Loving Your Enemy: Part 6: What does the New Testament teach?

An ironic depiction of a peace dove in the West Bank. 

In Part 4 and Part 5 we discussed Jesus' teaching on the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel's witness to peace-theology. We observed that there is a consistency among the four Gospels on the vision of Jesus as a practitioner and teacher of enemy love. The question we will wrestle with in this blog post is: What does the New Testament teach on peace-theology? Or in other words:

Do the other texts in the New Testament cannon reinforce Jesus' teaching on nonviolence or do they provide other options that might allow or require Christians to take up the sword?

"When the question is posed this way, the immediate result, as Karl Barth observed, is to underscore how impressively univocal the New Testament writers are on this point... From Matthew to Revelation we find a consistent witness against violence and a calling to follow the example of Jesus in accepting suffering rather than inflicting it."  

- Dr. Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament

Let's attempt to examine this claim. We will not attempt an exhaustive read of the peace theology of the New Testament but try to highlight the consistent witness to peace theology. Here is a brief survey:

(We will examine possible biblical objections to peace theology in the upcoming posts)  

Acts of the Apostles

Luke preserves the death of Jesus as a murder of an innocent victim. Peter on the Day of Pentecost addresses the crowd saying, "And you, with the help of wicked men, put Jesus to death by nailing him to the cross". (2.23) His listeners are shocked that God does not respond with retribution but with the words of forgiveness and reconciliation to all. 

Luke portrays the emergent movement whose activity consist of preaching, healing ,worship and sharing. Those who carry the message of the Kingdom to various outposts of the Roman world do not claim territory through military operations; rather they proclaim the Gospel and often find themselves the targets of violence. (5.17-42) 

The Christian response to violence is modeled by Stephen the Martyr, who imitates the example of Jesus in his death by praying for the forgiveness of his enemy. (7.60) "Stephen’s last words are surprisingly close to two of the last words of Jesus just before he died. He asks God to receive his spirit (7:59; cf. Luke 23:46) and not to “hold this sin against” his killers (Acts 7:60; cf. Luke 23:34). Only Luke mentions the two parallel statements of Christ. Presumably he wants his readers to note the similarity and entered into the fellowship of sharing in Christ’s sufferings."[1]

The response of the early church to violence is too trust and obey God for vindication. Never is there any indication in the book of Luke-Acts that the church should stand and fight those who persecute her. Immediately after the murder of Stephen, the church does not 'stand and fight', but Luke tells us that, "All except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria."(8.1) 

"Suffering is one of the major sub-themes of the book of Acts. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that Luke is describing the suffering of Stephen and the church and their response to it in order that his readers might glean lessons on how Christians should face suffering. Stephen received strength to face his painful ordeal triumphantly. On many other occasions in Acts when God’s servants suffered for the gospel, God revealed himself in some recognizable way that gave them the courage to go on (4:31; 18:9; 23:11; 27:23–24). We can conclude that God, knowing how much we can endure, gives us his strength in our times of need, which boosts our spirits and spurs us on to obedience, even to obedience leading to death. In a similar way God fulfilled this promise in the life of Paul when no relief from suffering came to him: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). 

Christ is a suffering Savior, and if we are to be truly one with him, we too must suffer. There is a depth of union with Christ that comes to us only through suffering. But not only do we share in his sufferings, he shares in our sufferings. The exalted Christ, sharing in the glory of God, is not deaf to our cries of pain as we suffer; he himself suffers with us when we suffer. Paul came to understand this on the road to Damascus when he heard Jesus say, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4). Saul had been hitting the church, but Christ had been feeling the pain!" [2]

Paul

In the letters of Paul; the death of Christ is interpreted as God’s peace initiative.

• “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” (Romans 5:8-10)

"Paul refers to “peace with God,” the objective position we find ourselves in because God has ceased to be hostile toward us and has reconciled us to himself . Paul often uses peace in this sense (see esp. Eph. 2:14, 15, 17; also Rom. 2:10; 8:6; 14:17)."[3] How does God treat enemies? Rather than killing them, Paul tells us that God gives us his Son to die for them. Jesus comes with the message of forgiveness and reconciliation, to bring us back to God. Jesus, fulfilling his own Beatitudes, is the blessed peacemaker who 'persecuted for righteousness sake'. "For he (Jesus) himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility." (Ephesians 2:14) 

The imitation of Christ in his self-emptying service for the sake of others is the central ethical motif in Paul. (Phil 2:1-13) "Let the same mind be in you that [was] in Christ Jesus': more literally, 'be thus minded in/ among yourselves as also in Christ Jesus'. Paul points to Jesus, as known on earth, as the example for Christians in their relationships."[4] Christ followers are to imitate the kenosis of Jesus, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!"(Phil 2:6-8) 

Paul, in Romans 12, commands the church to love and bless their enemies; overcome evil with good. This bears a striking resemblance to the Sermon on the Mount:

