Did Jesus feel responsibility for the death of the innocents?

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

I mean this as an honest question.

Here's my train of thought: my president has engaged in a war that has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians--with my tax dollars. I feel I bear some complicity, whether I voted for him or not. I bear some responsibility if for no other reason than my country of birth.

So I got to thinkin'. How did Jesus respond to the slaughter of the innocents (see Matt. 2.16). I mean, hundreds of male children were slaughtered because He was born. No other reason. Worst of all: He escaped while hundreds were slaughtered in his place. He had to have heard of this event when he got older. Did he experience a "survivor's guilt" about the whole affair? If He did, is this what led him to do the pretty amazing, socially radical things He did? is this why he always took the side of the marginalized, the side of the victims--because others died instead of Him or worse yet, BECAUSE of Him? Wow, his level of repentance, contrition, is pretty freakin' amazing.

Anyway, I was just thinkin'.

[Maestro]

1. Was this because of Jesus?

I am very tired right now, but I think this was Moses not Jesus. Perhaps I am wrong.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

5. You're wrong.

And right. The stories are quite similar--except Egyptian children died because of Pharoah's "hardened heart"--and a little plague sent by God.

See Matthew 2.16 for The Slaughter of the Innocents. Herod put infants to death so the he could be sure to eliminate the "annointed one" (messiah, christos).

[Maestro]

8. Yep, now I remember.

Been a long time since I study that. I forgot about Herod.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

17. Herod's kind of a dick.

He's no Pharoah, but he's still a dick--Cheney perhaps?

[lvx35]

2. Good thoughts!

I think personally Jesus saw it in terms of a bigger tapestry...Like if you look at the Bible and see 'blessed are the peacemakers' and all that, it gives a strong impression that those who suffer unjustly are in for treats after death and those who persecute are in for badness. Jesus would have had to consider it through this lense, because its what he taught. So he didn't like it, but I don't know to what extent it would bother him.

[madeline_con]

3. Is this a rhetorical question?

Wasn't it both Moses and Jesus?

Why was Moses put in the basket to begin with?

[hollowdweller]

25. Also Krishna was hunted as a child same type story. How he met the gopis

That story is kind of an archetypical one probably not true. Jesus was probably born like the rest of us without fanfare. The nativity was probably a later invention meant to compete with the pagans.

[lvx35]

4. Ah yes, this was moses...But the question is valid.

the firstborn kids getting slaughtered or whatever was moses. But I still think the question was valid, I took it to mean whether he suffered a lot over the suffering of others.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

6. Please don't correct me unless you know you're right.

Is this a DU thing? Goodness, it happens all the time here.

See Matthew 2.16.

[lvx35]

9. I didn't correct you.

Somebody else did, and I remembered the story. No need to hone in on the one part of a post that offends you. Its irrelevant. All I wanted to say to you that Jesus's guilt over dead kids would have been tempered by his believe in justice in the afterlife.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

13. Putting out misinformation offends me. Nothing else in your post does.

Your response was a response to my OP. You said it was Moses. Well, it is and it isn't. Your post sounds as if it is correcting the OP.

If you weren't correcting me, then you really need to explain the subject line of your post: "Ah yes, this was moses...But the question is valid."
***This was Moses. But the question is valid." In other words, even if the OP has his biblical stories wrong, we can still investigate its original premise. Well, the the biblical story wasn't wrong. Maybe you didn't intend to imply that it was. You should, perhaps, learn when to use "but" in your sentence constructions. This is a contrastive coordinating conjunction. Your sentence reveals that you actually believed that the slaughter of the innocents was unique to Exodus. BUT it's not.

[lvx35]

29. This is a contrastive coordinating conjunction.

Who cares? Chill out.

[bonito]

7. He accepted all of humanity into himself

And this is what set him free here, there was no other to criticize or defend, but himself, knowing he's oness he realized this. and saw how the divisions among people caused so much pain here.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

10. Yeah, and how does this boilerplate answer get us back to the innocent

infants slaughtered because Herod correctly perceived a religio-political threat coming his way?

