The Crucifixion of the Warrior God

Here I am interviewing Greg Boyd on The Crucifixion of the Warrior God. Enjoy! 

Greg Boyd's MennoNerds Interview

The MennoNerds network recently hosted Greg Boyd for an interview conducted by the ever helpful and courteous Robert Martin. Greg shares about his journey to an Anabaptist perspective and the fallout that has had in his theology. The biggest fallout, that will hopefully soon hit the shelves, is Greg's upcoming book: The Crucifixion of the Warrior God. If you are a Woodland Hills "podrishioner" (like I am) you will know that Boyd has been working hard on this book for the last few years. I honestly think I've personally been waiting for this book for a good four years. ;) It's a good thing that patience is a fruit of the Spirit. I got the sense in this interview that Greg has reached a finality and clarity to his seven years of research and thinking about the violent portraits of God. 


Anyway.... Enjoy this great interview:





Thanks for reading!

God Bless,
Paul Walker

Loving Your Enemy: Part 10: The End

"They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." - Isaiah 2:4

My Story: "Beating Swords Into Ploughshares."

Me. 

I never really gave much thought to the area of peace-theology during my life before post-secondary: And why should I? My cultural upbringing is such that I would never need to question the righteousness of violence. It was just assumed that violence is always an acceptable option. What really mattered was the 'good-guys' and the 'bad guys', the 'us' verses 'them'. It is narrative that has overshadowed much of what we label as history. The story that is told and re-told, since first murder by Cain, is the cycling and re-cycling of revenge and retaliation: an eye for an eye. Is there a better way? I think so. 

What disturbs me most when I think back to my upbringing is that I grew in a church culture that never spoke of Jesus' peace teachings. The Gospel I received growing up did not contain a radical vision for a new humanity, in which the walls of hostility are broken by the work of reconciliation through Christ our Lord. There was no call to participate in the life of Christ as ministers of reconciliation on a transnational level. I had what Dr. Scot McKnight calls a 'Soterian Gospel', that is a Gospel that is reduced to 'how to get saved' rather than a call to a Kingdom life. The problem with a myopic, soterian, post-Constantinian church culture is that it has created "the decided" rather than "the discipled". We want Jesus for what he can do for us. We have created a culture, of what Dallas Willard calls, ‘vampire christians', who only want a little blood for their sins but nothing more to do with Jesus until heaven. I fear that our church culture does not want the LORD who calls us to love our enemies here in this life. I am also really concerned that we have created a culture that confesses ‘belief’ in Jesus, but not in Jesus’ ideas. 

The Shift:

Everything changed for me when I made the decision to follow God's call to Horizon College and Seminary. Formal training for ministry began in me a journey of formation, transformation and maturity. I began my time at college-by default- as an advocate of the Just-War theory. I even wrote a paper titled "Pacifism: An inconsistency". I argued in the paper that:

(1) Jesus' teaching only applies to individuals 

(2) Loving your enemy is more about 'the heart' and less about the actions 

(3) Protection of 'my property', 'my family', and 'my nation' legitimized the use of force. 

(4) Jesus was an idealist and dispensationalist 

(5) 'Love of enemy' could include violence toward them because the most 'loving thing' to do is maintain 'justice'

(6) The 'violence' in the temple is evidence that Jesus did not really mean what he was teaching 

(7) Pacifism meant: Do nothing.  

I couldn't have been more wrong. The paper I wrote during my second year awarded me an ok grade, but it left me unsettled and questioning. I was haunted by Jesus' teachings and example. I was haunted by whispers of the Holy Spirit, who was preparing my heart and mind for a shift. It all reached a firestorm for me when I discovered that one of my professors that I really respected was a pacifist. My first response was to take every opportunity I had to disagree and mock my professor. (Yes, I had a long way to go in my journey) It just seemed ridiculous to me at the time that such an intellectual person could be caught up in what I thought was such idealism. My professor's response was to lovingly nudge me on the journey of study and reflection. Questions like "Did Jesus really teach that?" seemed to pierce me like a hot knife to butter. This lead to me reading a few pacifist authors, discovering Bruxy Cavey during the series 'Inglorious Pastors', praying about the topic and reading afresh the Sermon on the Mount. Everything culminated in the cry of "I need to re-examine my positions." I discovered that every single one of my assumptions and arguments against Pacifism was dead wrong. Here's a breakdown of what I discovered: (in correspondence to the list above) 

(1) The Sermon on the Mount is not private instruction for individuals; it is the political platform for a new kingdom, a city on a hill. 

(2) Jesus does not divorce action from emotion. This is sort of gnostic thinking is antithetical to the witness of scripture. 

(3) Within the category of neighbour stands both the loved one and the attacking someone. The commandment to love the neighbour requires the unequivocal rejection of preferential love and its replacement by Christian love, which “means not to exclude a single one.” 

(4) Jesus taught an inaugurated eschatology that is not idealism, but the restoration of the new humanity.  Or in other words, the call of discipleship is to live according to the new 'aeon', even while the old is yet languishing but sure to be defeated. Jesus in his death set us “free from the present evil age”. 

(5) Justice and mercy are not in conflict; rather to do acts of mercy that lead to redemption and restoration is the establishment of true justice. 

(6)There is no evidence that Jesus was violent toward people in the temple. (see this blog post for an explanation)  

(7) Pacifism means do EVERYTHING but violence. Peace making requires a Spirit inspired creativity that persuades by love, witness, spirit, reason, rhetoric, and if need be: martyrdom.  


Recap: A Summary of the Peace Theology Series:

1) The way of enemy love (enemy kindness/serving/doing good for) is the heart of God. Matthew 5:44-45; Romans 5:8, 10

2) Jesus calls us to love the way he loves. John 15:12-14; 1 John 3:16; Philippians 2:5-8

3) The way of the cross is fundamental to Christian discipleship. Matthew 10:37-39; 16:24-26; Mark 8:34-38; Luke 9:23-24; 14:27

4)Jesus teaches enemy love in explicit and practical terms. Matthew 5 // Luke 6

5) Jesus models enemy love throughout his life and death.

6)The Apostles taught and modelled enemy love, to death.