"Paul shows more dependence on Jesus’ teaching in this part of Romans than he does anywhere else in his letters. The way he weaves references to that teaching into his own exhortations without specifically citing Jesus is typical of the way the early Christians absorbed Jesus’ words into their own ethical tradition. Like Jesus, Paul calls on us to turn the other cheek, displaying a love for others that goes far beyond the normal boundaries of human love....
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Though redeemed and citizens of heaven, we believers still live in a world soaked in evil. We must battle constantly against the tendency to conform our behaviour to this world . But more than the purely negative quality of resistance to evil is needed. God calls us to be active in using the grace of the gospel and the power of the Spirit to win victories over the evil of this world."[5]

Paul’s occasional use of military imagery (2 Cor 10:3-6;

Phil 1:27-30) actually have the opposite effect the warfare imagery it’s drafted into the service of the gospel rather than the reverse. Paul appropriates battle imagery as the way of describing the apocalyptic context in which the community live. The actual fighting is done through the proclamation of the Gospel and the obedient yielding of one’s life. Rightly understood these metaphors witness powerfully against violence as an expression of obedience to God in Christ. e.g. "For our battle is not against flesh and blood".



Hebrews 
The writer of the book of Hebrews reminds his/her readers that they have been through such persecution in the past.

• "You endured in a great conflict full of suffering. Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. You suffered along with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions. So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded." (Hebrews 10:32b-34)

Notice that the plunder of possessions is to be excepted with joy (meta chara) rather than resisted by force. Here we find a substantiative parallel to Matthew 5:40.

Peter

Peter is concerned with the community’s response to trials and suffering. (1 Peter 1:6-7, 3:13, 4:12-19, 5:8-10) Such afflictions are interpreted in a manner reminiscent of Paul, as ‘sharing Christ’s suffering’(1 Peter 4:13)

The author 1 Peter holds up the suffering of Christ as a paradigm for Christian faithfulness.

• “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps....When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” (1 Peter 2:21;23) 

James

James declares anger as ‘not producing the righteousness of God’. (1.20) 

James believes that wisdom that is from heaven is 'peace-loving'. (3.17) 

According to James; those that sow in peace will reap a harvest of righteousness. James is connecting the activity of peacemaking to the establishment of righteousness on the earth. (3.18) 

James 4:1-3: ‘Wars and fightings’ are attributed to the ‘cravings’ that are at war within an individual. James never entertains the notion that their might be circumstances in which fighting and killing are necessary for some good purpose.

James encourages patience in the midst of suffering. (5.7-12) There is no call for 'godly retaliation' from the brother of Jesus. 

Revelation

Revelation is often misread as a warrant for warlike attitude among Christians. This is to read the Revelation out of context. The entire content of the book is presented as a visionary revelation granted to someone named John who identifies himself as “your brother who shares with you in Jesus the persecution; and the Kingdom patient endurance. (1:9)

Revelation 5 becomes a controlling text for the hermeneutic of the book of the Revelation.Here we see the Lion who has become the slaughtered Lamb. (5.6) The shock of this reveal discloses the central mystery of the apocalypse: God overcomes the world not through a show of force but through the suffering and death of Jesus.

In the book of Revelation, Christ’s Lordship stands as a flat antithesis to Caesars. (11:15)

The Saints conquer the power of evil through the ‘blood of the lamb and by the word of their testimony’ (Rev 12:11); not through recourse to violence.

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."[6]

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 its 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”). 

Thanks for reading this post! We will be dealing with biblical objections and problematic sections in the upcoming: "But what about?" series. 

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

Here is Part 7. 

Works Cited

1. Fernando, Ajith NIV Application Commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010) 655 (e-version)  

2. Ibid.

3. Moo, Douglas. NIV Application Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009) 418 e-version 

4. Barton, John. The Oxford Bible Commentary
5. Moo, Douglas. NIV Application Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009) 1015 e-version
6. York, Tripp ed. A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: What about Warrior Jesus in Revelation 19? 

Loving Your Enemy: Part 5: What did Jesus do?

Is this what Jesus did? 

In the previous blog (Part 4) we broke down Jesus' lengthy teaching in Matthew 5 and Luke 6, in the search of the answer to the question: "What did Jesus teach on loving your enemy?" This blog will try to answer the question "What did Jesus do?" or in other words, "Are Jesus' teachings on enemy love consistent with the life he lived?" Our approach to the Gospels, in this short blog post, will emphasize that the Gospel writers are not merely recording history, but each author has a rich theology that must be paid attention too.  

This is not an exhaustive read of the Peace Theology of the Gospels, but this blog post is designed to point out a few examples for the readers to think over.  

