theophiliacs

II: “But I Say To You”

Part II will outline the case for non-violence from the texts. In the tradition of my Evangelical heritage I’ll begin with the Bible, and as promised, my foundational text is the Sermon on the Mount. Once again, I’ll lean heavily on the work of Richard B. Hays, John Howard Yoder and others.

‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 5:38-48 NRSV (Emphasis is mine.)

This passage has always been notoriously difficult for proponents of Just War. Some have suggested Jesus was referring to the future, eschatological kingdom (Niebhur), a temporary assignment for Jesus’ disciples, or that these words refer to self-defense and not military violence in defense of justice (Augustine). However, I believe closer exegetical attention will reveal Matthew’s intention for the followers in his community to follow normative non-violent practice.

The Sermon on the Mount is an exercise in subversion. Jesus unties contemporary logic by presenting an altered theological vision. In this first block of the sermon, Matthew frames Jesus’ teaching in seven subversions, “You have heard….but I say….” The Torah teaches “do not commit adultery” but Jesus instructs that even lustful thoughts can get you into trouble. His audience knows what the Ten Commandments say about murder, but Jesus warns against even hateful thoughts. Jesus continually ups the ante; on marriage and making oaths as well. Finally, we arrive at retaliation and enemy-love. There are no arbitrary distinctions between ethics for now or later, nor are these final three subversions reserved for some special elite type of disciple. On the contrary, this is the climax of Jesus’ new theological vision. The Kingdom of God is exemplified in the seventh and final subversion: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Written at least fifty years after Christ’s death, Matthew provides his community with a challenging, heightened ethic for discipleship that hinges on a dramatic picture of self-sacrifice. Jesus teaches us from the mountain speaking “as one with authority” reemphasizing Matthew’s motif of Jesus’ bringing a new Torah. But just as Tony explained in a comment on my first post in this series, one cannot simply pluck Scripture out at random and present it out of context as a “proof text.” We must view this teaching in its appropriate contexts.

Non-Violence in Matthean Context

For Matthew, Jesus’ teaching is not mere a collection of wisdom sayings to be pondered, but a practical livable ideal his disciples (meaning the Church, not just the twelve) are meant to emulate. Beginning in the temptation narrative (Mt. 4:1-11) Jesus resists violence as a tool in his arsenal, opting instead for prayer, fasting, and meditation on Scripture. In all three passion predictions (16:21-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19) Jesus fortells his own death as one who will be persecuted because of his righteousness and that those who follow him will endure the same (16:24-26). In Gethesemane, Jesus drinks the cup of suffering (26:36-47) and as Yoder convincingly argues:

by accepting the cup of obedience, Jesus rejects the violent revolution that so many expect from him.

This is brought out stronger in Matthew more than any of the other synoptics. Even on his arrest, Jesus corrects the disciple who would use armed resistance, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (26:51-54).

For Matthew, the task of the Church is to be disciples and make disciples. His final words carry these instructions (28:18-20) as well as a special priviso of “… teaching them [new disciples] to obey everything that I have commanded you.” For Matthew, God’s ultimate ideal is also a very actual ideal. As Hays explains, “To live under the authority of Jesus’ counterintuitive wisdom is to live securely in accord with God’s ultimate order. That is the persistent message of Matthew the evangelist.”

Non-Violence in Context of the Other Gospel-Writers

There is remarkable unity in the Gospels on Jesus’ avoidance of violent activity. (Some might argue that Jesus’ actions in the temple justify violence in defense of justice. I’ll discuss this pericope as a symbolic act in Part III.) Despite passionate disapproval with much of the establishment, Jesus never resorts to overpowering change, but rather subversion. Rather than proclaiming his messiahship like previous would be revolutionaries, Jesus instructs his disciples to keep it secret (Mk. 8:27-9:1). He sneaks away from the mob that would “take him by force to make him king” (Jn 6:15). He renounces violence as punishment (Lk. 9:51-56), praises servanthood (Mk. 10:42-45; Jn. 13:1-17), and instructs his disciples to bear persecution (Mk. 13:9-13; Jn. 15:18-16:4). In death, Jesus suffers, doesn’t resist, rejects Holy War (Mt. 26:53) and prays for his exectioners (Lk. 23:34). Luke’s growing Church in Acts conquers foreign territory by subverting local cultures through teaching and miracles and as a result, often suffers persecution.

Non-Violence in Context of Paul

For Paul, Christ’s death is interpreted as God’s response to a disobedient world. How does God treat his enemies on earth? He reconciles them to himself through the death of Jesus (Rm 5:8-10). In a passage remarkably reminiscent of the Sermon on the Mount, Paul writes:

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Romans 12:14-21 NRSV

Paul’s consistent use of military imagery should not be interpreted as justification for violence. Rather such language reverses the purpose of the military. Rather than the Gospel being utilized to further military goals, military imagery is used to promote the Gospel.

Non-Violence in Context of the Remainder of the New Testament
The writer of Hebrews equates following Christ with persecution (Heb. 10:32-34) and the author of I Peter is obsessed with the response of the community to persecution modeled on the suffering of Jesus (1 Pet. 1:6-7, 3:13-18, 4:12-19, 5:8-10). “When he [Jesus] was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly.” (I Pet. 3:17-18).

The Book of Revelation with its military imagery at first may seem a troublesome text for this stance. Granted the complexity of apocalyptic literature, it would be difficult to reduce its imagery to a single few lines. For the community behind the text enduring persecution, Revelation represents not simply vengeance, but justice against an oppressor. The nature of this hope, however, is Eschatological. Two distinctives relevant to our discussion emerge from the text: 1) God is the judge and instigator of these events, 2) the central metaphor is Jesus as “the slaughtered lamb” (an image that appears 28 times in Revelation.) Jesus the Conquering King indeed rides into battle with blood on his robe, but it is his own blood, and he is stained with it before the battle even begins. (Rev 19:13).

Non-Violence in Other Contexts
I am intentionally waiting to address the question of the Old Testament in Part III and Christian History in Part IV of this series. For now, it is enough to recognize the resounding voice of non-violence in the textual tradition. For the communities behind these texts, non-violence was not the same as pacificity. It was trust in a power beyond that of the kingdoms of this world—the power of the Gospel. Martin Luther’s hymn, “A Mighty Fortress” captures this hope eloquently:

Though hordes of devils fill the land, all threatening to devour us,
We tremble not, unmoved we stand; they cannot overpower us.
This world’s prince may rage, in fierce war engage.
He is doomed to faiol; God’s judgment must prevail!
One little word subdues him.

Continue on to Part III