7) The Apostles taught that, when it comes to violence, the role of Christians and the role
of government are distinct and that we should draw the line at paying our taxes. Romans 12:14-13:7

8) Early church leaders unanimously taught and modelled pacifism, enemy love, and non-involvement in institutions of violence.

9) Not until Constantine (4th Century) did the church embrace Christian participation in violence.

10) Biblical objections raised tend to be examples of non-Christocentric Bible reading, exegesis of desperation, (un)intentional misunderstandings, sound-bite theology, or
arguments from silence.

11) Experiential objections raised tend to follow the standard wisdom of our world rather than the counter-wisdom of God. They may qualify us to be decent citizens, but not obedient Christians. 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; 2:13-14; 3:18-20 The goal of a Christ-follower is not to be what the world calls a “good” person, but what is so off the charts of human moral categories that non-Christians would have no easy word to describe you (except maybe “crazy”). Jesus doesn’t want you to live a good life. He wants you to live a loving life.

An important last question from Bruxy Cavey. 

A Check List for Practically Living Out Nonviolent Enemy Love: 

Review the following checklist and formulate/ devise an action plans(s) to love an ‘enemy’ in your unique context.

WHEN SOMEONE HATES YOU.
1. Assess your own life first.
a. Remove planks before splinters.
b. Be humble in your disposition.
c. Apologize if possible.
d. Do this personally, racially, nationally, religiously, etc.

2. See them as God sees them.
a. Infinitely valuable – worth dying for.
b. Dearly loved.
c. Image of God is primary identity.
d. Broken in need of repair, sick in need of healing, enslaved in need of
rescue, sinful in need of salvation.
e. Relate to the good in them, while confronting the bad.

3. Serve their needs (not their wants).
a. Offer opportunities of enlightenment through practical deeds of loving service.
b. Let all actions arise out of your genuine Christ-like love, not your need for self-preservation or punishment (especially when you are in a position to defeat or shame or overpower that person).
c. Trust God to avenge injustice (directly or through the state).

WHEN SOMEONE HURTS YOU.
1. Don’t confuse love with sentimentality (which can lead to enabling).
2. Practice caring confrontation.
3. Remember love is an active commitment to help others become who they were made to be. (Matthew 18:15-17; Luke 17:3-4)

WHEN YOU HAVE HURT SOMEONE. 
1. Put aside everything else, including your religious commitments, in order to prioritize reconciliation.
2. Don’t delay or you may get too comfortable merely thinking about what is right and not acting on it. We must fight against the human tendency to confuse good intentions and good ideas with good actions. (Matthew 5:23-26)

WHEN SOMEONE IS HURTING. 
1. Never settle for being nice when you can be loving.
2. Initiate relationship with those on the fringe of social circles.
3. Volunteer with compassion organizations  (Matthew 25:31-46; James 1:27)

WHEN SOMEONE IS HURTING SOMEONE ELSE. 
1. Never use pacifism as an excuse to be passive.
2. Practice peaceful intervention.
3. Go to war...as an agent of reconciliation.

A prayer for peacekeepers:

Thank you so much for reading this blog series. Be sure to check out Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,  Part 6,  Part 7, Part 8, and Part 9. 

Loving Your Enemy: Part 9: But what about? Historical, Philosophical, and Situational Objections.

It is no accident that we are almost at the end of our peace-theology series, and are only now addressing the situational, philosophical, and historical objections. We have intentionally done the hard work of wrestling with the text: the 'exegesis'. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” In this method the interpreter of scripture is led to his or her conclusions by following the text. The opposite approach to exegesis is eisegesis, which literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his or her own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he or she wants. In my own experience as a former advocate of Just War, I believe that Just War theory is primarily an argument from eisegesis. Here is Bruxy Cavey reflecting on why we should start with the text first:

How we ask our questions.


It is important that we examine the assumptions we bring in how we ask questions about peace-theology. It is often the case that when we ask questions of peace-theology the underlying assumption(s) are:

1.Use violence (and be successful) 

2.Do nothing.

This is a false dichotomy and a tragic misunderstanding of the peace position for a couple reasons: 

(1) There are more possibilities: tragedy, martyrdom, miracle, another way out (either “natural” or “providential”), or attempted killing (either “successful” or “unsuccessful”). There are a million possibilities between 'doing nothing' and 'using violence'.  

(2) Violence is not a recipe for success. “Nonviolent action on behalf of justice is no automatic formula with promise of success: but neither is war. After all, at least half of the people who go to war for some cause deemed worthy of it, are defeated."[1] 

(3) Pacifism is not being passive by ‘doing nothing’, but living the way of peace, reconciliation, and creative non-violence. A commitment to pacify, to peace-making and peace-living.

How we ask our questions says a lot about our bias' and our worldview. Also, how we ask our questions can often reveal our motivation(s). This is exactly what Bruxy Cavey is addressing in this video:

Our questions can run into the danger of starting our worldview with the cultural norms,  ethical egoism and utilitarianism rather than the witness of scripture. Consider for example that ethical egoism is an individualistic approach to ethics that assumes the most pleasure and least pain as a desired result, is the right course of action. Likewise, Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. In both these world views we never concern ourselves with the morality of our actions (i.e. taking a life) but only with the desired result. In other words: the ends always justify the means. 

Why are ethical egoism and utilitarianism faulty approaches to the Christian worldview? Ethical egoism is held in suspect because it ignores core Christian teachings of being 'other centred', enduring suffering, and seeking first God's kingdom. Interestingly enough, both pacifists and just warriors would reject the ethical egoist's self-preservation as justification for the use of violence. Thus the primary world view utilized by the just warrior is utilitarianism. Some common objections to utilitarianism as an ethical framework are:

 (1)We can’t be certain of all the results
 (2)Utilitarianism neglects the motives 
(3)Neglects the action itself. 