Zechariah's Song Luke 1:67-79

"Zechariah's vision goes beyond simply a realigning of the political powers. God's mercy, the forgiveness of sins, the rescue from death itself; all of this points to a wider meaning of 'salvation'. Luke is preparing us to see that God, in fulfilling the great promises of the Old Testament, is going beyond a merely this-worldly salvation and opening the door to a whole new world."- N.T. Wright, Luke For Everybody


Zechariah's prophecy, at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke,is a clear pointer to the promise of shalom. Luke is brilliantly foreshadowing what Jesus' good news would look like:

"the Rising Sun will come to us from heaven to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace." (v78-79) 


Temptation Narrative (Luke 4:1-3; Matthew 4:1-11)

The Gospel(s) of Matthew and Luke tell of the temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness. Jesus is said to have entered into the Wilderness for forty days, of which he excludes himself from the systems and practices of the world. It is in the Wilderness that, The Satan tempts the Christ to bow to the powers of 'Empire'. The Satan declares to the Anointed One, “I will give you all their authority and splendour; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours.”(Luke 4:6-7) Jesus was tempted by ‘the Satan’ to use coercive power to establish Kingdom of God, to join in the fusing of nations and ecclesia. Jesus rejects the coercive power hungry ways of this world, and instead exercises cruciform-love that serves, sacrifices, and loves enemies. 

"Jesus was not going to allow the radical distinctiveness of the kingdom of God to be co-opted by the demonically ruled kingdoms of the world; however good the immediate consequences may have been. He was not going to do the practical thing and win the world by acquiring 'power-over' nations. He was, rather, going to win the world by exhibiting 'power-under'. Jesus took the impractical, slow, discrete, and self-crucifying road to transforming the world."
-Greg Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation





Jesus is rejected at Nazareth (Luke 4:14-30)

In Luke's Gospel, Jesus walks out of the wilderness of temptation and into his hometown of Nazareth. It is there in Nazareth that Jesus reads the Jubilee passage from Isaiah 61. Jesus then proclaims, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." The initial reaction to Jesus' statement is positive, but as Jesus continues to communicate further the vision of fulfillment that he would bring, the crowd becomes furious! The people of Nazareth are ready to kill Jesus, but Luke tells us that he walks through the crowd and goes on his way. 

Why did the crowd go from speaking well of Jesus to almost killing him? 

"The first thing to notice is that Jesus does not cite the entire text but eliminates one very important line, “and the day of the vengeance of our God.” The question is why did he do this? Some suggest that now is the time of grace and so Jesus holds off on quoting the text about God’s vengeance since that will come later at the end of time. But nowhere else does Jesus seem to quote the biblical text in this fashion, and he never seems to break the work of God into dispensations or periods of time. Something else is going on here.....
 
If, in popular opinion, part of the promise of jubilee was that God would deliver Israel from her oppressors, and if that expectation was that God would punish her oppressors, then the phrase “and the day of the vengeance of our God” would be an aspect of the longed for and hoped for deliverance by which Israel’s enemies would be cast down. Political deliverance was perceived as an aspect of God working wrath on Israel’s enemies. By eliminating this line, Jesus also eliminated the possibility that jubilee included God’s wrath upon whoever was oppressing Israel. His words were indeed “gracious words” (“words of grace”)"....

The citation of the two examples of Elijah and Elisha then justify Jesus’ exclusion of this vengeance saying for both prophets had worked their healing miracles among foreign outsiders, those whom God was supposed (in popular piety) to hate. In short, Jesus is saying to his synagogue hearers “Jubilee is here, not only for you but also for those you hate; in fact God also goes to your oppressors with this message of jubilee, deliverance and salvation.” Now we can begin to understand why they got so mad at him."
 - Michael Hardin, The Jesus Driven Life

Jesus was rejected at Nazareth percisely because he would not use violence as a tool for the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Jesus instead extends the offer of grace and mercy to the enemies of Israel; to all who are thirsty! This is scandalous grace! 

Jesus Rebukes The Old Testament Ethic (Luke 9:51-56)

In this narrative, Jesus purposely chooses to enter Samaria rather than bypassing it. For a Jew to pass through Samaria is extremely rare, let alone dwell with the Samaritans. Jesus by going to Samaria is breaking down ethnic, racial, gender barriers, demonstrating the love for his neighbour who the Jewish population regarded as the ethical half breed, the enemy. 


He sends disciples ahead of his main travelling group to prepare a place to stay the night, as was the custom of traveling Rabbi's. The disciples are to request the hospitality of the village ahead of the arrival of the Rabbi. The Samaritans openly reject Jesus. Luke tells us that it is because Jesus 'set his face toward Jerusalem.' What is the significance of the Samaritans rejecting Jesus?
“The refusal to receive a religious teacher was considered a rejection of his claims. Jesus was not the Messiah for them. They had expectations, traditions, and interpretations that they held onto so tightly that when the Saviour of all mankind appeared and offered them riches beyond measure they could not take hold of Him. Jesus was not the Messiah they had pictured.” [1] 

James and John respond to this rejection of Jesus by asking to 'call down fire from heaven just as Elijah did”. (See 2 Kings   1:9-16) The Sons of Thunder, or more accurately translated, the 'Sons of Rage'[2] are rebuked by Jesus who says, "You do not know of what sort of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them! " (Amplified) 

Wait a minute! 