Innocent chilren died because God was incarnate, yes?

I'll accept this answer: yes, they did but knew heavenly bliss immediately afterwards. So there, ithinkmyliverhurts. Asswipe.

[bonito]

12. Chill, I wasn't there 2000 years ago

I can only tell you what I know today. through experience. Peace.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

14. Again, I don't know what your answer means.

I'm still not sure what your original answer has to do with my original post. Can you explain? I will chillfully read and respond.

[bonito]

21. Did jesus feel responsible. Yes

for every on of us that pulls a trigger or drops a bomb we all are responsible for it.

[DanCa]

11. What truly amazes me my friend is this.

I wonder if the followers of our good Christian President would change theier views of this war if these were embryos that were getting "killed" daily? It amazes me and breaks my heart that they love a cell cluster more than a human being with a heart, a brain stem, hands, feet, eyes, and a soul.
I cannot answer your questions as I got lots of my own to ask. Have a great week.

[DemBones DemBones]

22. There is no doubt that many

embryos HAVE been killed in Iraq and more will be killed, yet those embryos are not of any importance to certain "pro-lifers."

Some pro-life Christians raised this very issue before the war-- that innocent unborn children would die as well as children, many of them innocent (without sin.)

There was no response from the war supporters who claim to be pro-life.

[DerekG]

15. There is nothing in the narrative that indicates this specific guilt

However, one of the most poignant facets to the Gospel stories is that Jesus was highly receptive to the agony of his brothers and sisters: he wept when faced with Lazarus' bereaved family; in a famous wail, he bemoaned the violence and ignorance of the Hebrew elites; and finally, because he would not abscond from a life of altruism and non-violence, Jesus was nailed to a cross. In one respect, the crucifixion is demonstrative of a bridegroom's unfathomable love (agape) for his suffering beloved, so pronounced that he wished to share her pain. A rather beauteous way to hush, "You need not endure this alone; I love you." In a sense, Good Friday is a love story: not so much the day God suffered for us, but *with* us.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

20. "In a sense, Good Friday is a love story: . . . (hmm, can I cry bullshit?)

not so much the day God suffered for us, but *with* us."

How about "BECAUSE" of us. I don't see no stinkin' martians put Him up on that cross. The local dogs (Salukis, if you were interested) were like, "damn, you humans are fucked up.")

So, if by "with us" you mean, "with us" in the sense that humans suffer BECAUSE of other humans (and not because of God), then I retract my "bullshit" and agree completely.

[DerekG]

27. Please refrain from using "bullshit" as a response to someone's opinion

It's bad form, friend.

Getting to the matter at hand: Since I am a Christian, and believe Jesus to be the human incarnation of God, my understanding of Good Friday is that of a messiah (fully human/fully divine) who chose to be on the receiving end of all the agonies this world has to offer. Christ was murdered yes, but the point is is that this injustice did not diminish the agape he had for friend and enemy. I don't know how you could be so hostile to this romantic, and rather humanistic, interpretation.

And how on earth did you think I was asserting that God(?!?!?!?!) causes suffering? Those responsible for this war are very human: namely, a criminal administration, 50 percent of the "opposition party," and a silent citizenry (including you and yours truly, who are, in fact, obedient tax payers).

[Silverhair]

16. You have to remember what human death is from God's view.

You are looking at death from the human only view. If you look at it from His side, death is NOT final but is simply calling the person to Him for accounting. It is of no greater consequence than moving a person from one room to another, except that they don't get to go back to the first room. Be if they were taken to heaven, then they would not want to go back.

For the grieving families there is the promise that if they are admitted to heaven, then he will wipe away all tears, meaning they will be comforted and reunited with loved ones that have gone before - if they too were admitted to heaven.

If they weren't, then we are still promised that we will be comforted.

So Jesus would have had a total view of the situation, therefore, no guilt.

[DerekG]

23. I must challenge this

I recall reading this story in several biographies of Rev. Martin Luther King; and I apologize that I can not make citations (I am tempted to say "Bearing the Cross" and "From the Mountaintop," but this may be incorrect).