Christian objections to utilitarianism include: 

(1) Happiness and pleasure are not the chief goals of the Christ follower (obedience to Jesus is the primary goal) 
(2) Christ's example teaches us that the ends must be incorporated within the means.
(3) Utilitarianism denies that the primary basis of Christian ethics is the life and example of  Jesus 
(4) Both utilitarianism and ethical egoism commit the Christian to a poor reading of scripture. Nowhere does Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount suggest that it is only for individuals. There is no footnote or proviso where Jesus says, “You are to live this way except when it comes to the defence of your neighbours, then you must use the violence at your disposal to protect them.” In fact, the Sermon on the Mount is not private instruction for individual consciences; it is the political platform for the new kingdom or city that Jesus proclaims, the city that is to be “set on a hill” and illumine the world (Matt 5:14–16). He gives this platform to the twelve disciples, who represent the restoration of Israel and the return of God to the temple, a return found in Jesus’ own body, in Jesus who is fully divine and fully human.


Prelude to answering questions:

It is my hope that we are asking questions as persons who seek to better understand the implications of peace theology. I will do my best to answer a few of the tough questions. I doubt I have space to answer every conceivable objection, but feel free to ask in the comment section. I am going to try to focus in on the most common objections asked of the pacifist position. So let's examine a few objections (with occasional help of Bruxy Cavey)...

But what about Hitler?

But what about protecting our loved ones? What would you do if someone were attacking a loved one?

This is likely the most difficult question posed to the pacifist. The desire to want to intervene is a good thing. Let's be very clear about something here: Christian practitioners of peace theology are all about intervention. Pacifism does not mean do nothing. It's also part of what advocates of the Just War tradition argue fulfills the obligation to love one’s neighbour. On this point, just-warriors and pacifists agree. Where pacifists and just warriors disagree is on the 'any means necessary approach' that is espoused by the just warrior. I would like to hope that between 'doing nothing' and 'using violence' are a million Spirit inspired possibilities, including martyrdom. 

"Any consideration of what you, the “single individual” , would do or should do if someone attacked your own beloved is first complicated by the presence of the beloved as the beloved. If you find yourself constructing a series of hypothetical situations and hypothetical responses involving him/her—testing them for plausibility or consistency, analyzing what you would or would not do for her, pulling away from the immediacy of your love—do you then truly love her? Or do you instead love the reflection of your other self in her, as you are unable to see her without the objectifying lens of objectivity?

The question is further confounded by the fact that within the category of neighbour stands both the loved one and the attacking someone. And the commandment to love the neighbour requires the unequivocal rejection of preferential love and its replacement by Christian love , which “means not to exclude a single one.”The duty to love all people based on our kinship before God asks us to transcend our cultural and personal fears of someone else. If I err by reserving my love for only the friends I deem to be safe, and withhold it from those I name as my enemy, then maybe I should “shut my eyes become all ears to the commandment to love my neighbour,” and find that “the enemy looks just like the neighbour.”

How has my love gone astray if I conclude that violence is the only possible response to the threat of violence between neighbours? If I assume that the attacking someone is uniquely undeserving of love and I cannot see him as a neighbour, will I then be blind to a nonviolent “another way out” if it appears? Is it possible that Christian discipleship may indeed call me to witness in a cruciform way to my love of both the someone and the loved one?." [2] I think so.

I understand why we need to form these 'justifications for violence'. We need them. Period. We need to feel like we are empowered to be the guardians of our own destiny. In this fallen world, it is hard to trust that there is a power greater than the power of sin, death and the grave. The idolatry of fear can so easily infect our thinking. Pacifism asks us to trust in Jesus and his teaching as the way God is bringing about redemption and justice in the world. That's tough! It requires a lot of trust... faith...and prayer. Lord help us. 

 “I do not know what I would do if some insane or criminal person were to attack my wife or child, sister or mother. But I know that what I should do would be illuminated by what God my Father did when his “only begotten Son” was being threatened. Or by what Abraham, my father in the faith, was ready to sacrifice out of obedience; he was ready to give up his son because he believed in the resurrection.” -John Howard Yoder, What Would You Do?

Shouldn't we try to use the most effective options (i.e. violence) to defeat evil? 


The assumption(s) in the question are: (1) That we can fully know the effectiveness of an action (2) That the usefulness of a practice is validation of the action. Pacifist do not make the claim that following the peace teaching of Jesus is the most effective action. In fact, I think it is impossible to deny that violence does sometimes work in 'pacifying' a situation, at least from human perspective. But are we really following the Jesus way because it is the most logical and effective? Jesus practiced peace-making, enemy-love toward his adversaries when being arrested, and he still died. (It didn't work.) The early church followed Jesus' example of enemy love and paid the price for it with their lives. (It didn't work) Peace theology is not a success strategy; it is a love strategy. (although peace theology does sometimes work in practice) Once we fully understand and embrace this, many of our questions about the way of peace will be answered. Practitioners of peace-theology believe that our ethics are formed through the imitation of Jesus. Jesus is said to be the unique and definitive expression of God’s economy, of how God redeems the world and engages it politically through the cross, resurrection, and ascension. 



But what about pacifists leaving everyone else to do the dirty work?

If pacifism is used as an excuse to avoid conflict or suffering... then we have every right to criticize it. Christ followers should never run away from suffering, but as the Apostle Peter teaches us:

"But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil." - 1 Peter 3:14-17

 But what about pacifist legalism?What is violence? Does “violence” include restraint?

There is a lot of diversity in the pacifist camp as to what constitutes a violent action. There are some pacifists that suggest that it is possible to employ tactics that allow for the redemption of the enemy. Is it holding your attacker on the ground? Is it using pepper spray? Is it using a taser? I don't know. I am not sure. 

I might caution this approach to determining the right course of action. When we start from some sort of definition of what constitutes violence (and the parameters of language are always shifting with use), then whatever non-violence is, it ends up being defined by either what it is against or what it is not. I think the crux of understanding Christian nonviolence is to first relinquish the notion that it is some sort of theory that develops as a response to something called "violence." Defining what violence is and then saying, "Here is the antithesis to it" privileges violence in such a way that I cannot help but see how it will not remain the master of us all. Christian nonviolence is neither a political theory nor a pragmatic strategy to rid the world of violence; it is simply what many Christians have found to be a faithful response to the path of Jesus. 


