With this latest bumper sticker slogan, Jesus of Nazareth’s influence on the secular world has expanded beyond “What would Jesus do?” But with this more specific bromide, we are now able to analyze the sentiment…
First of all, correct grammar would render it “WHOM would Jesus bomb?” I only mention this because the Leftie peace freak types who would proffer such a question are endlessly telling us how smart and educated they are, and how dumb our side is. Then again, that was before the recent incredibly inept attempts at forgery of anti-Bush memos, and their quick acceptance by Dan Rather.
How should we interpret “bomb”? There were no explosives until the introduction of black powder in the 10th century AD, and no documented military use of explosives until the 13th century, but we are asked to determine how a 1st century figure would use these devices. The obvious implication being that Jesus would never do anything violent, or even threaten or advocate such a thing, and, indeed, opposes anything military.
However, these notions simply betray astonishing arrogance whereby lack of knowledge, to say nothing of lack of faith, is no obstacle for any fool to re-invent Jesus as some kind of Galilean flower child, in a pathetic attempt to use one of our “weapons” against us. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels would reveal Jesus as a strong man of action, who spends at least one-third of his time calling people names, is nearly always confrontational, urges repentance, and is fearless in taking on the corrupt religious establishment. Some flower child. Besides, flower children don’t tend to get executed in the most horrific manner possible.
Moreover, He is hardly non-violent. What about the Cleansing of the Temple (Matthew 21:12-13)? In John’s version (2:13-19) His use of a whip is clearly described.
As to His eschewing of a violent end to evildoers, what nonsense! In Luke 10:1-12, He notes that the fate of towns that reject his disciples will be worse than what befell Sodom. Similar sentiments apply to Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum in Luke 10:13-16.
As far as His attitude to the military, The Healing of a Centurion’s Slave (Luke 7:1-10) is presented here:
1. When he had finished all his words to the people, he entered Capernaum.
2. A centurion there had a slave who was ill and about to die, and he was valuable to him.
3. When he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and save the life of his slave.
4. They approached Jesus and strongly urged him to come, saying, “He deserves to have you do this for him,
5. for he loves our nation and he built the synagogue for us.”
6. And Jesus went with them, but when he was only a short distance from the house, the centurion sent friends to tell him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof.
7. Therefore, I did not consider myself worthy to come to you; but say the word and let my servant be healed.
8. For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, `Go,’ and he goes; and to another, `Come here,’ and he comes; and to my slave, `Do this,’ and he does it.”
9. When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him and, turning, said to the crowd following him, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”
10. When the messengers returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.
So, a Roman soldier—a Centurion!— has enough faith to amaze Jesus, and is praised also by the Jewish elders. Exactly where is His hatred for the military? Maybe it’s mixed in with those Gospel passages that only exist in the bibles of Leftists. You know— the ones where Jesus defines charity as sending our money to Caesar, so the government can give it to the poor, or the ones where He is indifferent toward abortion and homosexuality.
They ask “Who would Jesus bomb?” The only sensible and honest reply is this: Jesus would bomb any enemy who has failed to repent of its evil, and is threatening His people and His kingdom.