Jesus rebukes them for following one of the greatest Old Testament prophets? Are the Sons of Rage really out of line? Why does Jesus rebuke them? 


 Take a moment to consider that something completely acceptable by a Prophet in the Old Testament is condemned in the New Testament by Jesus! This seems odd that Jesus would refrain from, and rebuke those who would consider to, commit the same action that Elijah the prophet would. 

Three things to consider here:

1. Violence is the opposite of the Good News. Jesus connects the use of violence against the Samaritans as the antithesis of his Gospel Mission to save the lives of humanity.
2. People are not the enemy, but victims of the enemy, by falling prey to a false conception of the anthropos. Jesus' new vision of humanity is one without tribalism, territory, and temple; the very thing that caused the Jews to ostracize the Samaritans and in turn led to the Samaritan rejection of Jesus. 
3. Elijah would not make a good disciple of Jesus! :)

"The disciples did not consider that the conduct of the Samaritans was rather the effect of national prejudices and bigotry, than of enmity to the word and worship of God; and through they refused to receive Christ and his disciples, they did not ill use or injure them, so that the case was widely different from that of Ahaziah and Elijah. Nor were they aware that the gospel was to be marked by miracles of mercy. But above all, they were ignorant of the prevailing motives of their own hearts, which were pride and carnal ambition. Of this our Lord warned them. It is easy for us to say, Come, see our zeal for the Lord! And to think we are very faithful in his cause, when we are seeking our own objects, and even doing harm instead of good to others."[3]

The Way of the Cross

Mark 10:35-45
35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”
36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.
37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”
38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”
39 “We can,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”

Break down of the above text:

“Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”

There was expectation among the people of Israel that the Messiah would come as a conqueror.The Messiah would kick out the Romans and then Israel would be restored James and John (the Sons of Rage) had this expectation when they approached Jesus. James and John want to turn Jesus’ messianic journey to Jerusalem into a march to glory—a glory in which they will sit on either side of him when he reigns as king of Israel . The Sons of Rage thought that Glory was the extent to which you could have power over others.

Jesus’ reply “You don’t know what you are asking,”

 Jesus did not view glory as the extent to which you could have power over others. Jesus' Kingdom operates with a completely different understanding of power. So Jesus asks them: 

 “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”

Jesus is using two Jewish metaphors here:

1.The Cup: “Life experiences”  “My cup overflows”. Scripture uses it as a figure for getting one's fill either of good OR suffering. Here in Jesus' context of the cross it is the cup of suffering.

2. Baptism -A metaphor for being submerged into any experience. 

Jesus is asking them: Can you bear to go through the terrible experiences I have too? 

 “We can,” they answered.

John and James have clearly heard all the language about suffering, death and rising again simply as a set of pictures, perhaps meaning ‘It’s going to be tough, but we’re going to come out on top.’

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with."

Jesus sees that even thought they don’t fully get the Kingdom, they will one day! James was later beheaded by Herod (Acts 12:2) John endured much suffering, and was imprisoned on the island of Patmos. “They accepted the challenge of their Master; even if they did so blindly”[4] 

“But to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”

Here Jesus is foreshadowing his own death, and the picture of the two Thieves on the Cross. Notice that Jesus defines the place of Glory as the Cross. The place where he suffered.

The place where Christ served humanity unto death.It is through serving us and loving us even unto death: Jesus enacts and announces the Kingdom of God. 

Some other passages about the way of the Cross:

• Jesus first identifies the way of the Cross in the context of being a disciple who follows him. (Luke 9:22-24, Matt 10:38, Mark 8:34)
• "By requiring disciples to carry their cross, Jesus expects them to be willing to join the ranks of the despised and doomed.They must be ready to deny themselves even to the point of giving their lives."[5]
• In the three passion predictions (Mt 16:21-23, 17:22-23, 20:-17-19) Jesus foretells his fate as one who will be ‘persecuted for righteousness sake’; and he intimates that those who follow him will suffer the same fate
• In Gethsemane,(Mt. 26.36) Jesus chooses to bear the cup of suffering, the way of obedience instead of the way of violence.
• Jesus rebukes his disciple who uses the sword saying, “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Mt 26:52) 
• “For even if soldiers came to John and received advice on how to act, and even if a centurion  became a believer, the Lord, in subsequently disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier” - Tertullian (160-220 A.D)
• "The way of the world is to assert its will on others through human power, even violence, and the way of the world is to retaliate against violence with violence. The inevitable consequence of championing violence is often one’s own violent end." [6]
• Jesus tells Pilate that his “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight” (Jn 18:36)
• "The true test of his kingdom can be seen in the behaviour of his disciples. They will not engage in combat or struggle against Rome’s rule...The one instance of violence when Peter struck Malchus was promptly rebuked by Jesus (18:11)." [7]
• This is one of the few times in the Gospel of John where Jesus uses the term "kingdom' (basileia).
• Jesus’ death is fully consistent with his teaching: he refuses to lift a finger, rejects calling a legion of angels (Mt 26:53), and intercedes and forgives his enemies. (Lk 23:34a) 