So, rather than defining violence we should first look at the life and teachings of Jesus and ask the question, “How must I live in order to reflect this reality?” Perhaps our starting point should not be about how much violence we can get away with (or, even, "Is this violent?"); rather, the question is, how does the presence of a taser/pepper spray, or my desire/need to carry one, factor into the eschatological witness I am required to provide for the peaceable kingdom? 



 But what about being a police officer?


Pacifists admit the right of rulers to restrain depravity through coercion (Romans 13), but we maintain that Christians are not to participate in the activities of our rulers which require force to be used (Romans 12). Believers are commanded to avoid war, law enforcement, and the infliction of capital punishment. But we will not deny to the state the right to wage war, enforce the laws, and to execute duly convicted murderers. We recognize that violence and war of all sorts will continue until Jesus returns. Pacifists will not outlaw war or capital punishment, for we cannot, by political action, change the evil hearts of human beings. It is beyond our realm as believers. Our greater purpose as the church should be addressing the root causes of crime rather than asking the State to clean up streets for us.


Where is the 'chapter and verse' for this reasoning? To be fair the first century equivalent of a police officer would be a Roman soldier, an enforcer of the Roman State. So it is no surprise that there is no specific mention of the concept of a police officer. There is however mention of roles, expectations, and 'be-attitudes' that Christ followers are suppose to ascribe to as well as avoid. The closest thing to a "chapter & verse" would probably be Romans 12-13. Paul contrasts the roles of the Church (Rom 12) and State (Rom 13). Though the governing authority bears the sword to execute God's wrath (13.4) that is not the role of a believer. Those who are members of the one body in Christ (12.5) are never to take vengeance (12.9); they are to bless their persecutors and minister to their enemies, returning good for evil.What would happen if the officer had to shoot someone? Would Jesus have done this? Pacifists conclude that this action falls outside of the scope of what is acceptable for a Christian, and so either a Christian should not be a police officer, or he/she might need to refuse to do certain parts of the job. 


But what about situations of sexual abuse? 

Useful Resources:

If you wish to explore the issues further I would encourage you to check out the following books:

Be sure to check out Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,  Part 6,  Part 7, and Part 8.

Here is Part 10. 

Works Cited

1. John H. Yoder, What would you do?
2. York, Tripp ed. A Faith Not Worth Fighting For:

Loving Your Enemy: Part 8: But what about?: Biblical Objections

An artist's depiction of Jesus 'going the extra mile'.

I have intentionally waited until the last half of the blog-series to deal with objections to Peace-Theology. The biggest reason for the delay is that I am trying my best to show how I have formed my position from the text and not from a positional stance. By this point in the series, we have covered the historical, and the biblical case for nonviolence. We have presented the case for peace theology in both Testaments. But we are not done yet (not even close). To give this 'peace-theology' a good shake, we need to response to the objections to peace-theology. This blog will just focus on the biblical objections that are raised against peace-theology.

BUT.... what about? (Examining the Biblical Objections) 

But what about the violence of the Old Testament?


We have covered this objection at length in Part 3.  Be sure to check out this blog post.


But what about the violent Jesus of Revelation? Revelation 19:11-21

One popular Calvinist Pastor sums up the appeal to Revelation 19 like this:

"Some emergent types want to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in his hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a prize fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up." 

Do you notice how this Pastor says that Jesus has a sword in his hand? Do you think our need to have a retributive God might effect the way we read a passage? Don't Christians worship the guy that got 'beat up'? (crucified) Why is it so hard to see the Cross (and resurrection) as the victory of God? 

In the climactic battle scene in Revelation 19 Jesus appears as the conquering rider on a white horse. It is significant that "The Sword" Jesus uses isn’t held in his hand, as the conquering Caesars might be portrayed. It rather comes out of his mouth signifying that Jesus defeats enemies simply by speaking the truth. The 'warrior Jesus' is clothed with a blood soaked robe before the battle even begins (vs 13). The blood is clearly not that of his enemies, whom he has yet to fight. Rather, the symbolism suggests Jesus goes to battle and ultimately reigns victorious by shedding his own blood.

"The fact that the sword Jesus bears in Revelation comes from his mouth indicates that John of Patmos is referring to the spoken word of God. It was sheer divine will that ended primordial chaos and created the cosmos through God’s spoken word at the beginning of time (Genesis 1). Now the sheer will of God, through Jesus the Word, will end the darkness of malevolent empire and bring in the new heaven and new earth."[1]

I could understand if you are still not convinced.You might say, "Paul, but what about God's "fierceness and wrath" and the "smiting of the nations". Let's examine a bit further by opening up the great context of the next few chapters of Revelation.


"If “nations” (ethne) get struck down the by rider on the white horse (19:15), we might understand this as the end of corrupt regional governing systems or the end of nationalism. It is, after all, nations (ethne) that have been deceived by the sorcery of Babylon (18:23). Whatever it means for Christ to strike the nations, it does not signal wholesale slaughter. The blood on Christ’s garment (19:13) is not that of enemies; it is his own, shed at Calvary to redeem the world. Paradox imbedded in this imagery suggests something other than simple retribution: the nations (ethne) that get “struck down” will someday walk by the light of the new Jerusalem (21:24)!!!  The agent of this restoration is the Lamb, whose redemptive power makes him worthy of praise. Christ bears the new title “King of kings and Lord of lords” (19:16). Allegiance to Jesus displaces (“strikes down”) allegiance to every other political entity that would be king or lord in our lives.

To understand how God destroys evil, we must rely on the governing imagery that John of Patmos uses for Jesus—and that is the image of Jesus as the Lamb. John seems keenly aware of the paradoxical nature of the Lamb’s power. We see this when John is before the throne of God, weeping because no one is worthy to open the scroll (which apparently contains God’s plan for or foreknowledge of the trajectory of history). John is told not to weep, because “the Lion of the Tribe of Judah” has conquered. But when John looks up, he sees not a ferocious predator but a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered (5:6). This verse more than any other is the hermeneutical key to understanding violence in Revelation: amidst the chaos and war and destruction of our world, God has chosen to intervene in the form of a vulnerable Lamb. 

