s a beloved family member of yours, you’re not gonna appreciate those prison-rape jokes. And God forbid there’s some mixup which puts you in a holding cell with some angry, rapey thugs.

To hear these jokesters talk, if it were up to them we’d go right back to the bad old days of beating confessions out of suspects. And they claim to be Christian! So how is it Jesus’s experience at the hands of his accusers, haven’t made ’em realize “innocent till proven guilty” is always the way to treat suspects?

Well, lots of reasons. But most of them have their origin in gracelessness.

Judas Iscariot turns Jesus in.

Mark 14.42-46, Matthew 26.46-50,
Luke 22.47-48, John 18.1-3.

In St. John Paul’s list of stations of the cross, the second station combines Judas Iscariot’s betrayal and Jesus the Nazrene’s arrest. ’Cause they happened simultaneously—they, and Simon Peter slashing one of the head priest’s slaves. There’s a lot to unpack there, which is why I want to look at them separately. Getting betrayed and getting arrested, fr’instance: That’s two different kinds of suffering. Psychological and physical.

Right after Jesus prayed in Gethsemane (the first station), this happened:

Mark 14.42-46 KWL

42“Get up so we can go:

Here comes the one who turns me in.”

43Next, while Jesus is still speaking,

Judas Iscariot approaches the Twelve.

With him, a crowd with machetes and sticks,

coming from the head priests, scribes, and elders.

44The one who turns Jesus in

had given the crowd a signal,

saying, “Whomever I might show affection to, is him.

Grab him and take him away carefully.”

45Next, coming to Jesus, he tells him, “Rabbi!”

and kisses him hello.

46So the crowd lays their hands on Jesus

and arrests him.

Matthew 26.46-50 KWL

46Get up so we can go:

Here comes the one who sold me out.”

47While Jesus is still speaking, look:

Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, comes.

With him is a great crowd with machetes and sticks,

coming from the head priests, elders, and people.

48The one who turns Jesus in gives them a sign,

saying, “Whomever I might show affection to, is him. Grab him.”

49Immediately coming to Jesus, he says, “Hello, rabbi!”

and kisses him hello.

50Jesus tells Judas, “Brother, why have you come?”

Then the approaching mob throws their hands on Jesus

and seizes him.

Luke 22.47-48 KWL

47While Jesus is still speaking, look: A crowd.

And the one called Judas, one of the Twelve, leading them.

He goes to Jesus to kiss him hello,

48and Jesus tells him, “Judas,

to kiss the Son of Man,

you turn him in.”

John 18.1-3 KWL

1When Jesus says this,

he with his students go over the Kidron ravine,

where there’s a garden.

He and his students enter it.

2 Judas Iscariot, who was turning him in,

knew of the place,

because Jesus often gathers with his students there.

3 So Judas, bringing 200 men,

plus servants of the head priests and Pharisees,

comes there with torches, lamps, and arms.

Could’ve called down the angels.

Matthew 26.52-54.

When Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane on the morning of 3 April 33, the knee-jerk response of his students, same as every human, is fight or flight. Some fled; some fought.

And it was really stupid of them to fight. You realize Jesus’s Twelve (minus Judas Iscariot of course) consisted of 11 teenagers with no self-defense training, opposing the temple police accompanied by a mob. Definitely outnumbered. But you know there’s always gonna be a faction of true believers who think, “Numbers don’t matter! Gideon routed the Midianite and Amalekite armies with only 300 men. Jg 7 Samson personally slaughtered a thousand people with a jawbone. Jg 15.16 God can likewise supernaturally empower me to fight any number of people.”

Okay yes, God can do and empower anything he wants. But does he want to empower us to singlehandedly fight a mob? Did he state anything in advance about this sort of thing, like he’d said to Gideon and Samson? Or have we arrogantly presumed our cause is righteous, and right makes might?—because unless God intervenes, it really doesn’t, and if God hasn’t foresaid he’s gonna intervene, likely he won’t.

Had God foresaid he’d intervene in Jesus’s arrest? Or had Jesus said just the opposite, multiple times, Mk 8.31, 10.32-34 and the students were in denial? That second one. Jesus didn’t say, “We’ll go to Jerusalem and we’ll be just fine.” God hadn’t told anyone, “A mob will appear, but fight them and you’ll win.” Jesus warned them: He’s getting arrested. There’ll be no supernatural defeat of any mob. Neither Jesus’s kids will hold them back, nor 10,000 angels pouring from the black sky to smite every sinner on the ground. Jesus won’t fight back. He’s gonna surrender. On purpose.