 The cross is not a detour or a hurdle on the way to the  kingdom, nor is it even the way to the kingdom; it is the kingdom come. -John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus 

Jesus' Enactment and Announcement of the Kingdom


A kingdom is a realm where the character and commands of the king influence a people's way of living; with each other and with other kingdoms. The kingdom of Heaven/God/Christ is a way of living in union with the authority, character, and way of Jesus. (Matthew 6:33) Here are a few references to Jesus' vision of what his Kingdom look like: 


Jesus is careful in defining what the Kingdom looks like:

• Jesus withdraws from the crowd that wants to ‘take him by force to make him king’. (Jn 6.15)
• Jesus imposes an order of silence to keep his disciples from proclaiming him as Messiah until he as redefined it in terms of the Cross. He instructs his disciples that their vocation must be the same as his. (Mk 8:27-9:1) 
• Jesus would not allow demons to speak because they knew he was the Messiah. (Luke 4:41) 
• "Some Scholars refer to this as to this as the ‘messianic secret.’ Jesus supposedly wanted to keep his messianic identity quiet, after all it could get him in trouble with the authorities and he still had work to do."-Michael Hardin

• The Kingdom grows slowly, organically, and even serves enemies. Luke 13:18-19; John 12:24
• The Kingdom is peace-making and peace-living. John 18:36
• The Kingdom is non-institutional and non-territorial. Luke 17:20-21 
• Service as the way of the Kingdom. Matthew 20:25-28; Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:24-27; John 13:12-17
• It is a Kingdom that is not marked by Titles, but by Towels. John 13:14
• It's a Kingdom that looks entirely like Jesus!  

The Resurrection 

DJesus Uncrossed (Saturday Night Live) from razorgrind on Vimeo.

(Above: a parody of Jesus resurrection as 'revenge') 

The Resurrected Jesus does not seek to 'bring to justice' those who crucified him. Jesus does not return an eye for an eye. Instead the first words that Jesus utters in Luke's gospel after the resurrection are: "Peace be with you". 

"I suspect that what may have astonished them (disciples) the most was that the emphasis placed by Jesus on the meaning of his suffering and death did not result in some kind of retribution from God. It was the forgiveness expressed by God in the resurrected Jesus that collapsed all of their previous theological ideas and assumptions. Their theologies dictated a violent or retributive response on the part of God. That never happened; instead peace, reconciliation, forgiveness and love were announced!"
-Michael Hardin, The Jesus Driven Life

Thanks for reading. My next post will survey the New Testament witness to peace theology. 

Be sure to check out Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 and Part 4.

Here is Part 6.

Reflection Questions for Discussion

1.Do you find this brief survey of the Gospel's helpful in understanding the scriptural basis for Nonviolence?

2. At this point in the series let’s ask a previous question: If you became convinced that Jesus calls us to absolute non-violent, active enemy love, no matter what... Would you submit to his call? If you’re not convinced already, what issue will this series need to address before you would be convinced?

3. Why do you think it is so hard for otherwise Bible-believing Christ-followers to believe the Bible and follow the NT witness on this specific teaching? 

Works Cited

1. James Braun Commentary on Luke 9 
2. Gustaf Dalman Jesus-Jeshua, op. cit., 12, notes that Boanerges of Mk. 3:17 “probably goes back to the Aramaic bene regesh, ‘sons of rage’, and does not mean (as it is often understood) ‘sons of thunder.’ 
3. Arrington, French and Roger Stronstad, eds. Life in the Spirit New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999
4. William Barclay's commentary on Mark.
5. Garland, David E. NIV Application Commentary on Mark (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004) 1194 (e-version)  
6.Bock, Darrel. The NIV Application Commentary: Matthew(Grand Rapids: Zondervan,2003) 2293 (e-version)
7. Burge, Gary. The NIV Application Commentary: John (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 2004) 

Loving Your Enemy: Part 4: What did Jesus teach?

“Blessed are the Peacemakers - Matthew 5:9” 

Setting the Context:

 Jesus entered the world during the reign of the Roman Empire. Rome’s transition from an expansionist republic to a full-blown empire is usually dated around 27 BCE when Octavian, renamed Caesar Augustus, became emperor. Luke's Gospel even records the census that was decreed by the Caesar. The events of the Gospels take place under the Pax Romana. This 'peace of Rome' was enforced through legions of Roman soldiers occupying foreign lands, and robbing them of resources, a distinct national identity, and bringing a forced peace through violence. It would be more accurate to call the Pax Romana the 'dominance of Rome'. 

When Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God, he at least implicitly questioned the Pax Romana. He juxtaposed the true peace of God’s kingdom with the “imperial good tidings of a pacified world and human happiness in it.”[1] Jesus claim to Kingdom would not look like any other Kingdom that has ever existed. To say God’s kingdom is at hand implies that Caesar’s kingdom is not ultimate. Or in other words; if Jesus is Lord: Caesar is not. 

Something to consider: 

If Jesus wanted to demonstrate that a nationalistic warfare or any justifiable use of violence was acceptable he had ample opportunity. There was expectation that the Messiah would deliver them from the yoke of Roman rule. “The people wanted a Messiah who would crush the Roman occupation and raise Israel’s prominence among the nations. Instead Jesus explained that the son of man must die. Jesus as the Messiah is a suffering servant, a dying Saviour”[2]. Jesus’ teachings clearly contrasted his contemporaries, specifically the Zealot movement of the day. The Zealots were a movement within the first century Israel that advocated the violent overthrow of the Romans, and their Jewish sympathizers. They participated in assassinations, upheavals, and violent resistance to their Roman oppressors.  “Where Jesus and the Zealot movement parted company was in the area of violence. Jesus taught his disciples to turn the other cheek to violence and pray for their enemies. He could never have supported the holy wars of the Zealots” [3]. If Jesus the Messiah was not going to use violence to rescue the oppressed nation of Israel, then how could we as followers of Christ ever claim to use violence as means of conflict resolution? It is Jesus’ deliberate rejection of violence as a tool for the kingdom establishment that suggests to me that the enemy love teachings should be taken literally; that is: put into practice. 

For this blog post I will focus in on Matthew 5:38-48 with reference to Luke 6:27-36. 

 (Please check out Part 1 before reading this. I give a few reasons on the lens I am using) 

"You heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth'. But I say to you: don't use violence to resist evil! Instead, when someone hits you on the right cheek, turn the other one toward him. When someone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your cloak, too. And when someone forces you to go one mile, go a second one with him. Give to anyone who asks you, and don't refuse someone who wants to borrow from you. 

You heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbour and hate your enemy'. But I tell you: love your enemies! Pray for people who persecute you! That way, you'll be children of your father in heaven! After all, God makes the sun rise on bad and good alike, and sends rain both on the upright and on the unjust. Look at it like this: if you love those who love you, do you expect a special reward? Even tax-collectors do that, don't they? And if you only greet your own family, what's so special about that? Even Gentiles do that, don't they? Well then: you must be perfect, just as your heavenly father is perfect."

 - Matthew 5:38-48 (The Kingdom New Testament) 

Break down of the above text. 

"You heard that it was said...but I say to you"

Jesus is contrasting with the Old Testament through the use of six 'antithesis statements' in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. In each antithesis, Jesus demonstrates how the Old Testament is to be properly interpreted and applied, thus, how the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled, through Jesus' ministry and teaching. Jesus’ fulfillment is not merely an add-on to the Law, rather Jesus is the interpretative norm and prophetic fulfillment.

"First, he (Jesus) had to show the Jews of his day that his movement really was the fulfillment of all that Israel had believed and longed for. Second, he had to show that he and his followers really were living by (and also dying by) the new way he was announcing. The tension between these two sometimes seemed fierce, and to this day many people misunderstand it. Some think of Jesus as just a great Jewish teacher without much of a revolution. Others see him as so revolutionary that he left Judaism behind altogether and established something quite new. Jesus holds the two together. He was indeed offering something utterly revolutionary, to which he would remain faithful; but it was, in fact, the reality toward which Israel's whole life and tradition had pointed." - N.T. Wright, Matthew For Everybody 

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"

An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth was a law of limitation. (See Exodus 21:24) It prevented the overuse of aggression and conflict. It was given to provide the nation’s judicial system with a ready formula of punishment. So if someone broke their neighbour’s tooth you could not slaughter his whole family in retaliation. This is a great ethic to live by if your goal is fairness and justified retaliation.  

"Don't use violence to resist evil"

Jesus counters this notion of limited retaliation.Where Torah restricts retaliation; Jesus forbids it all together. Jesus is introducing a Kingdom conception of justice as mercy. The way to respond to evil is not with more evil actions, but with creative and non-violent action(s) whose goal is to make enemies friends."Jesus offers a new sort of justice, a creative, healing, restorative justice. The old justice found in the Bible was designed to prevent revenge running away on itself. But Jesus does better still."[4]

Notice that Jesus is not saying, ‘let them’ in the response the violent act. Jesus is not teaching passivity or nonresistance, which is inaction. Jesus is offering a creative, culturally relevant responses to our aggressors. Christ followers do not stand by and do nothing. Christ-followers engage injustice through love, witness, spirit, reason, rhetoric, and if need be: martyrdom.

When someone hits you on the right cheek, turn the other one toward them. 