The word “Lamb” appears twenty-seven times, in twelve of the twenty-two chapters of Revelation. Jesus the Lamb is the “shepherd” of God’s people (7:17), and the saints follow him wherever he goes (14:4). Christians hold citizenship in the new Jerusalem, where the Lamb is the “lamp” guiding them (21:23). If readers of Revelation still wonder whether they ever should take up weapons, even in the face of lethal persecution, John inserts this aside: “If you are to be taken captive, into captivity you go; if you kill with the sword, with the sword you must be killed. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints” (13:10)." [2]


If we interpret Revelation according to its genre and in its original historical context, and if we pay close attention to the ingenious way John uses traditional symbolism, it becomes clear that John is taking traditional Apocalyptic violent imagery and turning it on its head.  Yes, there is an aggressive war, and yes there is bloodshed. But it's a war in which the Lamb and his followers are victorious because they fight the devil and Babylon (representing all  governmental systems) by faithfully laying down their lives for the sake of truth (”the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony”). 

Not convinced?  I don't blame you. 'The Revelation' is notoriously ambiguous and fraught with difficult passages. I have even heard it joked that if you have three pastors in a room, they will have four different interpretations of Revelation! But all this discussion is besides the point, in my opinion. If, hypothetically, Jesus does come back with a literal sword (which I doubt); there is still no indication within the text that humanity will do any fighting. Nope. We will trust in Jesus as the deliverer. 

The question that should haunt us in the appeal to Revelation 19: 

Why should a veiled appeal to an eschatological event from apocalyptic literature get you out of following Jesus' direct and plain teaching on enemy love?  


 But what about Jesus saying he came to bring a sword?(Matthew 10:32-39) 
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."  (v34 is often thrown out to prove that Jesus' didn't really teach nonviolence)

Here's the rest of the passage:

"For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it." - Matt 10:35-39

It should become evident, when the verse is read in context, that Jesus is not talking about a literal sword here. Jesus is challenging our patristic loyalties. This would have been devastating news to a first century culture where the family structure was the most important social order in society. 

"The “sword” in 10:34 is a metaphorical sword, as proven by

Jesus’ rebuke of those who took up an actual sword to defend him in the Garden of Gethsemane (26:52). The sword can be a metaphor of God’s judgment (Ps. 7:12) or, as here, a metaphor of separation between those who believe and those who don’t, even if it is in one’s family. Earlier Jesus revealed that opposition to his mission would come from the disciples’ closest family relations (see comments on 10:21–23). Thus, Jesus’ claim to messianic identity and authority is a divider between people, including one’s own family."[3] -NIV Application Commentary on Matthew



Ironically, when read in context, Matthew 10:32-39 is actually a powerful teaching about following 'The Way of the Cross'.



"The absolute demand of Jesus brings us back to where we were in the Sermon on the Mount. It isn't the case that there are some fine ideals in the mind of God, and Jesus just happens to teach them a bit better than most people. Nor is it the case that Jesus came to show the way through the present world to quite different one, where we will go after death. No: Jesus came to begin and establish the new way of being God's people, and not surprisingly, those who were quite happy with the old one, thank you very much, didn't like having it disturbed. He didn't want to bring division within households for the sake of it. But he knew that, if people followed his way, division was bound to follow.

That's why Jesus' challenge to the disciples themselves and through them, to the Israel of his day, had to be so sharp- and often has to be as sharp today, where people still naturally prefer comfort to challenge. But the challenge of Jesus' says is matched by the remarkable promises he makes to those who accept them and live by them. He will 'own' us before his Father in heaven. Those who lose their lives will find them. " - N.T. Wright, Matthew for Everybody 

" This discourse (in Matthew 1o) encourages us to understand that disciples of Jesus will engage in mission and be transformed to meet life’s demands by being continually transformed to be like the Master. Discipleship begins by taking up one’s cross, which symbolizes God’s will for a person’s life, and by following Jesus into every situation while on earth. The extended section on the characteristics of mission-disciples draws together those two themes. The form of discipleship Jesus has explicitly instituted connects discipleship and mission—all believers are disciples/missionaries, and each role affects the other as they carry out that mission to the world. Persecution and suffering will be a regular part of discipleship and mission, just as it was of Jesus’ life (10:24–25). Several points may help us to see Jesus’ perspective on persecution and suffering.

1. How one bears up under persecution is basically determined by whether one is a disciple or not, which has eternal implications (10:32–34).

2. Persecution may include rejection, alienation, being hated, and ultimately martyrdom (10:21–22, 28, 38–39).

3. The severity of persecution and suffering requires us to give unqualified allegiance to Jesus. Jesus warns us not to give priority to any other relationship and not to deny allegiance to him because of fear of persecution. The disciple is not to fear those who can only kill the body; rather, we must fear the One who can destroy both body and soul in hell (10:28). To deny Jesus here on earth is to be denied by the Father in heaven (10:33).

4. Jesus’ disciples can expect to be maligned and to have falsehood spread about their message and character, for the same was done to Jesus (10:25). However, they are not to fear this subversive persecution, because eventually they will be vindicated (10:26).

5. Most important, while experiencing persecution the Spirit will provide power and guidance to speak the right words of witness for the situation (10:19–20), and the Father will exercise sovereign control over all circumstances, so the mission-disciples are not to fear that the persecution is out of God’s control (10:29–31)." - NIV Application Commentary on Matthew

But what about Jesus encouraging the disciples to get swords? (Luke 22:35-38 Matthew 26:52-54 Luke 22:51; John 18:10-11)

Can you imagine Jesus doing this?

