The Song, the Table, and the Kingdom.

An Ode to the Christmas Day Truce 

It was night before Christmas, when throughout the battlefield. 

Soldiers sang of 'Silent Nights' and a Christ revealed. 

They soon left behind guns and declared a ceasefire. 

Men traded their hate for a place in the choir. 

In the horror of War there was a peace for a moment

We found 'humanity' in the face of our opponents 

We no longer saw 'the enemy' through the sights our guns

Instead we shared together in Communion as God's united sons

To our shame, the Christmas Day Truce was not destined to last

For the Powers that be, would have 'the other side' gassed 

Men laid down the way of the Cross and took up the Sword for "some glory"

We believe in the old lie: Dulce et Decorum est pro patria mori

The Christmas Eve of 1914 was one of strangest examples of the power of peacemaking to ever be documented in modern warfare. Soldiers, on both the German and English//French sides, left their trenches and ceased hostilities during one of the fiercest wars ever fought on the planet. The event is called today: The Christmas Day Truce. 

The setting of this Christmas Day Truce was the trench warfare of WWI. It was most brutal form of warfare the world had seen yet, with an estimated average 14,500 men dying each day. Trench warfare is the stalemate of two opposing forces who have 'dug in' to secure their positions. This approach to warfare makes any advancements extremely difficult. Soldiers were forced to go over the top of the trenches, into no-man's land, and charge toward the opposing side in order to overtake the 'enemies' position. These methods were rarely successful as the 'entrenched' side had a tactical advantage by being hidden from direct fire. 

The men in the trenches were farm boys, clerks, and tradesmen. In the Commonwealth alone, over a million men volunteered in the early days of the war. They received basic training, and were rushed off to the front. Nothing could have prepared anyone for the horrors of trench warfare. It was cold, muddy, and the air had the stench of rotting flesh. It was a hell on earth. These were no battle hardened  troops on the night of Christmas Day Truce. These were husbands who missed their wives and children. These were young boys who missed their mothers and fathers. I can only imagine that the morale of those men in the trenches must have been at an all time low that Christmas Eve. 

The trenches were not that far apart from each other. You could hear the shouts from the other side. You could see the 'enemy' from the forward trenches. It is this unique setting that set the scene for something amazing to occur. 

The Germans began by placing candle lit Christmas trees along their trenches. These trees are know as Tannenbaum Trees. This caught the attention of the English troops, who peered in curiosity and amazement at the sight of these Tannenbaum Trees. Soon the Germans began to boisterously sing out loud an assortment of Christmas carols: 

“Stille Nacht, heili’ge Nacht” 

(Translation: Silent Night, Holy Night) 

In a popular telling of the story, a German is said to have shouted across the trench:

“English men… sing us a song”

It's said that a mean spirited English gentleman yelled back: 

“We’d rather kill than sing” 

The Germans responded, 

“You're singing just might kill us, if it's bad enough.” 

Both sides laughed, and soon the carolling began to rise up on both sides. The singing eased the tension and gave way to celebration.

The leaders on both sides came out of the trenches and agreed to a ceasefire for 24 hours. Soon thereafter, there were excursions across No Man's Land, where small gifts were exchanged, such as food, tobacco and alcohol, and souvenirs such as buttons and hats. The artillery in the region fell silent. The truce also allowed a breathing spell where recently killed soldiers could be brought back behind their lines by burial parties.  

Sergeant-Major Frank Naden writes about the Christmas Day Truce:


“On Christmas Day one of the Germans came out of the trenches and held his hands up. Our fellows immediately got out of their trenches and the Germans got out of their's, and we met in the middle, and for the rest of the day we fraternized, exchange food, cigarettes and souvenirs. The Germans gave us some of their sausages, and we gave them some of our stuff. The Scotsmen started the bagpipes, and we had a rare old jollification, which included football, in which the Germans took part. The Germans expressed themselves as being tired of the war and wished it was over. They greatly admired our equipment and wanted to exchange jack-knives and other articles. Next day we got an order that all communication and friendly intercourse with the enemy must cease, but we did not fire at all that day, and the Germans did not fire at us.”

Football in No-Man's Land 

Another report tells of a Christmas Day Mass. A Chaplin serving in the war gathered the joined congregation of Germans, English, and French. The Mass was delivered in the familiar religious language of Latin that was common among Catholics around the world. The chaplain would have opened with the words:

In nominee Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. 

Translation: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 

They sang, they prayed, and shared the Eucharist with each other.
 The former enemies shared pictures from home, chocolates, schnapps, and wine. Soccer games were played. Friendships were made, addresses were exchanged and every soldier who experienced the events was forever changed. The Christmas Day Truce was truly an amazing peculiar event that baffles historians to this day. The immediate result of the truce was a break down of hostility across the waring lines. Reports suggest that in some areas the cease-fire lasted until after New Year's Day.