“If a right handed person strikes someone’s right cheek, it is a slap by the back of the hand, which is considered more insulting than a slap by the open palm.”[5] 

"Turning the cheek pictures a person slapped on the cheek in rejection. The action involves an insult that may well be associated with removal from the synagogue."[6] 

Jesus gives the example of the force of an aggressor whose violence is also meant for insult and domination. In Jesus' day a backhanded slap was reserved for slaves, women and children. By turning the other cheek Jesus is implying: 'You can hit me if you like, but now as your equal not your inferior'. In doing this, the Christ follower would not participate in the cycle of retaliation but would end the cycle of violence. 

"Jesus does not promise that if we turn the other cheek we will avoid being hit again. Non-retaliation is not a strategy to get what we want by other means. Rather, Jesus calls us to the practice of non-retaliation because that is the form God's care of us took in his cross." 
-  Stanley Hauerwas

When someone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let them have your cloak, too. 

In Matthew's Gospel, Jesus gives us a courtroom scene in which your enemy is going to sue you for the 'shirt off your back'. Jesus is literally saying in his context, 'give them your underwear as well'. 

“The cloak, the toga-like garment that could not be legally taken away. [Exodus 22:25-26] as the victim would end up naked in the courtroom.”[7]

Public nudity in ancient cultures always shamed those who saw the nudist, and not the naked person. (Remember Noah's sons?) By stripping down to your birthday suit, you would reveal the injustice of your aggressor, whose legal violence has reduced you to a state of shame. 

Luke's account on the Sermon on the Plain differs from Matthew's version. Luke 6:29 says nothing about legal action but mentions the garments in reverse order. This has led some to think that Luke has violent robbery in mind because the outer garment would be snatched off first. I could imagine that in doing this you are saying:  If you have to take my clothes from me, you must really need everything I have. Watch me as I give, even what I have left, freely to you. 

And when someone forces you to go one mile, go a second one with them.

By Roman rule a soldier could force anyone to carry the soldier’s gear a mile. The Roman law strictly limited the obligation to one mile. Jesus is asking the very people who are oppressed and belittled by this Roman law to endure the shame and go further. To go the extra mile was not just to submit in a legalist sense, but to show abounding love in the denial of self. The first mile is the required ethic of the land; the second mile is love and freedom Christ that creatively seeks to apply love to every situation. The first mile would fulfill the law, the second mile would be love. Presumably, the soldier would be shocked by your display of hospitality in the face of his hostility toward you. (The soldier might even be alarmed that you might get him trouble with the commanding officer!)

“To be merely passive or non-resistant were weaknesses; but a passiveness which springs from Christian principal, and has a spiritual object in view, is true strength and real victor. To go two miles instead of the one that is imposed on us is to overcome the arbitrary power that would coerce us.”[8] 

Give to anyone who asks you, and don't refuse someone who wants to borrow from you. 

"The word “ask” (aiteo) in this context indicates a poor person who begs for alms. The person who wants to “borrow” (danizo) may likewise have been poor, since the use of this same verb in Luke 6:34 indicates loaning to a person unable to repay."[9]

This is certainly a reminder to be a person who imitates the generous Abba of Jesus, who loves and gives without discrimination. I also want to suggest that Jesus is in the middle of a context of giving examples of a response to an evil person aggressing against us. This might suggest that Jesus is assuming that we interpret “the one who asks of you” as an evil person, one who may use violent means. While this context might help those who do not wish give out endless amounts of money to every person who asks, I think their might be something deeper going on here: What if generosity was a weapon against injustice? 

What if, by being people of generosity, we heal the scars of injustice that perpetuate the systems of violence in this world? What if instead of firing bullets we gave out food?What if generosity destroys the walls of hostility that divide us? James the brother of Jesus seems to suggest this when he writes, "What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight."(James 4:1-2) Generosity disarms the 'desires that battle within', by defeating what anthropologists like Rene Girard call, mimetic desire.* (the imitation of each others desires which leads to rivalry and scapegoating)

"Christians are to give more than we are asked to give, we are to give to those who beg, because that is the character of God. Indeed, as we learn in Jesus' parable in Matthew 25, just to the extent we have not responded 'to the least of these' we have failed to respond to him."
 - Stanley Hauerwas

You heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbour and hate your enemy'.

'Hate your enemy' is not an explicit command by God in the Old Testament. There are however passages that point to hatred of sin, and implicitly sinners. [10] By the time of Jesus, 'hate your enemy' had become a popular circulated saying that Jesus was now addressing. How did this interpretation of the Law occur? "Groups within Israel took this further by identifying “neighbour” exclusively with those within their Jewish community and the “evildoer” as Gentiles or those outside of their community and therefore God’s and their enemies. The starkest extreme is found at Qumran. The Rule of the Community gives instructions for seeking God and doing what is good and just, with the purpose “that they may love all that he has chosen and hate all that He has rejected; that they may abstain from all evil and hold fast to all good” (1QS 1.3–4)." [11]

But I tell you: love your enemies! Pray for people who persecute you! 