"Sell your cloak and buy a sword". The immediate context reveals that Jesus is doing this to be 'numbered among the transgressors' (v37), a prophetic fulfillment. When the disciples (12 of them) say they have two swords, Jesus replies, "that's enough". If Jesus had meant for them to honestly take up the sword; I am sure he could have done better than two measly swords. Either way, even if you think that Jesus is not fulfilling prophecy, the greater context of this statement is immediately self refuting. When Peter uses the sword against Malchus, Jesus rebukes him saying 'those who live by the sword die by the sword' and heals the man Peter injured. The early church understood this mean that Jesus was rejecting warfare not just rebuking Peter because he had to die. Let's look at few commentaries on this passage:


"It is important not to miss the rhetorical character of these remarks. The disciples take the comment about the sword literally—one of the disciples will even wield his sword at Jesus’ arrest, a reaction Jesus rebukes. But the Lord has in mind here a toughness and focus of attitude that do not need accolades or the world’s acceptance and care. Disciples serve as aliens in a strange land (1 Peter 2:11), as citizens of heaven (Phil. 3:20–21). They will need to draw together to support one another, while not expecting support from those who do not share their devotion to the Lord." - NIV Application Commentary on Luke




"Now is the eschatological hour, the time of crisis which calls for a different stance from that which characterized their earlier work for Jesus (9:r-6; ro:r-r2). The episode of the twoswords (vv. 36-8) is peculiar. Luke is aware of the tradition (which he uses) of some violence at the arrest (22:5) and he is emphatic in his presentation of Jesus as crucified in the midst of evildoers (2}:32). He presents Jesus as the fulfilment of lsaiah's suffering servant (Isa p:r3-53:r2). v. 37 contains Jesus' only direct quote from there, and the disciples' possession of swords is seen as a part of that passage's witness to him. Jesus is thus fulfilling the prophetic witness of the suffering servant."-The Oxford Bible Commentary on Luke 




"The strangest of Jesus' warnings comes in the last section. They are now going to face a time of testing in which the power and protection won't be available any longer.... They don't understand that he's talking in pictures, and seem to think he means them to get ready for an actual fight. When Jesus says "That's enough' he isn't suggesting that two swords would be sufficient for the job at hand. (and what could that possibly mean?) ; he is wearily putting a stop to the entire conversation, in which at every point they seem determined to misunderstand him." - N.T. Wright, Luke for Everybody




But what about John the Baptist encouraging Roman soldiers? Luke 3:14

John the Baptist

The objection goes something like this: When the Roman soldiers heard John the Baptist, they repented. John told them not to accuse anyone falsely, not to take money from anyone by force, and to be content with their wages. Just War theorists will point out that because John does not instruct the soldiers to quit their jobs this proves that there is nothing wrong with a Christian becoming a soldier or other official that uses lethal force.

Here is the critical hermeneutical mistake: It's John the Baptist! John the Baptist is not under the New Covenant, but is the foremost of the Old Covenant. Jesus says this regarding John the Baptist:

"Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. Whoever has ears, let them hear." Matthew 11:11-15

"John is a transitional figure who has prepared the way for the Coming One, but Jesus implies here that John will not live to see the full arrival of the kingdom. Jesus’ institution of the new covenant in his blood is a dividing line. John is the greatest of those born during the Old Testament era because of his crucial role in preparing the way for the Messiah and
his kingdom. His mission was great because of the greatness of the One he introduced. But those in the kingdom are greater because of their privilege actually to have entered it. John is the culmination of a long history of prophecy that looked forward to the arrival of the messianic kingdom. That prophetic hope has been realized in John’s preparation for Jesus’ inauguration of the kingdom of heaven." 

Michael Hardin

"It is the theme of forgiveness which will differentiate Jesus from John the Baptist, for while it is true John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin and the washing away of uncleanness, John’s message contained nothing regarding forgiveness for the enemy other. Jesus’ message on the other hand, resounded with this theme of enemy forgiveness and enemy love. As we saw in Luke 7, it is this forgiving aspect of Jesus’ ministry that so disturbed John (the Baptist) who was looking for God to judge and overthrow the Romans (and possibly Herod and a ‘corrupt priesthood.’), while Jesus counselled a new way." - Michael Hardin, The Jesus Driven Life



But what about Jesus and Peter not rebuking Roman soldiers? Matthew 8:5-13 // Luke 7:1-10; Acts 10


The objection goes like this:  When afforded an opportunity rebuke a Roman centurion, Christ does not rebuke him for his military position, but instead praises his faith. (This is often contrasted with Jesus' advice to the adulterous woman John 8 to 'leave your life of sin.') When Peter is granted an extended opportunity to converse with Cornelius the Centurion, he does not even hint that Cornelius’ occupation was illegitimate (Acts 10). For this reason, some suggest that believers can prayerfully consider using lethal force against an enemy.

A couple things to consider about this objection:

1. It's an argument from silence. It is a conclusion drawn based on the absence of statements in the text; rather than their presence. It works great as rhetoric and sound bite, but upon reading the greater context of the Gospel it begins to fall apart. In other words, to quote the silence of the text over what Jesus has previously stated in both Matthew and Luke, on the issue of enemy-love, seems peculiarly disingenuous to me. 

2. Jesus and Peter are 'radically hospitable'.  In the account of the Centurion, we have Jesus praising this man's faith and trust in God, as the healer of his servant. We have no record that this man was a follower of Christ. No where in both Jesus and Peter's examples does the context allow us justification for killing. The narrative in Matthew//Luke and Acts actually makes for a better case of Jesus showing radical love for a person whom the wider Jewish society would reject as the enemy other. We should not be surprised that Jesus would heal a Roman Centurion's servant precisely because Jesus taught 'love your enemy'. Likewise in Peter's case, we should not be shocked that the Holy Spirit would baptize a group of Gentiles who according to the popular Jewish view  are the 'enemy other'. (Side-note: Do you notice that 'holy perfection' is never a requirement of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? It would appear that God in the Holy Spirit does not wait for us to 'clean up' before pouring out God's Spirit upon people.- Just a thought) 

3. We don't know all the details. The text does not tell us what happened to the Centurion after this. Did he become a disciple of Jesus? Did he go away confirmed in his view of Jesus as a typical wonder-worker without changing his life? We do not know. Likewise in Peter's case, the text does not tell us if Cornelius was later discipled to leave his position of 'power-over' authority and told to take up his Cross in the imitation of Jesus. We don't know. 