As the Johnson administration was escalating the war in Vietnam, one of Rev. King's colleagues purported to have a religious experience while doing his child's laundry in the basement of his house. He saw the visage of Jesus, who told him (and I'm paraphrasing here): "Those babies in Vietnam are mine, too. What are you doing to protect them?" This man, a significant figure in the civil rights movement, booked a flight to rendezvous with a vacationing King, and begged him to step up his protest against the war.

Now, I'm sure many DUers are skeptical of this story (perhaps thinking this man was either lying or delusional), but I believe the Lord came to this man so that the latter could do his part in ending that genocidal war.

No, I don't believe anyone was put on this earth to die of starvation, or to be assailed by the shrapnel of a cluster bomb.

[Silverhair]

28. What does Vietnam have to do with it?

In any case, all humans die, sooner or later. No one is promised any length of time here, nor are we promised any particular kind of death. God retains the absolute RIGHT to call anyone to appear before him at any time. Murder is evil because it is humanity usurping God a right that is His alone.

The original question was if Jesus was responsible for Herod's slaughter of the children. If you are going to ask that question, then you have to remember that Jesus was a unique case, not to be repeated.

There have been many, many wars in the past 2,000 years. I suppose that Vietnam is a biggie for you, but on the grand scale of things, it hardly even is a blip on the radar. Look at the Mongols or Hitler's holocaust, or Stalin's actions, if you want to talk about some seriously evil dudes.

[DerekG]

30. I presented this story because of your claim

You know, that to God, death "is of no greater consequence than moving a person from one room to another." This story (which could have alluded to any war) serves as a possible rejoinder to this.

Sentimental creature I am, I believe God weeps for the men and women gunned down by our howitzers, for the children who are mutilated by our land mines, for the unborn who are poisoned by our depleted uranium shells, and for the prisoners tortured in our now-notorious complexes.

You'll have to walk that "death is transitory" path without me.


P.S. The Indochina War was hardly a "blip on the radar"--3 million lives were extinguished.

[Silverhair]

31. Death IS a transition. That is the core of Christianity.

Our Faith holds that once we have passed through death we shall meet God face to face and ALL shall be made right.

Yes, God weeps over our barbarity. No question of that. Herod was monster to do what he did. That death is a transition does not excuse him, our any other murderer, in the slightest. And yes, we must do what we can to reduce human suffering here.

Remember what the original question was. That was what I was answering.

And when the wars and slaveries and genocides of the past 2,000 years are looked at, the Indochina wars were just a blip on the radar. They were a foothill beside mountains. But because of your location in history and your personal politics, that particular hill takes up more of your perspective than the mountains do.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

24. "Jesus would have had a total view of the situation, therefore, no guilt."

No.

If you wish to commit yourself to a position of monthyletism, then fine. But you have to separate divine will from human will--the whole theanthropos thing. If Jesus is FULLY God-Man, then he has to be fully God AND man. This mean you can't conflate human and divine will (which include rationality, knowledge, etc.).

Actually, your position was a heresy in the 7th century. It never really resurfaced until the world got a taste of American fundamentalism (though this heresy has maintained a thread from as early as the 4th century).

But why take away Jesus' humanity? Why rob Him of the things He did on His own? If He is the teacher (rabbi) His disciples claim, then why not render that to His human component--to show everyone what HUMANITY if capable of? if you leave it at the divine, then what's my part, really? If I have to depend on the divine for all of my actions, as did Jesus according to your paradigm, then why even begin to believe, much less act on, free-will?

Your position opens up a whole can of worms that leads us right into the heart of American fundamentalism/evangelicalism. If you are American fundamentalist/evangelical, then I'd ask you to reflect on your conflation of human and divine will. Think about its theological and anthropological ramifications.

[Silverhair]

26. Already thought about. I have a Master's degree in Divinity.

That took three years of post grad full time studies.

I stand by my view. Obviously we hold different views.

Jesus was indeed fully God and fully human. How this was done is a mystery beyond human understanding. In any event, he bore no guilt.