And in so doing win, and win big.

But Christians still don’t understand this strategy. We still keep adopting the tactic to fight back hard.

Although the whole angels-pouring-from-the-sky idea? It actually was an option. And now I’ll quote that passage. It happens right after a violent follower lops off the ear of the head priest‘s slave. Matthew never identifies the guy (John does), nor points out Jesus immediately cured him (Luke does), but only records Jesus’s rebuke.

Matthew 26.52-54 KWL

52Then Jesus tells him, “Put your¹ machete back in its place!

For everyone who chooses arms

will be destroyed by arms.

53Or do you¹ think I can’t call out to my Father,

and he will give me, right now,

more than 12 legions of angels?

54But then how might the scriptures be fulfilled?

So this has to happen.”

I wanna zero in on this Matthew statement because it reminds us how utterly in control Jesus is: At any point of Good Friday he could’ve stopped it. Any point.

Simon Peter’s machete.

Mark 14.47, Matthew 26.51-54, Luke 22.49-51, John 18.10-11.

When I translate the gospels, there’s a word, μάχαιρα/mákhera, which people tend to translate “sword” or “short sword” or “dagger.” Which is actually no such thing; it’s a long heavy single-bladed work knife. It’s a machete. So I translate it “machete.”

And I’ve gotten complaints about this: “He wasn’t wielding a machete!” Yes he was. You just prefer to think of it as a sword. You’ve seen art and movies where people are carrying swords or daggers, not work knives; you prefer to imagine people were using proper weapons of war instead of any tools they happened to own. Even though it’s far more realistic they’d use tools, instead of spending a bunch of denarii they didn’t have on fancy swords with scrollwork and macho-sounding names. And this has always been true. Farmers dragged off to war wouldn’t have proper weapons, so they’d bring their sharpest farm implements. Spontaneous rioters didn’t have a cache of swords, so they’d bring pitchforks and torches. They’d get mowed down by soldiers with swords, battleaxes, and spears, and later rifles. But they’d defend themselves—pitifully—as best they could with what they actually had.

When Jesus was arrested, his students had machetes on them. And one overeager kid whipped it out and started to use it on the mob who’d come to get Jesus.

Mark 14.47 KWL

One of the bystanders, pulling out a machete,

strikes the head priest’s slave, and cuts his ear off.

It’s often said the Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark, the nephew of Barnabas Cl 4.10 whom Paul initially refused to work with Ac 15.37-40 but later called useful. 2Ti 4.11 Tradition has it Mark became a student of Simon Peter, and Peter was the source for his gospel… and if that’s so, it kinda looks like Peter lied to Mark and got him to think this was some bystander, not him. But it’s more likely Peter simply didn’t tell Mark this part of the story, and Mark had to source it from someone else who didn’t know this was Peter.

How do we know it’s Peter? ’Cause Peter’s fellow student John outed him.

John 18.10-11 KWL

10Simon Peter, having a machete, draws it

and strikes the head priest’s slave.

He slices off his right ear.

The slave’s name was Malchus.

11So Jesus tells Peter, “Sheath your¹ machete.

This is the cup the Father gave me.

Shouldn’t I drink it?”

John identifies, and possibly knew, the slave; Malchus is a Romanized form of the Hebrew name מֶלֶךְ/Melékh. John wrote his gospel to fill in the blanks in Luke, and Luke’s gospel is the only one which says Jesus cured poor Malchus right after his ear was lopped off.

Luke 22.49-51 KWL

49Seeing what those round them intend to do,

the students say, “Master, should we strike with a machete?”

50One hit a certain one of them—the head priest’s slave—

and cuts his right ear off.

51In response Jesus says, “That’s enough!”

and touching the ear, Jesus cures him.

And lastly let’s see Matthew, in which Jesus rebukes Peter with his famous line “He who lives by the machete shall die by the machete.” Okay, I realize that’s not how you remember the saying, and I swapped “machete” out with “arms” because I’m quite sure Jesus wasn’t referring to any specific weapon. He who lives by the gun will die by the gun; he who lives by biological warfare will die by biological warfare; he who smites one way will be smitten the same way. Same general idea.

Matthew 26.51-54 KWL

51Look, one of those with Jesus stretches out his hand,

draws his machete,

and striking the head priest’s slave,

cuts off his ear.

52Then Jesus tells him, “Put your¹ machete back in its place!