Leaders on both sides of the conflict were shocked and shaken by the unofficial Christmas Day Truce. It took serious action for fighting to resume in some areas. Commanding officers were forced to rotate the troops out of area, because the troops had lost the will to fight. General Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien, commander of the British Corps, had to issue official orders forbidding friendly communication with the opposing German troops. Fraternization with the enemy is amount to treason. The whole story of the Christmas Day Truce was even censored by government on both sides. The story is said to have finally been broken by the New York Times, and subsequently the British papers followed suit. In the following years of the war, artillery bombardments were ordered on Christmas Eve to try to ensure that there were no further lulls in the combat. Troops were also rotated through various sectors of the front to prevent them from becoming overly familiar with the enemy. World War One finally came to an end on November 11, 1918. It was one of the bloodiest conflicts of world history.

The Song, the Table, and the Kingdom. 

I share the story of the Christmas Day Truce as a launching pad to talk about the Church’s witness to peace. 

There is a lot that could be said, but I would like to focus on few key things from the events of the Christmas Day Truce: SONG, TABLE, and KINGDOM.


SONG:

"Song of the Angels" by Luzia Vizoli

On that fateful Christmas Eve in 1914, the soldiers on both sides began to sing the songs of the church instead of the songs of hatred and hostility. It's amazing to think that the songs of 'holy nights' and 'Christ come into the world' literally disarmed the hostilities of war and shut down the war machine for a day. The power of the song has never been so obvious. 

I believe in our lives we are constantly 'singing songs' with our actions and words. The writer of Proverbs puts it like this, "The tongue has the power of life and death." (18.21) Or in other words, what we confess, both in our lives and as a collective community, will become a reality. When we sow seeds of hostility, hatred, and evil we will ultimately reap hostility, hatred, and evil. It's an unfortunate truth in a decaying world. The church, however, is called to sow seeds of life and not death. James, the brother of Jesus, promises us that peacemakers who sow in peace will reap a harvest of justice and righteousness.(3.18) 


The Song of the Church is to be the promise of another way, another world, right here and right now. When the earth sings the songs of hatred and animosity; our calling as the Church is to prophetically testify and bear witness to the Prince of Peace. The Church is the voice that cries, "Let the world sing a new song!"Theologian John H. Yoder sums this up beautifully when he writes, 

Although immersed in this world, the church by her way of being represents the promise of another world, which is not somewhere else but which is to come here. That promissory quality of the church's present distinctiveness is the making of peace, as the refusal to make war is her indispensable negative transcendence. The church cultivates an alternative consciousness. Another view of what the world is like is kept alive by narration and celebration which fly in the face of some of the "apparent" lessons of "realism."[1]

Too often the Church has matched melodies with the songs of men and perpetuated the status quo. Imagine the scene that C.S. Lewis provides us in his book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Narnia is under the reign of White Which who has subjugated the land to a perpetual winter. When the Church gives our ultimate allegiances to anything other than Christ, we are like those who have aligned themselves to the rule of the White Witch. The church is called, much like Mr. & Mrs. Beaver and Mr. Tumnus, to resist the reign of Jadis the White Witch and proclaim the true reign of Aslan. We may suffer persecution from the forces of the White Witch, as Mr. Tumnus experienced, but we proclaim Aslan as the rightful ruler of Narnia. To those who sing the songs of the White Witch, the Church declares boldly that: "Aslan is on the move."[2] 

We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us.(2 Cor 5.20) We are God’s agents of redemption, the salt and light of the world.(Matt 5) We sing a new song that prophetically declares the reign of Jesus in the world today. Have you heard this song?

A song of reconciliation

A song of forgiveness 

A song of peace 

A song of healing to a broken world

TABLE:

The table that I speak of is the Lord's Table, also know as the Communion Table. While I doubt there was a literal table in No-Man's Land that fateful Christmas Day; there was a call for Christians on both sides of the conflict to share in the Lord's meal. The Communion Table is a call to unity in the body of Christ. It is the common - union table. To suggest that those who partake of the bread and wine would be at war is a scandalous thought to unity of the Body. The Apostle Paul's primary correction of the communion practices at the church in Corinth was the division at the Lord's table. "I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you." (1 Cor 11.18)Paul directly confronts the division of the Lord's table by writing, "Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!" (1 Cor 11.22) Dr. Stanley Hauerwas reflects on the implications of the call to unity at the Lord's table:

The Eucharist becomes the meal of unity binding Christians through time and space to be one body, one Christ, for the world. That we have been made one makes it impossible, therefore, for Christians to contemplate killing other Christians with whom we share this meal. Such killing is not murder, it is suicide. [3]

There is nothing more scandalous to the unity of the body of Christ than partaking in Common - Union and then functionally denying that union through the shedding of blood."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.”[4] 

The Table of Lord invites us to a new humanity in Christ. It's a humanity where there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3.28) The Table invites us to leave our division behind us for Christ's sake, and to make every effort to maintain the unity of the church. If we take the path of warfare, we will ultimately participate in the suicide of the Church. Pastor Brian Zahnd suggests that Church has indeed committed suicide (as Hauerwas suggests above) in the past century of World Wars. Zahnd writes:

This may explain the death of Christianity in Western Europe following the two world wars. It was mass suicide. Or Mass suicide. Selah.[5] 

KINGDOM: 

"The Deserter" by Boardman Robinson, 1916.

