Always Attack: Redux

Nietzsche's Jesus

This entry is my attempt to address an error in my speculative discussion of how Friedrich Nietzsche might have interpreted a very un-Nietzsche-like Bible teaching that many of us are probably familiar with … the one about turning the other cheek.

For people who need a quick refresher, here’s the quote from the Book of Matthew (5:39, New International Version),”But I tell you, do not resist an evil person! If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

The original post (titled Always Attack) was inspired by my discovery that Nietzsche’s comments on the “turn the other cheek” teaching were moderately sympathetic … which is surprisingly unlike his criticism of Christianity as a whole.

I went on to explore how the pacifistic themes of this teaching could be combined with the kind of assertive, vitalist ethos for which Nietzsche is renowned.

And that’s how I ended up with this idea that the guidance about “not resisting” the incursions of bad-minded people, doesn’t actually prohibit you from taking the initiative to confront these people about their ugly behavior.

“Don’t resist the wicked” can just be interpreted to mean … don’t let the conflict be defined by what they’re trying to do to you or take from you. Let them do what they will do, but don’t be dissuaded from speaking your truth. Hence, “don’t defend; always attack.”

Viewed in this light, the Gospel teaching could be taken as a lesson about how to live your life free of resentment (per Nietzsche’s philosophy … and Nietzsche does seem to view Jesus as a spiritual teacher who triumphed over resentment; see passage 162 in The Will to Power).


Unpacking my clumsy reading of Nietzsche

But even as I was writing this essay, I was aware that I was taking liberties with what Nietzsche had actually written about this teaching, and about Jesus more generally.

I signaled these misgivings with self-deprecating remarks about my “clumsy” interpretation of Nietzsche. After giving things a little more thought, I realized that what I was calling my “clumsiness” was really a place holder for a lot of issues that needed to be more carefully unpacked … which is why I wrote this post.

I want to emphasize, that I still stand by what I wrote in that original post.

I think I produced a plausible, Nietzschean interpretation of what it could mean to “turn the other cheek.”

But on a closer read of The Will to Power, I also have to admit that my reading of this Bible passage is, very likely, not the interpretation that Nietzsche would have landed on.


Nietzsche’s Jesus

I don’t think that Nietzsche would have balked at the bellicose overtones of an aphorism like, “always attack.” His philosophy is chock full of statements like this, which extol the life-affirming nature of our aggressive impulses; seeing them as indices of good health.

But again, on closer inspection, I realized that Nietzsche did not want to associate these kinds of healthy aggressive/assertive qualities with the Christ figure.

For example, in the passage right after he comments on the teaching about “not resisting” those who would harm you he writes, “The entire prophet and miracle-worker attitude, the anger, the calling down of judgement is a terrible corruption (e.g. Mark 6, 11)…” (The Will to Power, 163-164).

It’s worth noting that Nietzsche was always inclined to be critical of people who judge harshly—seeing this judgmentalism as the expression of a slavish, resentful mindset which is always dividing the world into the good and the evil, and defining itself by what it is not (i.e., I know I am good, because I am not evil like you).

So, the fact that Nietzsche wants to see these Gospel accounts of an “angry, judging Jesus” as a corruption of the “real Jesus,” may be an indication that Nietzsche wants to think highly of Jesus. It’s possible that Nietzsche didn’t want to associate Jesus with these ignoble traits.

But of course, Nietzsche is not a Biblical historian. He’s not attempting to construct an historically plausible account of the temperament and teachings of the “real Jesus” through a rigorous analysis of available literary texts that are read in light of available archaeological evidence.

Keeping this all in mind. Nietzsche’s musings about the “real Jesus” tell us a lot more about Nietzsche than they do about the historical Jesus … which leads me to these questions …

Who does Nietzsche “need” Jesus to be, and why?

I think these are the important questions to answer, and although I won’t be able to provide any conclusive answers in this post, I’d like to offer some suggestions.


Nietzsche’s narrative about Christianity

This passage for example, sums up Nietzsche’s analysis of early Christianity.

“Christianity: a naïve beginning to Buddhistic peace movement in the very seat of ressentiment –but reversed by Paul into a pagan mystery doctrine, which finally learns to treat with entire state organization—and wages war, condemns, tortures, swears, hates (The Will to Power, 167).

So, according to Nietzsche, Paul is the culprit who turns Christianity into a vehicle for resentment—with Paul being treated, simultaneously, as a pivotal figure in the history of Church and a persona that foreshadows (in Nietzsche’s mind) the evolving character of the entire church institution from the first century to the present day.

And since Nietzsche believes that Christianity was originally a naïve peace movement before Paul began to work his influence, it follows that for Nietzsche, the “real Jesus” has to be a very meek figure.

It’s also notable that when Nietzsche has critical things to say about Jesus, it has to do with the childish naivete of the very same pacifistic qualities that Nietzsche insisted were the hallmark traits of the “real Jesus.”

Nietzsche’s Jesus would not be the one to be casting money changes out of the Temple Mount, or driving demoniac forces out of people in the name of an Almighty Father God; and he certainly wouldn’t issue a teaching that could be interpreted to mean, “always attack.”

I want to emphasize that I’m in no better position than Nietzsche to make claims about the character of the “real Jesus.” But I still think it’s significant that Nietzsche can’t tolerate the idea of a Jesus who could be very meek in some moments, and authoritative and angry in others.

It’s also worth noting that Nietzsche’s Übermensch—his answer to the death of God—is capable of blending all of these qualities…vulnerability, graciousness, aggression, masterly confidence and more besides.

In the meditation that I included at the end of Prometheus Revisited, I noted that Nietzsche has a tendency to depict certain qualities (like selflessness or ascetic discipline) in a negative light when he associates them with Christianity, but is capable of rehabilitating these very same qualities in a positive light when he is writing about the freedom-loving, noble types that he admires.

I think that something like this is going on with Nietzsche’s ideas about the “real Jesus”. But in this case, the blockage has more do with Nietzsche being unable to see that many of the same qualities that he wants to elevate in the Übermensch could actually have been foreshadowed by ancient religious leaders, like Jesus, which he is more comfortable discussing in a patronizing way.

Nietzsche had no problem, in contrast, seeing precursors for the Übermensch in mythical figures like Prometheus and Dionysus. But if Nietzsche were to admit that there were similar continuities running between Jesus and the Übermensch, he would have had to radically revise the genealogical analysis that he uses to diagnose the nihilism of his times.

I also suspect that there are some elements of Nietzsche’s autobiography that are tangled up with his aversion to the “angry Jesus”, which led him to be particularly sensitive to being judged by pious Christians. We should also consider Nietzsche’s complicated feelings toward his father (a Lutheran priest), which seem to be a mix of resentment and admiration.

All of this context helps to explain why it’s very unlikely that Nietzsche would have agreed with my Nietzschean interpretation of “turn the other cheek.”

I don’t think that Nietzsche would have had a problem with the aphorism “always attack,” but I also don’t think he would want to imagine that kind of teaching coming from Jesus.

Other Posts
Always attack - by Philip Kretsedemas - Philip's Substack
Prometheus revisited - by Philip Kretsedemas
The Curse of a Dying God - by Philip Kretsedemas
Why I wish God wasn't dead - by Philip Kretsedemas
God is dead ... a sociological perspective
Love = accepting death gracefully - by Philip Kretsedemas
Did "God is dead" really mean "my dad is dead"?