For everyone who chooses arms

will be destroyed by arms.

53Or do you¹ think I can’t call out to my Father,

and he will give me, right now,

more than 12 legions of angels?

54But then how might the scriptures be fulfilled?

So this has to happen.”

This story is part of the stations of the cross, ’cause it happens during Jesus’s betrayal and arrest.

Jesus’s arrest, and his abuse begins.

Mark 14.45-52, Matthew 26.50-56, Luke 22.49-54, John 18.4-12.

The second station, in John Paul’s list of stations of the cross, is where Judas betrayed Jesus and Jesus was arrested. Same station for both. But different forms of suffering: Judas was about when your friends or confidants turn on you, and the rest was about the pain and dread people feel when their enemies have ’em right where they want ’em.

Let’s go to the gospels.

Mark 14.45-52 KWL

45Immediately going to Jesus,

Judas tells him, “Rabbi!” and kisses him hello.

46So the mob grabs and arrests Jesus.

47One of the bystanders, pulling out a machete,

strikes the head priest’s slave, and cuts his ear off.

48In reply, Jesus tells them, “You come out with machetes and sticks

to snatch me away, like I’m an insurgent.

49Daytime, I was with you in the temple, teaching.

You didn’t arrest me then.

But this—it’ll fulfill the scriptures.”

50Abandoning Jesus, everyone flees.

51There was some teenager following Jesus

who was naked, wearing a toga.

They seize him,

52but he abandons his toga and flees naked.

Matthew 26.50-56 KWL

50Jesus tells Judas, “Brother, why have you come?”

Then the approaching mob throws their hands on Jesus

and seizes him.

51Look, one of those with Jesus stretches out his hand,

draws his machete,

and, striking the head priest’s slave,

cuts off his ear.

52Then Jesus tells him, “Put your machete back in its place!

For everyone who chooses arms

will be destroyed by arms.

53Or do you think I can’t call out to my Father,

and he will give me, right now,

more than 12 legions of angels?

54Then how might the scriptures be fulfilled?

So this has to happen.”

55At this time, Jesus tells the crowd, “You come out

with machetes and sticks to snatch me away,

like I’m an insurgent.

Daytime, I was sitting in the temple, teaching.

You didn’t arrest me then.

56This is all happening so the prophets’ writings can be fulfilled.”

Then all the students abandon Jesus and run.

Luke 22.49-54 KWL

49Seeing what those round them intend to do,

the students say, “Master, should we strike with a machete?”

50One hit a certain one of them—the head priest’s slave—

and cuts his right ear off.

51In response Jesus says, “That’s enough!”

and touching the ear, Jesus cures him.

52Jesus tells those who come for him—

head priests, temple guards, and elders—

“You come out with machetes and sticks

like I’m an insurgent.

53Daytime, I was with you in the temple.

You didn’t grab me then.

But this is your hour—

the power of darkness.”

54They arrest Jesus, lead him away,

and bring him to the head priest’s house.

Simon Peter is following at a distance.

John 18.4-12 KWL

4So Jesus, who already knew everything coming upon him,

comes forth and tells them, “Whom are you looking for?”

5They answer him, “Jesus the Nazarene.”

Jesus tells them, “I’m him.”

Judas his betrayer had been standing with them.

6So when Jesus tells them, “I’m him,”

they move backward and fall to the ground.

7So again Jesus asks them, “Whom are you looking for?”

They say, “Jesus the Nazarene.”

8Jesus answers, “I tell you I’m him,

so if it’s me you look for,

leave these others alone to go away,”

9so he might fulfill the word which he says, namely this:

“I’ve not lost anyone whom you’ve given me.” Jn 17.12

10Simon Peter, having a machete, draws it

and strikes the head priest’s slave.

He slices off his right ear.

The slave’s name was Malchus.

11So Jesus tells Peter, “Sheath your machete.

This is the cup the Father gave me.

Shouldn’t I drink it?”

12 So the 200 men, the general, and the Judean servants

arrest Jesus and tie him up.

Jesus prays at Gethsemane, in 𝘔𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘸.

Matthew 26.26-46.

The synoptic gospels all tell of Jesus praying in Gethsemane, a privately-owned olive garden on Mt. Olivet. Its name in Syriac is ܓ݁ܶܕ݁ܣܺܡܰܢ/Gad Smáni, which likely comes from the Hebrew גַּת שֶׁמֶן/gat šemén, “oil press.” John says they liked to hang out there, Jn 18.2 and Luke says it’s where they usually went. Lk 22.39 I already wrote of the Mark version of the story; now for the Matthew version.

