theophiliacs

III: Textual Snags

In Part I I introduced this topic and asked for appropriate humility when addressing an issue of historic controversy. In Part II, I outlined the textual case for nonviolence in Christian community. For this post I want to address a few last snags in the textual tradition against nonviolence, especially in regards to the Old Testament and the presence of soldiers in the New Testament. Once again, it’s necessary for me to acknowledge my debt to Richard B. Hays and his The Moral Vision of the New Testament, since most of what I have to say is merely a half-decent summary of his brilliant work.

Returning to the Foundational Text
I used the Matthew 5 in Part II, and I’ll return to it quickly to address some of apologetic readings proponents of Just War have used to explain away its nonviolent connotations. The main explanations include:

1. Jesus is describing the future, Eschatological Kingdom and not the way we must act in this age.
2. Jesus is describing a temporary ethic for his immediate disciples thus its implications are not something Christians should be expected to follow hundreds of years later.
3. Jesus forbids self-defense but not violence in defense of justice.
4. Jesus is describing a “higher ethic” for his followers who would become monks/priests/pastors etc…
5. Jesus is intentionally raising the bar for peace beyond our reach to reveal how we are all in need of God’s grace.
6. Jesus’ teaching is located within a specific cultural context with expectations that no longer apply to 21st century Christians.

I feel that for the most part, my reading of Matthew 5 in Part II satisfactorily fields explanations 1 – 5 above. In some sense, Jesus is describing the Eschatological Kingdom of God, but he is also announcing that that Kingdom has arrived with him, so perfection is something we should strive for in this life and not just the next (1). There is nothing indicating a special ethic for a special category of people in the text, but rather according to Matthew 28, all disciples are accountable to what he has commanded (2 & 4). This passage seems to certainly have something to say about self-defense, but fit within the larger Matthean and NT context, it can’t be only self-defense (3). Finally, the idea that the high ideals of the Sermon on the Mount are unattainable are refuted by the Sermon’s final subversion (5), Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Mt. 5:46 NRSV).

However, recent scholarship in historical criticism has muddied the issue a bit and #6 needs some special attention.

Two significant objections arise from the mix: either a) limiting the ethic to a courtroom setting or b) redefining the word “enemy” to a member of the local community.

Proponents of (a) often cite the setting for Deut. 19:

“If the witness is a false witness, having testified falsely against another, then you shall do to the false witness just as the false witness had meant to do to the other. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. The rest shall hear and be afraid, and a crime such as this shall never again be committed among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

-Deuteronomy 19:18b-21 NRSV

It is important here to recognize Jesus’ use of the OT (it will be important in the next section). Where the Law says, “show no pity”, Jesus says “do not resist an evildoer.”

Some argue that Jesus, here, is referring to the courtroom setting implied by Deuteronomy 19. In a sense, they argue that Jesus says, “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek,” ( a very serious insult in first century palestine) “do not take him to court.” The problem with this reading is that it ignores the intended audience of both texts. Deuteronomy is aimed at judicial authority—those who wield the power is such disputes. Whereas in Matthew 5, Jesus is speaking to the powerless ones—those who must choose how they will respond to oppression from those in power. The Deuteronomy text is an outline for judicial process. In Matthew, Jesus subverts this conventional wisdom, commanding his disciples to actually give more than their oppressors require in anticipation of the coming Kingdom.

Proponents of (b) argue for a misunderstanding of the greek word echthroi in Matthew 5, usually translated as “enemies.” Their reading is “personal enemies” rather than “military enemies.” This reading attempts to explain that powerless people under oppression would vent their frustration for the system on each other in a small community. This reading has a number of issues. First, while the word echthroi is somewhat generic, it’s use in the biblical texts is not. The LXX uses it to describe military enemies (Deut. 20:1, the very next sentence after the passage above), Luke does as well (Lk. 19:43). Also, had small conflicts within a village or small community been of concern for Matthew, he would’ve probably included some in his gospel.

New Testaments Snags With Nonviolence
In Part II I showed remarkable consistency for nonviolence in the New Testament. Occasionally, proponents of Just War attempt to use “proof texts” to support their position—some of more merit than others:

1. Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Taken drastically out of context, Jesus’ words can have terrible implications. In Matthew 10, Jesus is instructing his disciples on how to carry out his ministry of teaching and healing. The text is full of warnings that they will be beat, arrested, and killed in this endeavor and he uses the metaphor of “sword” to describe the division that he brings. If there is any literal sword involved in the process, Jesus’ disciples will be its victims, not its wielders!