Jesus would have shocked his original audience just as much we are shocked by this statement today. Jesus is revealing that the way to deal with enemies is through reconciliation and prayer. Jesus plainly teaches us to love our enemies in imitation of our Father in heaven. How then does Christ love his enemies? He humbles himself, taking the posture of servant, and submits himself even to death on a cross. It is on the cross that the Creator of the world extends forgiveness to the creation that sought to crucify him. To love your enemies to deny yourself of even the most basic primal urge to hate and respond in violence and retaliation and seek instead to function as a minister of reconciliation. (2 Cor 5) The apostle Paul picks up on enemy love as central to the Gospel in the Romans 5, where he declares "while we were enemies, God in Christ made us friends". 

That way, you'll be children of your father in heaven! After all, God makes the sun rise on bad and good alike, and sends rain both on the upright and on the unjust.

This verse represents Matthew’s inaugurated eschatology: Your conduct must be appropriate to your status as children of God, which you already are. We are to act as citizens of heaven here on the earth. Furthermore, Jesus is defining the Father as one who loves and blesses indiscriminately, and not based behaviour. God loves the cosmos and is seeking to redeem and restore it through the sending of God's son (John 3:16) and through making an appeal of reconciliation through the ambassadors of heaven: the church . (2 Cor 5) 

Look at it like this: if you love those who love you, do you expect a special reward? Even tax-collectors do that, don't they? And if you only greet your own family, what's so special about that? Even Gentiles do that, don't they?

Jesus is further hitting home his radical message of love. By comparing the eye for eye ethic of the law with the standard operating ethic of pagans and tax collectors, who were generally considered dishonest and unclean, Jesus is openly critiquing the way in which the law is interpreted and lived out. Jesus asks the listener if they way they live is any different from those considered less pious. Jesus’ ethic is so far beyond our own limitations of 'love' that are tethered to the constructs of nationalism, tribalism and territory. Jesus asks us to love as he loves: without condition, without end. 

Well then: you must be perfect, just as your heavenly father is perfect.

Notice that this is only time in the Gospels that Jesus directly asks us to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew chooses to purposely use the word perfect rather than merciful, which further drives home that Jesus’ teachings are not ideals that we cannot attain on this side of heaven. Luke's gospel chooses to use the term 'merciful', which seems to suggest that to be perfect is to do acts of mercy.

“While perfect is not diluted for the comfort of the disciples, neither should it be understood in the Greek sense of absolute moral perfection, an impossible ideal for human being to attain. Contrary to the Greek abstract of perfection, for Matthew it is precisely amid the relatives and ambiguities of concrete action in this world, which is God’s creation despite all its fallenness, that the disciple is called to be perfect.”[12] 

"We are called, therefore to be perfect, but perfection names our participation in Christ's love of his enemies. Perfection does not mean that we are sinless or that we are free of anger or lust. Rather, to be perfect is to learn to be part of a people who take the time to live without resorting to violence to sustain their existence. To so live requires habits like learning to tell one another the truth, to be faithful in our promises to one another, to seek reconciliation. To so live can be called pacifism and/or nonviolence, but such descriptions do not do justice to the form of life described in the Beatitudes and antithesis's, for that form of life can be lived truthfully only if Christ is who Matthew says he is, that is, the Son of God." 
- Stanley Hauerwas, Mathew: Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible.

Thanks for reading. My next post will deal with 'What did Jesus do?' I will break down all the Gospel texts that point to  and teach nonviolence. 

Be sure to check out Part 2 and Part 3. 

Here is the next blog in the series: Part 5


Reflection Questions for Discussion

1. Christians use a variety of tactics to disarm the convicting power of Christ‟s words in Matthew 5/Luke 6. What are some you have heard or used? 

2. Why do you think it is so hard for otherwise Bible-believing Christ-followers to believe the Bible and follow Christ on this specific teaching? 

3. Have you noticed any shift in your thinking on the issue of Christian pacifism versus justified violence so far in this series? Why or why not? Under what circumstances, if any, do you think Christians should become violent? On what Scriptural grounds do you base your opinion? 

Works Cited:

1.Klaus Wengst, Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1987), 55.

2. Barton, Bruce B. Life Application New Testament Commentary, (Wheaton: Tysdale Publishing, 2001) 181. 

3. Hill, Brennan R. Jesus, the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives, (Mystic: Twenty-Third Publications, 1997) 20. 

4. Wright, Tom. Mathew For Everybody,( Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, 2002) 54.

5.Douglas, James Dixon and Gaebelein, Frank, eds. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Volume 8. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 156. 

6. Bock, Darrel. The NIV Application Commentary: Matthew(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 440 (e-version)

7.Alexander, Neil M. and Lawrence Michael, eds. The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995) 197. 

8. Lange, John Peter. Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 117. 

9. Wilkens, Michael. The NIV Application Commentary: Luke (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 636 (e-version) 

10. “Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies” (Ps. 139:21–22; cf. 26:4–5). ibid. 

11. ibid.

12. Alexander, Neil M. and Lawrence Michael, eds. The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995) 197.