Matthew 26.36-46 KWL

36Then Jesus comes with his students

to a private property called Gad Smáni/“oil press.”

He tells the students, “Sit here while I go there and pray.”

37Taking Simon Peter and Zebedee’s two sons,

Jesus begins to be distressed and troubled.

38Jesus tells his students, “My soul is intensely sad,

to the point of death.

Stay here and stay awake with me.”

39Going a little further,

Jesus falls on his face,

praying and saying, “My Father!

If it’s possible, make this cup pass by me!

Only not what I will,

but what you¹ will.”

40Jesus comes to the students

and finds them sleeping.

He tells Peter, “So you’re² not strong enough

to be awake one hour with me.

41Stay awake and pray!—

lest you² come to temptation.

You have a truly eager spirit—

and weak flesh.”

42Going away again a second time,

Jesus prays, saying, “My Father!

If this {cup} can’t pass by {me} unless I drink it—

your¹ will be done.”

43Coming back again, Jesus finds his students sleeping,

for their eyes are very heavy.

44Leaving the students again, going away,

Jesus prays a third time,

saying the same word again.

45Then Jesus comes to the students

and tells them, “Sleep the rest of the time.

Get your² rest.

…Look, the hour came near,

and the Son of Man is betrayed into sinners’ hands.

46Get up; we should go.

Look, my betrayer came near.”

Mark also says Jesus went off by himself to pray thrice—saying the same thing each time Mk 14.39 —but lest you get the idea Jesus is praying the exact same prayer each time, Matthew records two of the prayers. Both prayers have the very same theme—I don’t wanna, but your will be done—but they’re not the very same words. Same theme, different words. And when Matthew says Jesus prayed the same thing the third time, he notably says Jesus is saying the same λόγον/lóyon, “word,” again. Not “words,” as the KJV translates it; it’s singular, because it means message, not literally word. Same idea. Same prayer.

And same as Mark, the kids had fallen asleep while Jesus prayed. Preachers like to joke somebody must’ve stayed awake to recall what Jesus said… and if that’s so, y’notice they don’t record Jesus’s third prayer, because all of them were dead asleep by then. But no, nobody had to stay awake to take dictation. At some point later, one of the kids probably asked Jesus, “So what’d you pray in the garden?” and he told them. Jesus was more than capable of filling in the blanks in his own story, y’know.

Jesus accused with false testimonies.

Mark 14.55-59, Matthew 26.59-61,
Luke 22.66, John 2.18-22.

All my life I’ve heard preachers claim Jesus’s trial wasn’t just irregular, but downright illegal. What basis do they have for saying so? Next to none.

It’s because they interpret history wrong. They point to rulings in the second-century Mishna and the fifth-century Talmud. They assume the first-century Jewish senate actually followed these rulings. They’d be entirely wrong. The Mishna consists of Pharisee rulings and traditions. The Talmud is a Pharisee commentary on the Mishna. Now, who ran the senate in Jesus’s day? The head priests… who were Sadduccees. And the Sadducees believed Pharisee teachings were extrabiblical, which they were; and therefore irrelevant.

So when the Mishna declares trials shouldn’t take place at night (although Luke actually says it took place during daytime Lk 22.66), and declares there shouldn’t be same-day rulings, preachers nowadays declare, “Aha! This proves Jesus’s trial was illegal!” Just the opposite: It proves Sadducees did such things. The Pharisee rulings were created because they objected to the way Sadducees ran things. They were meant to correct what they considered Sadducee injustice. But Sadducee injustice was still legal.

Jesus’s trial convicted an innocent man, so of course we’re gonna agree with Pharisee teachings which claim this was an improper trial. But the teachings are from the wrong time and the wrong people. They don’t apply, much as we’d like ’em to. The Sadducees followed their own procedure properly.

Procedure is still no guarantee there won’t be miscarriages of justice just the same.

Well anyway. On to Jesus’s trial.

Luke 22.66 KWL

Once it becomes day, the people’s elders gathered

with the head priests and scribes,

and they lead Jesus into their senate.

Within the temple structure, on the western side, the Judean συνέδριον/synédrion, “senate” (KJV “council,” CSB “Sanhedrin”) met in a stone hall arranged much like the Roman senate: Stone bleachers were arranged in a half-circle so they could all face a throne. In Rome the emperor sat on it. In Jerusalem, the head priest.