2. Luke 22:36b “…and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.” The irony of this passage’s context must be understood. Again, Jesus speaks of division in terms of the sword. This is apparent as immediately after his disciples (missing the point) produce two swords whereupon Jesus dismisses the whole endeavor, “Enough already!” If this is not enough, upon Jesus’ arrest one disciple uses his sword to defend his master (22:49-50). This disciple is chastised by Jesus and the injury he caused is healed.

3. The Temple Incident The wealth of recent scholarship on this undoubtedly historic event (its presence in all four gospels speaks to its significance) should allow me to be brief. Jesus upturning tables and causing a disturbance in the temple is not a “violent act” but a “symbolic act” meant to criticize and subvert the existing religious system. Jesus makes no attempt to overpower and maintain control of the temple nor does he take violent action against those guilty of the sin he reveals. It is remarkable how obvious this is from the text yet how often this pericope is used to justify all sorts of violence or vandalism.

By far the strongest case against nonviolence found in the New Testament is the presence of soldiers. Treatment of this requires a bit of nuance and I admit, my case here isn’t as strong as in other places.

The Evangelists mention soldiers, and to be fair, the vocation of soldier is never explicitly portrayed as a sin. In Luke, John the Baptist encounters a group of soldiers who ask what they must do in response to his preaching. John replies, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages” but says nothing about violence (Lk. 3:14). Also in Luke and Matthew, Jesus heals a centurion’s servant and even marvels at the soldier’s faith without commenting on his vocation. Most telling of all is the Roman Centurion Cornelius in Acts who is described as an “upright and God-fearing man” and who’s conversion is seen as the watershed event that sparks the mission to the gentiles. It is a centurion at the foot of the cross in Mark 15 who first recognizes Jesus as the Son of God.

One must be careful when attempting to emphasize an argument from silence but I think when seen within canonical context, these texts gain clarity. I don’t believe the gospel writers saw the vocation of soldier as sinful a priori, but nor do I believe that the passages above deal with the issue of nonviolence directly. In these instances, it is more important that these men are unlikely witnesses to Jesus rather than soldiers specifically. Like tax collectors and sinners in the company of the Lord’s anointed, a gentile soldier is unlikely to recognize the Jewish messiah or to display great faith for healing.

Soldiers in the New Testament function as unlikely recipients of the Gospel—not as Jesus’ blessing for armed resistance.

Old Testament and Holy War
I intentionally saved this question for last. Whenever I am discussing these posts with my Churched friends, it seems inevitable they will eventually mention instances in the Old Testament where it seems God orders the attack and even annihilation of Israel’s enemies. For example, in I Samuel 15, the Lord speaks to Saul through Samuel, “Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do notspare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” How can such a text be reconciled with the New Testament picture of nonviolence?

I find it unfortunate that this question is always asked in a way where the burden of proof is laid at the feet of the pacifist. Despite the surprisingly cohesive nonviolent ethic of the New Testament, we are asked to explain the blatantly genocidal texts of the Old Testament—something even a Just War advocate would have difficulty with.

Throughout history, advocates of nonviolence have mustered ingenious apologetics for these texts. Some (like Barth) argued that only God reserves the right to order death because only He has ultimate authority. Others have read these texts allegorically, saying we must “completely annihilate all traces of sin from our lives” or something similar. I am much more comfortable with simply recognizing the tension. This is difficult for someone operating with the idea that the Bible presents with a neat, holistic theological picture where the authors always colored within the lines. While such a notion is attractive (and popular) the dozens of authors, hundreds of years, and numerous diverse cultures present in Scripture do not provide it for us. I believe the Bible presents us, instead, with the written history of certain peoples encountering God and interpreting these events through their texts.

For the Christian who seeks to take some authority from the Bible, New Testament interpretation always trumps the Old. Just as the early Christian writers redefined what it meant to be a part of the Kingdom of God, what it meant to be circumcised, who could be a part of the People of God, and how to hope for resurrection; so they also reinterpreted nonviolence. I believe it is absolutely necessary for the Church to recognize and live with tension like this in Scripture. It is unfortunate that such a reading asks many folks to take a hermeneutical leap not all are ready (or willing) to take.

Continue on to Part IV