Further, it is impossible to explain the nuances in a position in a short paragraph or two, so oversimplification becomes necessary.

[grumpy old fart]

32. He bore no guilt because it didn't happen.

Surely with a Masters in Divinity you have come across the reality that no other documents (outside of Matthew)mention this incident, the purpose of which seems only that Matthew (or whoever actually wrote the book) could then take jesus to Egypt in order to fulfill the words of the prophet Hosea (Who wasn't even talking about the messiah).

Even Josephus didn't mention this huge massacre. Matthew is one huge made up apologia, and rather poorly written. IMHO.

[Silverhair]

34. That is a different question.

The OP treats it as a real event and obviously wanted to discuss it as a real event. To get into the historicity of it would be to disregard the thrust of the original question and hijack the thread.

Your argument is "the argument from silence" which says that the lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. I consider that to be a weak argument, unless the event is so huge that it would have to left an impact. So let's look at it.

Herod was extremely violent and cruel and committed many murders. He even killed some of his own sons because he was afraid that they might kill him to gain his throne. Romans joked that in the household of Herod it was better to be a pig (As a Jew he couldn't eat a pig.) than to be a family member. Almost every day somebody was sentenced to death during his reign.

(I just hit "Post" instead of spell check. After this is "Edit")

Bethlehem was a smaller town and the total number killed would not have been very many. On Herod's scale, it would have been only a few more on top of the thousands already killed. Josephus clearly doesn't record every murder by Herod, or his work would have had to have been larger. Nor did it seem politically important at the time. It was important only later to Christians.

So the argument from silence does NOT prove that it didn't happen. It only proves that Matthew has the only record of it.

[grumpy old fart]

35. Why no mention in the other Gospels? As you say,.......

"It was important only later to Christians". And what of the alleged trip to Egypt?

In any case, if you start from the premise that it's all true, no matter the surrounding historical facts, there's little more to discuss.

Peace be with you.

[DemBones DemBones]

18. Interesting question. Silverhair is correct,

I think, and therefore I'm deleting my answer.

[grumpy old fart]

33. See post 32, above.........n/t

[Just Me]

19. Yes. Next question.

Do you feel any responsibility for the death of innocents?

[Igel]

36. They were slaughtered not because he was born, but because

Herod ordered it. Nothing forced Herod to do so, as far as I recall.

Nobody held the soldiers' bodies and gripped their hands to make them kill the tykes, either. Had the soldiers said no, they would have been punished. Most, in all likelihood, did not say no.

Jesus bore no guilt for it. He was held to a higher standard of righteousness than most, and passed (or else who cares if he lived, from the traditional PoV?).

He wasn't in a position to do anything about the slaughter, although he knew it would happen: He didn't bear any responsibility for not stopping it (if, that is, he would have born any in any event).

Did he suffer at others' pain and suffering? Yes. But it was compassion and love, not responsibility and guilt. We may bear one another's burdens, but God never said Cain was his brother's keeper, now did he?

But from the traditional PoV, Jesus also agreed to bear the punishment for Herod, if Herod so agrees, and to accept Herod's guilt for what he did, allowing for Herod to be forgiven. But this isn't because Jesus was guilty, or perceived himself to be guilty.

[silverlib]

37. A far fetched thought

thank you - I do love questions that really make me think. I do wish I had read it earlier in the day instead of just prior to going to bed last night, as I took the question to bed with me.

At a very young age, I was taught that Bible stories, the symbolic ones and the true ones (and each of us will always differ in which are which), can have a different meaning for us depending on where we are in life.

In the wee hours of the morning, I placed different names to the players - Jesus for Hussein, and Herod for the US Military. (this was the far fetched part) Hussein is guilty of many, many acts of human cruelty, but is he guilty of the deaths of innocent children and civilians that were killed, and are being killed, in the invasion? Hussein was a perceived threat to the US Military (I'm leaving the administration out of this scripture). Jesus was a perceived threat to Herod. I think this scripture is telling me what atrocities can occur when a threat is perceived.

This is my answer, only for me, and thanks for the question.

[Kire]

38. "No other reason."?

I can think of one.