For a trial, the Pharisees dictated two scribes should write everything down, though there’s no evidence the Sadducees did any such thing. Scribes and students sat on the floor. Plaintiffs and defendants stood. The Pharisees declared the defendant oughta go first, but in all the trials in Acts, it looks like the reverse happened. Ac 4.5-12, 5.27-32, etc. Either way Jesus didn’t care to say anything, so his accusers went first. And they committed perjury. Yeah, perjury was banned in the Ten Commandments. Dt 5.20 Well, perjurers still show up in court anyway.

Simon Peter denounces Jesus.

Mark 14.66-72, Matthew 26.69-75, Luke 22.54-62, John 18.15-18, 25-27.

After dinner earlier that night, Jesus told his students they weren’t gonna follow him much longer; they’d scatter. At this point Jesus’s best student, Simon Peter, got up and foolhardily claimed this prediction didn’t apply to him.

Mark 14.29-31 KWL

29 Simon Peter told him, “If everyone else will get tripped up, it won’t include me.”

30 Jesus told him, “Amen, I promise you today, this night,

before the rooster crows twice, you’ll renounce me thrice.”

31 Peter said emphatically, “Even if I have to die for you,

I will never renounce you.” Everyone else said likewise.

And y’know, Peter wasn’t kidding. I’ve heard way too many sermons which mock Peter for this, who claim he was all talk. Thing is, he really wasn’t. When Jesus was arrested, Peter was packing a machete, and used it. Slashed a guy’s ear clean off. You don’t start swinging a work knife at a mob unless you’re willing to risk life and limb. Peter really was ready to fight to the death for Jesus.

But Jesus’s response was to cure the guy, then rebuke Peter: Jesus could stop his arrest at any time, but chose not to. Having a weapon was only gonna get Peter killed. Peter thought he was following God’s will, but he was in fact tripping up. And Jesus did say his students σκανδαλισθήσεσθε/skandalisthísesthe, “would be tripped up,” by the later events of that day. Despite his repeated warnings he was gonna die, his students kept expecting the Pharisee version of the End Times to unfold, where Messiah would destroy the Romans and take his throne… and instead Messiah got killed by the Romans.

This sort of turn of events would knock the zeal right out of anyone. Y’know how Peter later would up saying he didn’t know Jesus? At the time, he kinda didn’t. Thought he did; totally got him wrong. We all do, sometimes.

See, Peter was having a crisis of faith. Every Christian, if they’re truly following Jesus, is gonna have a point in our lives where we have to get rid of our immature misunderstandings about Jesus. And some of us fight tooth ’n nail to keep those misunderstandings. Even enshrine ’em. But in so doing, it means we’re not gonna grow in Christ any further. The Holy Spirit is trying to get us over that stumbling block, but we insist it’s not a block; it’s a wall.

To his credit, Peter didn’t scatter. He followed the mob, who took Jesus to the former head priest’s house, where Jesus had his unofficial trial before the proper trial before the Judean senate.

John 18.15-18 KWL

15 Simon Peter and another student followed Jesus.

That student was known by the head priest.

He went in, with Jesus, to the head priest’s courtyard.

16 Peter stood at the door outside.

So the other student, known to the head priest, came out and spoke to the doorman, who brought Peter in.

17 The doorman, a slavewoman, told Peter, “Aren’t you also one of this person’s students?”

Peter said, “I’m not.”

18 The slaves and servants stationed there had made a charcoal fire; it was cold.

They warmed themselves. Peter was also with them, standing and warming.

This’d be the first denial. But Jesus didn’t just say Peter would deny him, or pretend he didn’t know him, or pretend he didn’t follow him. Peter ἀπαρνήσῃ/aparnísi, “will entirely reject,” will renounce, his Lord. Mk 14.30 It’s not a white lie so he could merely stay out of trouble; Peter went overboard and publicly quit Jesus. Really.

Good thing he could take it back. As can we. But, y’know, don’t quit him, okay?

Christianism.

CHRISTIANISM 'krɪs.tʃən.ɪz.əm noun. A socially-approved worldview and belief system which claims to be Christian, but is not taught by Christ Jesus.

[Christianist 'krɪs.tʃən.ɪst adjective.]

I use the word Christianist an awful lot in this blog. Lemme ’splain why.

There are Christians who try to follow Christ Jesus. We don’t always succeed, but we try, which is the important thing. I write this blog to encourage such people to keep trying, same as I keep trying.