The kingdoms of hostility rely on the preservation of the ideological myth of redemptive violence. Central to the myth is the division of 'us' and 'them'. It is the myth that the enemy is less than human. It is the myth that the only way to make a better world is power enforced through violence. It is the ideological belief that peace is a goal to be attained and not the means toward the end. It is nation against nation; kingdom against kingdom; man killing other men. 

Jesus has a different Kingdom. Jesus does not allow us to participate in the division of 'us' and 'them'. Jesus does not reciprocate the myth of redemptive violence. Jesus taught his disciples to turn the other cheek to violence and pray for their enemies. Jesus did not join the Caesars//Herodians in the powers of oppression and refused to unite his movement with the Zealots who sought to overthrow their oppressors through violence. 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? There is a better way, the Jesus way. It is the way of overcoming evil with good. The Gospel is a subversive force to the systems of domination, division, and supremacy; precisely because it undermines them through the power of cruciform love. Walter Wink reflects on this:

Not only did Jesus and his followers repudiate the autocratic values of power and wealth, but the institutions and systems that authorized and supported these values: the family, the law, the sacrificial system, the Temple, kosher food regulations, the distinction between clean and unclean, patriarchy, role expectations for women and children, the class system, the use of violence, racial and ethnic divisions, the distinction between insider and outsider—indeed, every conceivable prop of domination, division, and supremacy. The Gospel is a context specific remedy for the evils of the Domination System.[6]

The events of Christmas Day Truce directly challenged 'The Powers' ability to maintain the myth of righteous violence. The willingness to reflexively kill someone who had never done them any personal wrong suddenly vanished through encountering the humanity of the 'other'. The Powers and the authorities were disarmed through Christmas carols and acts of hospitality. This is why the backlash of the Christmas Day Truce is so striking to me. The Powers on both sides of the conflict needed to threaten execution for fraternization with the enemy in order to shutdown any efforts to declare 'unofficial truces'. Generals on both sides were forced to rotate troops from the front due to their inability to kill. The Powers must do whatever they can to prevent soldiers from experiencing the shared humanity of their targets, whether they are citizens of Germany, Japan, Italy, or Iraq and Afghanistan. To experience empathy towards 'the other' is counterintuitive to humanity at war. 

It grieves me to no end that the Church does not witness to peace in a world of war. Too often Christian churches join the patriotic fervour with their nationalistic blindness, refusing to teach what Jesus had always taught about violence. We become religious versions of the shared cultural assumptions of our age making us the chaplains of the status quo and no longer prophetic.[7]  

Joyeux Noel, a 2005 movie about the Christmas Day Truce  captures a scene that demonstrates powerfully the co-opting of church as the tool of the Powers. Check out this scene:

SUMMARY OF THE ABOVE SCENE: 
Near the end of "Joyeux Noel” there is a powerful and sobering scene, a confrontation between the Christ-like, lowly, anti-war Scottish chaplain and his pro-war Scottish bishop while the chaplain was giving last rites to a dying soldier.

The bishop had come to relieve the chaplain of his duties and abusively ordered him to return to his home parish because of his “treasonous and shameful” behavior (being merciful to the enemy) in the battlefield.

The chaplain tried to explain his actions to the authoritarian, pro-war, German-hating bishop, saying that he had just performed “the most important mass of my life” and that he wanted to stay with his comrades who were rapidly losing their faith and were in need of his ministrations.

The mass that he had presided over on Christmas Eve, had been attended by German, Scottish and French Christian soldiers (and one Jewish German officer) who had prayed together and been transfixed by a powerful rendition of Ave Maria. The bishop cruelly denied the Christ-like priest’s request to stay – and in a thought-provoking scene, he removed his little wooden cross from around his neck, leaving it swinging as he walked out the door.

As with so many of the victims of organized Christianity, the priest had lost his faith in the institutional church.

The bishop then proceeded to deliver a pro-war sermon to new recruits -the exact words having been obtained from a homily that had been delivered by an Anglican bishop in England during WWI. These new troops were being brought in to replace the suddenly reluctant veteran combatants, who now refused to obey orders to kill. [8]

One last word from Tony Campolo....click here.

Thanks for reading...

Works Cited

1. John H. Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel, pg. 94
2. C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, pg. 146
3. Stanley Hauerwas, Commentary on Matthew, pg. 219
4. York, Tripp ed. A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: What about Romans 13?
5. Brain Zahnd great blog, http://brianzahnd.com/2013/10/mass-suicide/#more-3154
6.Wink, Engaging the Powers, 65–86
7. Lifted from a Brian Zahnd tweet.
8. Summary of the scene from http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/16/the-christmas-truce-of-1914/

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