4. We can justify anything from such reasoning. 
Examples of arguments from silence:

"We can justify anything from such reasoning. Since Jesus did not rebuke Pilate for being a governor of an occupying force, he must have sanctioned the Roman occupation and their right to exploit weaker nations, and by extension all colonial and military expansions. Since he did not ask Zacchaeus to leave his job as a tax collector, he must have approved of Roman tax collection and their right to drain resources from an area to the wealthy elite in Rome. Since Jesus did not admonish Pilate for murdering some Galileans in the midst of their sacrifices (Luke 13:3), he sanctioned police brutality and severe repressive measures. Since Jesus did not tell the judges at his own trial that they were wrong for their irregular court proceedings, he sanctions kangaroo courts and dictatorships today. Since Jesus did not reprove the centurion for owning slaves, he therefore condones slavery, even today. These arguments from silence can make Jesus to be the advocate of whatever we want. At one moment he sanctions aggressive warfare, and at the same time he sanctions defensive military action. At another moment he sanctions police brutality and kangaroo courts, at another law and order. Arguments from silence allow Jesus to sanction nearly anything and to contradict himself. The point is that we have to base our analysis of this text on what Jesus says to the centurion, on the entire narrative that Matthew weaves, and even more broadly, on the picture that the New Testament paints of Jesus in regard to nonviolence." - A Faith Not Worth Fighting For


But what about Jesus’ violence in the Jerusalem temple? Matthew 21:12-14 // Mark 11:15-18 // Luke 19:45-46 // John 2:13-17

One of the most cited biblical objections against a consistent nonviolent reading of the New Testament is Jesus' supposed violence in the Temple. Jesus in all four gospels 'clears the temple', 'overturns tables', and in John's account uses a whip. (although it is only used on animals) The reasoning that is employed in this objection goes like this: "You see, not

 even Jesus was passive all the time; therefore I can use force given the just cause". I can agree that Jesus was not passive, BUT Jesus was nonviolent in his prophetic judgement of the Temple. "Our problem is that the nonviolent Jesus was decidedly not passive. He did not sit under a tree and practice his breathing. He walked regularly into the face of danger, spoke the truth, and demanded justice. As far as decent, law-abiding, religious people were concerned, he was nothing but trouble. He hung out with the wrong people, healed at the wrong time, visited the wrong places, and said the wrong things. His nonviolence was active, provocative, public, daring, and dangerous. Most of Jesus’ actions were illegal. He committed civil disobedience on an almost daily basis."[4] 

Brian Glubish, a former dearly loved professor of mine shares his thoughts on the "Temple Tantrum."


"The Greek term used is the same in each of the accounts of Jesus driving out the merchants. (ἐκβάλλω)The term means to expel, to force to leave, to drive out. The experts say the term doesn't imply violence but "to cause to go or remove from a position without force."

The coolest Professor you could ask for!

Whipping and punching people???? Seriously!!!! Masculine verbiage? Sorry, don't see that. John 2 is the only reference to the whip. There is no reason to believe that He was using it on people. That is out of character with everything we know about Jesus and His preaching. Certainly this episode seems out of character--a noisy, shouting, table tossing Jesus--more appropriate for a John the Baptist sort!

YET! When one realizes the horrible blasphemy He was addressing--prostituting the very place one came to meet with God--it is not surprising He responded with a measure of judgment." [5]


 Dr. Brad Jersak shares his thoughts on the subject in this article: The so-called 'violence' of Jesus in the so-called 'cleansing of the temple'.

"1. It was not a spontaneous outburst of anger. Jesus didn't have tantrums. He only did what he saw his Father doing (Jn. 5:19). His words and deeds were expressions of what he was told as he listened carefully to the Father--sometimes in the moment, sometimes in early morning prayer. I would propose that what happened at the temple was deliberate, strategic and prophetic. But of what?

2. We know that Jesus was deliberately recalling the prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah when he went into the temple, because he quotes both of them there as explanations of his actions (Jer. 7, Isa. 56). The link to Jeremiah is extremely important because both Jesus and Jeremiah go on to prophesy the same warning: the forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, along with the horrible slaughter of the inhabitants of the city (Jer. 7, Mk. 13). So we know Jesus is warning the temple establishment that they will ultimately trigger the siege and destruction of the temple by foreign armies. His counsel is not to be strong and courageous and defend the city with a Maccabean-style revolt (which will actually cause the destruction), but to literally head for the hills (Mk. 13:14) or be slaughtered en masse (which Josephus describes, just as predicted). 

3. But why didn't Jesus just say this? Why also start overturning tables and driving out animals? As I've said, this was no tantrum. Rather, in the tradition of the Jewish prophets, and parallel to his prophetic curse of the fig tree, Jesus was prophetically acting out the coming final upheaval of the temple, just like Jeremiah! 

In Jeremiah 19, God tells Jeremiah to go to the gate overlooking the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna, which we mistranslate 'hell') and to symbolically shatter a ceramic jar. The shattered jar portends the destruction of the city by Babylonian armies, then Jeremiah goes to the temple and repeats the prophetic warning. Jesus is doing the same thing: 'Hey everyone, repent! Because if you don't, the same thing is going to happen again!' He ends up weeping because Jerusalem could not see the things that would make for peace (i.e., embracing the Prince of Peace).

In fact, at the end of Luke 19, we have Jesus' last recorded words before he strides into the temple. He explicitly declares the meaning of what he's about to do:

41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

4. All of this is certain. After carefully reading the text, we needn't imagine Jesus literally flogging people. The text never says that. In fact, the Synoptic Gospels (Matt., Mark and Luke) only say that he was driving out the buyers and sellers. How? By overturning the tables of the money-changers and the benches of those selling doves and 'says to them' (Mt. 21:13), 'taught them' (Mk. 11:17). 

Only in John 2 do we read that he fashioned a whip. What does he do with it exactly?

14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”

It appears obvious that this 'driving out' can be broken down this way: a., Jesus was using the whip to shoo out the animals; b., he overthrows tables to scatter the coins and doves; and c., he turns and speaks (Loudly? Probably!) to the merchants. Is he being 'violent'? If creating a scene is violent, of course? But in any way that violates his own commands not to strike back? It's just not there. 

In fact, in John 2, after he uses the whip, the temple authorities are hardly laying there bleeding. Nor is the temple guard alerted to restrain Jesus. Rather, the spectacle leads to a debate: the 'Jews' (= Judean leaders) argue with him about his authority and ask Jesus for a sign. He tells them, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will rebuild it" (Jn. 2:19). 