Then there are people who don’t try. At all. Instead they take whatever they’re doing, slap a Christian label on it, and claim it’s legitimately Christian. Often they do this out of pure hypocrisy; they know they’re not really following Jesus, but they want everyone to think they are.

But thanks to generations of such hypocrites, thanks to entire institutions and churches where depraved human behavior has been repackaged with Christian terms, we now have multiple generations of people who think this is Christianity: This is how Christians think, or oughta think. This is what Christians do, or oughta do. This is what Jesus approves of.

Every other Christian they know, thinks and acts this way. And if everybody’s doing it, must be Christian, right?

Okay. Y’know how there are two words, Muslim and Islamist? One means a person who actually practices Islam. The other describes a person who uses Muslim trappings to promote their social or political ideas. Well this is the Christian variant: Christian for legit Christ-followers, and Christianist for people who borrow the trappings of the religion, but Christ himself and his fruit are optional.

The header image for my Christianism essays is taken from Mormon artist Jon McNaughton’s painting “One Nation Under God.” It shows us one really common example of Christianism in the United States: Civic idolatry, in which we confuse our nation and its ideals with God’s kingdom. Much as we’d like to imagine the United States is an outpost of the kingdom, it’s not, y’know. Jesus is gonna overthrow it, same as every other nation, when he returns. And a lot of Americans have never even considered this idea. We’re a Christian nation, they insist. He’d never. But he totally will.

If you’re a civic idolater, you’re gonna be hugely offended that I used this image, or call it Christianist. Cease-and-desist order forthcoming.

But imagine McNaughton was from Mexico. Imagine he painted something with all Mexico’s founding leaders in the painting. reverently calling the nation to turn to Jesus, with Jesus holding up Mexico’s constitution, and separating the sheep from the goats by how good they were as Mexican citizens. Wouldn’t it bug you just a little?

How about if NcNaughton were Russian? Saudi? North Korean? Civic idolaters unthinkingly assume these other countries aren’t God’s chosen people in the same way Americans are. Jesus’ll definitely overthrow those countries when he returns. But not ours. Never America.

“Just war”: Vengeance disguised as righteousness.

Humans like to take revenge.

Watch two kids on the playground. One will smack the other, entirely by accident. (That’s what they claim, anyway.) The other kid will immediately want to retaliate. And not in some equitable blow-for-blow response, either. They’ll wanna beat the living tar out of the other kid.

That’s not a learned behavior. Just the opposite: It’s instinct. It’s our self-preservation instinct, but warped by human depravity till we defend ourselves from future harm by preemptively destroying anything or anyone who might harm us. Kids have to be trained to not retaliate like this.

A good parent is gonna teach their kids to forgive. (It was unintentional, after all.) Even selfish parents won’t necessarily demand a reciprocal response. Although the dumber ones might: “She hit you? Hit her back!” But this behavior will backfire: Kids’ll do as comes naturally, and hit back harder. And then the first kid hits back even harder. And things escalate from there.

I know; from time to time someone will insist revenge isn’t part of human nature; that left to their own devices children will be naturally peaceful and good. Clearly they don’t have children. Nor do they remember they were conditioned to forgive and let live, rather than respond in vengeance and wrath. True, some kids are passive, some are cowards, and some are much easier to train than others. But that doesn’t mean we don’t all need such training. We humans aren’t peaceful creatures.

Take these playground disagreements to an adult level, to a national level, and we wind up with war.

One nation harms or offends a second nation. The second nation will wanna retaliate. I was gonna say “understandably,” because we all understand they would; we would. And the wronged nation won’t wanna respond proportionally: They wanna respond punitively. They wanna hurt the nation which hurt them. Make ’em suffer—or at least fear to ever attack again. Karma goes right out the window.

But we’ll call it “justice.” That’s the Christianese term for vengeance. Actual justice is about doing what’s just—what’s equitable, what’s fair, what’s morally right. You know, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, limb for limb. Ex 21.24 What westerners mean by karma. But when American Christians say “justice” we are, once again, talking about a punitive response. It doesn’t match the crime; it exceeds it because we feel the perpetrator should suffer loss. Steal $100 and you should have to pay back $150, with the extra $50 teaching you to never do that again. Even if you accidentally, unintentionally took the $100: You should’ve been more conscientious.

Since the people of the United States predominantly claim to be Christian, this mindset of “justice” is immediately gonna slam into a little something Jesus taught about war:

Matthew 5.9 KWL

“Those making peace: How awesome!—they’ll be called God’s children.”

Wait, Jesus expects God’s kids to make peace?

Well of course. Because that’s how you actually stop a war. Not by destroying your opponent, but by befriending your opponent. Not with vengeance but forgiveness. It’s how God acts towards his kids. He could easily flatten us. But he’d rather adopt us.

The problem with Jesus’s teaching? It violates our sense of vengeance. It interferes with our desire to destroy our enemies. It strikes us as impractical: “But how’s that gonna stop them from still doing evil?” We don’t like it, so we find excuses to never do it—same as every other teaching of Jesus.

Jesus sentenced to death by the senate.

Mark 14.61-64 • Matthew 26.63-66 • Luke 22.67-71

I’m discussing the three synoptic gospels because if you read John, the way it’s worded makes it sorta look like Jesus didn’t even have a trial before the Judean Senate. First Jesus went to the former head priest Annas’s house, Jn 18.13, 19-23 then he went to the current head priest Caiaphas’s house, Jn 18.24, 28 then he went to Pilate’s headquarters Jn 18.28 with the death penalty already in mind. Now, it may have been that in between stops at Caiaphas’s house they went to trial, but John neither says nor suggests so. John was probably written to fill in some blanks in Jesus’s story, but every once in a while like this, it creates whole new blanks.

Anyway, back to the synoptics. My previous piece was about Jesus testifying about himself. Today it’s what Jesus was guilty of, and why they sentenced him to death.

Mark 14.61-64 KWL 61B Again, the head priest questioned him, telling him, “You’re Messiah, the ‘son of the Blessed’?” 62 Jesus said, “I am. You’ll see the Son of Man— seating himself at the right of God’s power, coming with heaven’s clouds.” 63 Tearing his tunic, the head priest said, “Who still needs to have witnesses? 64 You heard the slander. How’s it look to you?” Everyone sentenced Jesus guilty, and to be put to death.

Matthew 26.63-66 KWL 63B The head priest told him, “I put you under oath to the living God so you’d tell us: Are you Messiah, the ‘son of God’?” 64 Jesus said, “As you say, but I tell you: From this moment you’ll see the Son of Man— seating himself at the right of God’s power, coming with heaven’s clouds.” 65 Then the head priest ripped his robe, saying, “Jesus slandered God.” Who still needs to have witnesses? Now look! You heard the slander. 66 What do you think?” In reply they said, “Jesus is guilty and deserves death.”

Luke 22.67-71 KWL 67B They were saying, “If you’re Messiah, tell us.” Jesus told them, “When I told you, you wouldn’t believe. 68 When I questioned you, you wouldn’t answer. 69 From now on, the Son of Man will be seating himself at the right of God’s power.” 70 Everyone said, “So you’re the ‘son of God’?” Jesus declared, “I’m as you say.” 71 They said, “Why do we still need to have witnesses?— We heard it ourselves from Jesus’s lips.”

As Mark and Matthew make obvious, Caiaphas was absolutely sure the whole room just heard Jesus commit slander. Mk 14.64, Mt 26.65 Luke only indicates the stuff Jesus said was illegal in some way. Lk 22.71

Problem is, whenever I tell this story to Christians, the idea of what Jesus might’ve done wrong goes right over their heads. They figure, as we do, that Jesus never did anything wrong. Never sinned. 2Co 5.21, He 4.15, 1Pe 2.22, 1Jn 3.5 Therefore any verdict which convicted Jesus of sin was wrong. Which is absolutely right. But they think the wrong verdict wasn’t because the Judeans had misinterpreted the Law, or misunderstood who Jesus was: They think this was a kangaroo court, trying to get Jesus by hook or by crook—by legal trickery, or by breaking the Law themselves. And many a preacher claims exactly that: The priests broke all the Talmud’s rules about how courts were to be held… and never mind the fact the Talmud wouldn’t yet be written for centuries. Really, they’ll accept any evidence this was a sham trial.

But other times it’s because Christians believe the Judean Senate was the old dispensation, and Jesus is the new dispensation, so they were trying him by an out-of-date Law. As dispensationalists they believe Jesus broke the Law all the time. On Sabbath, fr’instance. But thanks to the new dispensation, these acts of willful defiance towards God’s Law no longer counted. Freedom in Christ, baby!—Jesus could’ve straight-up murdered and robbed people had he chose (although they’ve got various explanations why the Ten Commandments, despite being the very heart of the old covenant, still apply somehow). The Senate weren’t aware God was no longer saving them under the old rules anymore, and executed Jesus anyway.

Fact is, Jesus’s trial was perfectly legal under existing law. They got him on slander. Had it been any other person in the universe who said what Jesus did, it totally would be slander. Had the Senate believed Jesus is as he says, they’d have correctly set him free. They didn’t, so they didn’t. So it was a miscarriage of justice. Wrong verdict.

Jesus testifies about (or against) himself.

Mark 14.60-64 • Matthew 26.62-66 • Luke 22.67-71

Messiah means king.

Christians forget this, because to us, Messiah means Jesus. So when the ancient Judeans wanted to know if Jesus was Messiah, to our minds their question was, “Are you the guy the Prophets said was coming to save the world and take us to heaven?” and there are so many things wrong with that statement. One of ’em being that’s not what anybody in the first century meant.

If you know your American (or British) history, you’ll remember a tory is someone who prefers the status quo, and a whig is someone who really doesn’t. (I’m not gonna use “liberal” and “conservative,” ’cause the United States is such a mess, everybody’s a whig.) Regardless of how you like or hate the status quo, “Messiah” means one of two things:

Tory: You’re a traitor. ’Cause the Romans and Judean senate are in charge, and you’re here to overthrow ’em, and we can’t have that.

Whig: You’re a revolutionary. (So… whom do you want us to kill? Lk 22.49)

This is why Jesus, though he totally admitted he’s Messiah, didn’t just stupidly walk around Israel telling everybody he was their king. Instead he told ’em what his kingdom looks like. Tories may still hate and fear it, and whigs may (and do) entirely disagree with Jesus about the sort of fixes to make on society. But if they really listen to Jesus’s teachings about the kingdom, they’ll know what Jesus means by “Messiah”—as opposed to what popular culture, including Christian popular culture, claims.

To Joseph Caiaphas, the tory head priest who ran the Judean senate in the year 33, it didn’t matter what Jesus taught about his kingdom. Caiaphas’s whole deal was if Jesus in any way claimed to be king, that was treason. Only the Romans could appoint a king—and in the absence of a king, the title functionally fell to Rome’s emperor, Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti filius Augustus. Jn 19.15 Appointing yourself king without Caesar’s authorization: Big big trouble. Jn 19.12 Which is precisely what Caiaphas wanted Jesus to get himself into. The Romans would kill him for it, and no more Jesus problem.

So after a couple hours of a shambles of a prosecution, Caiaphas put a stop to all that and got to brass tacks.

The poor you will always have with you. So screw ’em.

Matthew 26.11.

It’s kinda obvious when people quote the following verse out of context: They always drop the second part of the sentence. ’Cause the context is found in that part.

Matthew 26.11 KJV

For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Although I have often heard plenty of Christianists quote this verse in its entirety, just to make it look like they’re quoting it in context… then quickly say, “And the part I wanna focus on are those words ‘Ye have the poor always with you,’ and never mention the other clause again. It’ll only get in their way.

The point they wanna make with it? They wanna justify doing nothing for the poor.

Because there are poor people in the world. Somebody wants to help them. Give to them. Create jobs for them. Create charities to help them. Create social programs to take care of them. Enlist their aid, whether through private donations or tax dollars… and they don’t wanna help.

Now how does a Christian, the recipient of God’s infinite grace, who’s been warned by Jesus to not be stingy towards others because of how much grace we’ve been given, Mt 18.21-35 justify refusing the needy? Simple: This out-of-context verse. “Jesus said, ‘Ye have the poor always with you.’ This means we’re never gonna successfully get rid of poverty. There are always gonna be needy people. It’s a fool’s errand to fight it. Do you believe Jesus or don’t you?”

Oho, so it’s a matter of whether we believe Jesus, is it?

As if Jesus’s words were meant to condemn the poor to stay in their caste and never leave it. Because wealth must be some kind of signifier as to whether God deems them worthy, deserving, or righteous. Some lazy people sorta need to stuffer from poverty. Hence they’ve been perpetually condemned with it. And don’t you do anything for ’em. They gotta learn to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps; you’ll teach ’em to be dependent on you and they’ll never stop begging you for help; they’ll interpret your generosity as weakness and take you for granted; they’ll drain the fruits of your labor and give nothing back, like parasites. “If you give a mouse a cookie” and all that.

I don’t need to go on. You can get more of that hateful thinking from any Ayn Rand novel. Certainly not from Christ Jesus.