5. This leads us to two points to puzzle over:

a. This is peripheral, but again, note that we only see the whip in John 2. Also, it's only in John 2 that we hear the evangelist reflect in retrospect: "The temple he was referring to was the temple of his body" (Jn. 20:21). Perhaps the whip in John 2 connects indirectly to the picture of Jesus' own body being flogged (in John 19). John has placed the incident at the front end of his Gospel--a literary rather than chronological choice--as an opening bracket to correspond with the closing bracket of the passion of Christ at the end.

b. Picturing this scene is difficult on a number of fronts.

a. the size of the temple precincts was enormous? Did he really clear the whole place, or did Jesus choose a strategic spot to do this work of 'performance art'?

b. Obviously, not everyone left, because Jesus starts healing the blind and the lame, welcoming the children's cheers (Mt. 21:14-16), and debating with the authorities (Jn. 2). 

c. If Jesus was being 'violent,' why do the leaders only plot to kill him? Why don't they order the temple guard to arrest him immediately? We know that they feared him (Mk. 11:18) and his popularity with the crowd. But also, if he was so 'violent', how could Jesus say at his arrest, 

"And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me" (Mk. 14:48-49)." 


But what about the State bearing the sword?  Romans 12:14-13:7

Christians often justify warfare by an appeal to Romans 13: Be subject to the powers that be, which exist to be a terror to those who do evil. Given this teaching, war making may be justified for the Christian when it is engaged in service to a just cause.This reading of Romans 13 is problematic when placed in the greater context of Romans 12. 

THE STATE	THE CHURCH
Romans 13:1-7	Romans 12:14-21
May use violence (“the sword”)	Rejects the way of the sword
Takes “revenge” on God’s behalf	Leaves vengeance to God
Maintains social order	Spreads radical love for all
Demands taxes and obedience	Offers taxes and submission

The chart above dramatically points out the contrasting differences between the church and the state. While the State is God's agent to maintain social order the church is called to a radical love that overcomes evil with good. "Romans 12 and 13, taken as a single literary unit, are of great importance for understanding both the mission of the church and, while we await the consummation of God’s Kingdom, God’s use of the powers-that-be. The church is called as an outpost of the coming Kingdom to embody the ways of peace and non-retaliatory love, to live not according to the old aeon but according to the new work of God made manifest in the merciful work of Christ."[6] 

Can I a Christian be a member of the State? The typical answer, since the Constantinian Shift, to this question is yes... but let me sketch out some reasons why this answer might be problematic. 

1. Mutually Exclusive Roles: The moment you pick up 'the sword' you lay down 'the way of the Cross'. The way of the Cross' is the way of suffering, loving, and forgiving others to the point of death. 'The way of the sword' is the path of violence and destruction to obtain a desired result. It is the way of human civilization beginning with Cain. You can't have both. You can't 'leave room for the wrath of God' and 'become agent of wrath' in the next breath. 

2. Citizenship Issues: Our baptism grants us a new citizenship in the Kingdom of God. (Phil 3:20;Eph 2:19) Christians are representative of a new humanity! We are not just 'dual citizens' but Ambassadors of Heaven, whom God is using to reconcile the world. (2 Cor 5:20) We have thrown off the old ways to join the new creation. (2 Cor 5:17) This means our new citizenship renders our old citizenship functionally void.  "To rightly make sense of the New Testament, we must continually hold before ourselves the fundamental claim of the New Testament: namely that the new aeon had broken in. Aeon is the Greek word often translated into English as either “age” or “world,” and the New Testament speaks often of this “present aeon.” But the Good News is that the new aeon, the kingdom of God, has broken into the midst of human history. The “present aeon” has not yet passed away, and it is as if the two are now overlapping. But the call of discipleship is to live according to the New, even while the old is yet languishing but sure to be defeated. Jesus in his death set us “free from the present evil aeon” (Gal 1:4)."[7] 


3. Allegiance Issues. Our ultimate allegiance is to Christ alone.  (Matt 10:37-39) Jesus indicates his form of discipleship calls for giving him ultimate supremacy beyond parents or children (or nations), something not even the most esteemed rabbi would demand. This is an implicit declaration of his deity, because only God deserves higher place of honour than the most valued social order. To take up one’s cross is a metaphor that means to take up God’s will for one’s life, in the same way that the cross was the Father’s will for the Son’s life. Taking up God’s will for one’s life will result in gaining true life as Jesus’ disciple. "Consequently it will not suffice to simply cite “our duty” to the powers as justification for killing brothers and sisters in Christ on the other side of a political dispute. It is this factual rupturing of the unity of the body of Christ that is so very often overlooked in many conversations about Christians and war making.”[8]There is nothing more scandalous to the unity of the body of Christ, than baptized Christians killing baptized Christians.  This I submit to you is one of the great heresies that has befallen the Church. 

4. The Basis of Christian Ethics: Jesus is the embodiment of Christian ethics and the New Humanity/Age. Christ followers re-present the risen Lord in everything we do! Insofar that we remain faithful to imitation of Christ, is the exact measure we participate in this present age. We should choose to follow Jesus in all ways, including the way of peace, because it is right and good and honours God, not because we think it is the most efficient strategy for overcoming our enemy or preserving lives. Christian nonviolence is not right because it is always the best technique to disarm hostile situations or to preserve life. Christian nonviolence is right because it is the way taught and modelled by Jesus, our Lord and Master. When we live the way of peace, we are living as the body of Christ in the world today, directed by Jesus as our head. When we live the way of peace, whether we live or die, we are bearing witness to Jesus. (Romans 12:18; Mark 15:39)

Thanks for reading! The next blog with cover the remainder of the 'but what about's... "

Be sure to check out Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,  Part 6, and Part 7

Here is Part 9.


Works Cited

1. York, Tripp ed. A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: What about Warrior Jesus in Revelation 19? 
2. ibid.
3.Wilkens, Michael. The NIV Application Commentary: Luke (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1031 (e-version) 
4. York, Tripp ed. A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: What about Jesus in the Temple?
5. Brian Glubish in a Facebook message to me, circa 2010.
6.York, Tripp ed. A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: What about Romans 13?
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid