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. 

Loving Your Enemy: Part 3: The Old Testament

One of the greatest road-blocks for many in accepting a peace-theology is the Old Testament, or more specifically the violence contained within the Old Testament. The thinking here is that because God allowed violence in the OT,  then violence, cannot be inherently wrong. This tension really is magnified by a 'flat reading' of the Bible. Those that read all texts of bible as equally authoritative really start to feel the strain between a God who would say, "Show them no mercy", and the Crucified Saviour that cries out, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." 

Historically, the problem of Old Testament violence has always been a problem for the church. An early church leader, Marcion rejected the Scriptures of Israel, believing that they portrayed a God other than that known in Jesus Christ. (Curiously, Marcion also tried to collapse the Gospels into one document.) Irenaeus and other early Christian leaders vigorously opposed such a move. 

"Thinkers like Gregory of Nyssa, John Cassian and especially Origen felt compelled to embrace all canonical material as divinely inspired and thus considered it impossible to dismiss. Yet, largely because of the revelation of the enemy-loving, non-violent God in Christ, they also felt compelled to reject a literal interpretation of the OT’s violent depictions of God. They therefore embraced this violent material, but they did so while reinterpreting it." - Greg Boyd, The Coming Storm

(Side note: Right now the discussion on violence in the OT is a bit of a hot topic. Check out this article for some background. And this one. Don't forget about this one. )

It might seem laughable to some, to suggest that the Old Testament (OT) points and hopes for a peace-theology.  I want to suggest that the narrative movement of the Old Testament strengthens the commitment to non-violence by pointing to the promise of shalom.

But isn't the Old Testament filled with endless accounts of violence, genocide, and tribalism? 

Yes and No. 

Yes. There are accounts of the nation of Israel participating in genocide, wars, and personal retaliation. 

No. 

There is also a stream of texts that point beyond the violence of the OT to (1) a God who does not act like the other pagan gods and is progressively moving God's chosen people to a fuller understanding of God's self, (2) a view of peace (shalom), justice and mercy that promotes the breaking down of hostility for hospitality  and (3) the coming reign of the Mashiach (Messiah), who would proclaim peace to the nations. (Zec 9:9) 

What's going on here? 

Firstly, the Old Testament is theologically diverse. We cannot just point to any passage in the Bible and say, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it". The OT is immersed in a discussion on differing theological assumptions. A good example: 

Proverbs says, “Live righteously and good things will happen.” 

Job says, “Have you heard about me?” 

"The Old Testament is the inspired telling of the story of Israel coming to know their God. But it’s a process. God doesn’t mutate, but Israel’s revelation and understanding of God obviously does. Along the way assumptions are made. One of these assumptions was that Yahweh shares certain violent attributes with the pagan deities of the ancient Near East. These assumptions were inevitable, but wrong. For example, the Hebrew prophets will eventually begin to question the assumption that Yahweh desires blood sacrifice. Jesus was fond of quoting Hosea’s bold assertion that Yahweh doesn’t want sacrifice, he wants mercy." - Brian Zahnd, God and Genocide 

Secondly, the Old Testament is meant to be read through the lens of Jesus. When we go to the Bible (the words of God), we learn about Jesus, The Word/logos (logic/reason) of God, who has authority over all scripture. Scripture contains the words and revelation of God. We must remember that Jesus is the ultimate end goal of the book that tells his story – its telos.  The book is not the destination for a believer in and of itself.  This book is the place where I learn about Jesus who claims to be the final destination for our Christian lives. The whole of scripture is about one thing: Jesus. 

If you want to know who God is, look at Jesus. If you want to know what it means to be human, look at Jesus. If you want to know what love is, look at Jesus. If you want to know what grief is, look at Jesus                                            -N.T. Wright, Look at Jesus 

The writer of the book of Hebrews puts it like this: 

 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. (Hebrews 1:1-4) 

"The earliest Christians read the Bible messianically, or in the words of Warren Carter, with their “Jesus-glasses on.” That is, they saw Jesus in the Old Testament where others had not seen him or a Messiah." - Scot McKnight, Jesus Creed 

A few examples of the peace witness in the OT

Genesis

1.1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" 

• God creates the cosmos using words. "let there be light"
• The God of Israel differs from other near eastern and greek gods whose creation accounts were often great cosmic battles.   
• "It is reasonable to suggest that the Genesis story is meant to be contrasted with the reigning Babylonian ideology; that is, one could argue that an important purpose of the Genesis story is to argue that the God of Israel is solely and fully in control of the cosmos. God's creation is...not the result of a power struggle within a dysfunctional divine family." - Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation

4.1-16 Cain and Abel 

The first act of violence recorded in the Bible was a fratricide. The older brother Cain, in a fit of jealousy, killed his younger brother Abel. Did this murder demand retaliation? No, Adam did not think to take vengeance into his own hands. And God did not demand retaliation. In fact, God protected Cain to break the cycle of retaliation. 

"In Genesis we encounter a different voice. The voice of the God who takes the side of the victim unjustly violated. Of course we recognize this voice in the Prophets and their concern about the widows and orphans, but have we read the Cain and Abel story from this perspective?" - Michael Hardin, The Jesus Driven Life

4.23-24  "If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times."

"As in the story of Lamech, the problem of violence tends to escalate out of control. Right from the beginning of the Bible the connection between violence, sacrifice and civilization is being made". -- Michael Hardin, The Jesus Driven Life

Proverbs 

Solomon is said to have been chosen by the Lord to build the Temple because 'he has shed no blood'. (1 Chronicles 28) Solomon leaves behind some indications of the wisdom of peace in book of Proverbs. In the NT, Paul quotes Proverbs in Romans 12, to further drive home the wisdom of peace making. 

16:7 When a man's ways please God. God makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.

17:13 If a man pays back evil for good, evil will never leave his house.

18:14 Starting a quarrel is like breaching a dam; so drop the matter before a dispute breaks out.

18: 19 He who loves a quarrel loves sin; he who builds a high gate invites destruction.

10:12 Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs.

24:17 Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice, or the LORD will see and disapprove 

25:21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.

26:17 Like one who seizes a dog by the ears is a passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own.

The Prophetic witness to the Prince of Peace:

The Prophets tend to critique warfare and call for restoration of shalom. There is a hopeful looking forward to the days of the Messiah who would come to make peace. 

Isaiah 

2.4 “And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation will not take up sword  against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” 

9.6"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end." 

32.17"The fruit of that righteousness will be peace; its effect will be quietness and confidence forever." 

52:7 "How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news,who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation." 

Micah 

"The Lord will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nations will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore." (Micah 4:1-3) 

Zechariah 

Jesus fulfilling Zechariah's prophecy

Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion!

  Shout, Daughter Jerusalem!

See, your king comes to you,

    righteous and victorious,

lowly and riding on a donkey,

    on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

I will take away the chariots from Ephraim

    and the warhorses from Jerusalem,

    and the battle bow will be broken.

He will proclaim peace to the nations.

    His rule will extend from sea to sea

    and from the River to the ends of the earth. - Zechariah 9:9-10 

What do we say of the Old Testament hope of  a peaceful kingdom?

There is a temptation to read the prophetic promises of peace and think: "that will be nice... one day" or  "Won't that be great when the Prince of Peace comes?" The problem with this dispensationalist thinking is that it functionally denies:

(1) the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets in the life, teaching, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.  

(2) The 'now and not yet" breaking-in Kingdom (inaugurated eschatology) 

(3) That Jesus is Lord. Not will be, might be, could be. Jesus is Lord, now on the earth and Christ follower confess this subversive Kingdom that is breaking in 'on earth as it is in heaven'. 

The OT peace witness is fulfilled and being fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of the Kingdom of God. The New Testament goes to great lengths to make it clear that Jesus’ life and teaching are grounded in Old Testament faith and practice. Jesus self-conscientiously presents himself as anchored in the story of Israel. He intended to fulfill Torah, not abolish it. His summary of the path to eternal life—love God and neighbour—is presented as the core message of the Law and Prophets. 

Jesus deepens the extent of the Torah by, extending love to the enemy, defining justice as mercy, and sending the church to fulfill Abraham's calling to bless the nations. 

(More on this in the next post) 

Be sure to check out Part 1 & Part 2 of this series. 

Here is Part 4!

Loving Your Enemy: Part 2: The Historical Context

The most important class I took at bible college was Hermeneutics, or the study of the interpretation of scripture. It was in this class that I learned valuable principals such as, “a text without a context is a pretext”, or the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. The goal of good hermeneutics is to ascertain the original meaning and intention of the author the text. It is to this end that I believe a historical study of the early church is beneficial to the interpretation of the Biblical text. History helps to paint the lines that we must stay within and it helps to construct the boundaries for a faithful reading of the text. Examining what was important to the apostles, and the generation that followed, and then the next generation, gives a basic tradition, a framework, of values and beliefs, that must guide our faith today. The study of church history helps us to develop that basic framework.

So what did the early church believe on killing? Here's what is completely amazing: 

The first three centuries of Christianity, all Christian leaders, without exception, were pacifists and called all Christians to live the way of peace.

Let's look at a few statements by the early church fathers:

Justin Martyr

  “We refrain from making war on our enemies, and [we] cannot bear to see a man killed, even if killed justly.”  - Justin Martyr (103-165 A.D)

Clement of Alexandria

“He who holds the sword must cast it away and that if one of the faithful becomes a soldier, he must be rejected by the Church, for he has scorned God.” - Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D)






“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)

"Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law?" - Tertullian (160-220 A.D)

Hippolytus of Rome

"A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God."
 - Hippolytus of Rome (170-236 A.D)

Military service is seen as wrong in the early church for 3 reasons:

a) ETHICAL: Violence is not an option for Christians. The early church fathers would often cite Jesus' teaching on enemy love to this end. 

b) PHILOSOPHICAL: War is based on the State’s goal of self-preservation or self advancement rather than the Christian’s goal of self-sacrifice.

c) SPIRITUAL: Military service demands too much loyalty, leading to idolatry.

 “ The overwhelming evidence suggests that the followers of Jesus were pacifists for the first three centuries. Many early church leaders and documents underscore the unwavering commitment to nonviolence.” - Ronald Sider, The Early Church on Killing.

The Early Church on Killing: 

(summarized points taken from Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed) 

1.Prior to Constantine not one writer says it is right to kill or join the military.

2.Many passages prohibit participation in killing or the military.

3. Rejection of killing is comprehensive.

4. It is inaccurate to say military participate is wrong because of idolatry. Sometimes, but often it is related to Christ’s teachings in the Sermon on the Mount.

5.The evidence for “divided and ambiguous” is overdrawn. No one says it is right to join the military. No one encourages capital punishment.

6. Sider also thinks the continuous theory toward Just War is overcooked.

7. There is clear evidence that by the end of the 2nd and early 3rd centuries that some Christians were in the military. Perhaps these are those who were converted after joining the military. Some texts condemn baptized Christians joining the military. Lactantius’ later writing therefore inveighs against what is going on, suggesting that by the early 4th Century the voice was being divided.

But what is clear is that no one supports killing in war. That some participated shows a Christian disconnect. There is no voice saying it was right, so anyone who says there were different teachings goes against the evidence we do have. To make this a little clearer: that some were in the military does not mean there were teachers who said it was right.

What happened? 

A sculpture of Constantine

The Constantinian Shift: Early in the fourth century, Constantine declares Christianity a legal religion through the Edict of Milan, immediately reversing any ongoing persecution. Instead, he lavishes gifts upon all Church leaders (e.g., increasing their salary, making them exempt from paying taxes, building church buildings, funding Bible copying, etc.). Crucifixion and gladiatorial games are abolished due to the traumatic connection with Christian victimization. Sunday is declared a weekly holiday for all people. Pagan holidays are absorbed into the Christian calendar. Pagan temples are converted into Church buildings, with statues of Roman gods replaced with statues of the Apostles and other biblical characters. The Church is now friends with the State.

"The Constantinian Shift amounted to a fundamental reorientation in the relationship of church and world."  

- John Howard Yoder

Theological Development in light of the Constantinian Shift:

• Augustine (354 – 430 C.E.) & later Aquinas (1225 – 1274 C.E.) develop and defend a

“justified war” theory for Christians, based on existing Roman and Greek thought.

• Christians are now encouraged to join the army and be involved in government. Violence is to be used as God’s instrument to “punish” evildoers (e.g., Romans 13:1-7).

• Augustine sees punishment as a more justifiable motive than self-defense.

• By 416 C.E., all Roman soldiers are required to be Christian.

• 500 C.E - 1400‘s In the Western Church Non-violence is restricted to the elite christians.

(monasticism, saints etc..)

Nonviolence was for a thousand years relegated to the monastic, saintly realm. It is during this time that the church openly participates in the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisiton, and church sponsored killings. Everything changed during the reformation. The church for first time was being openly critiqued and called back to a more faithful earlier expression of Christianity. The most important change that took place as a result of the reformation, was the translation of scripture in to local languages. Reformers like Luther toiled for years to place scripture in the hands of the common person. 

Groups of people began to read scripture for the first time and discover the radical teachings of Jesus' and his Kingdom. These people who began to take Jesus' teachings seriously were called the 'radical reformers'. The radical reformers were not content to stop at Luther or Calvin's reformation. They wanted to continue radicalizing the church back to the early church revealed in scripture. Soon they began to baptise by full immersion and as a result recieved the title 'ana-baptist', meaning 'again' and 'baptise'. The Anabaptists would be greatly persecuted for their beliefs. Both Catholics and Protestants killed, burned, and slaughtered the Anabaptists. The perfered way of execution was by 'third baptism', in which the unrepentant victim would be drown to death. Through all the persecution the Anabaptists maintained a faithful peace witness to the world. 

Check this video out for a more indepth look at Anabaptists: 

Historical Development of Non-Violence in light the Reformation.

• Anabaptists– The Radical Reformers

• Swiss Protestants...

• Conrad Grebel (1498-1526)

• Felix Manz (1498-1527) – the first martyr – death by “third baptism”

• George Blaurock (1491-1529)

• German Catholics... Michael & Margareta Sattler (1490-1527)

• Dutch Catholics... Menno Simons (1496-1561)

Today we have a small minority of denominations that espouse Non-Violence. (Anabaptists, Eastern Orthodox, Early Pentecostals)

Reflection Questions for Discussion

1. What has been your experience (or lack thereof) of peace teaching in the church?

2. What was your knowledge and/or experience of the Anabaptists before this blog series?

3. What are thoughts on the Constantinian Shift? Should the church and state be one or seperate? 

4. Should the church ever use violence to promote its agenda? 


(Click here to go to Part 3) 

Loving Your Enemy: Part 1: Examining Our Lenses

I wear glasses. 

I have worn glasses since I was eleven years old.  The first time I ever wore a pair of glasses I was struck by the clarity of the world around me. The world looked sharper and more in focus than I had ever experienced before in my short life. I even said to my mother, “has the world always been this clear?"  

I am now twenty-six years old and without my trusty pair of glasses I am practically blind. The corrective lenses built around my ‘hipsterish’ thick black frames help me daily to see the world around me. I don’t leave the house without them. I can’t drive or shave or look at facebook without wearing my glasses. 

Theology is a lot like a pair of glasses. The right prescription can give you clarity of sight. You will see as you have never seen before. The wrong prescription can give you a headache or worse cause you to stumble around and never truly see. 

A huge ‘lens’ for me is the Jesus lens. I read the entire scope of scripture as culminating in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. Jesus is my hermeneutic. I believe that the Bible comes with its own instructions on how to use it, if we have eyes to see them.  The Bible records Jesus teaching that all of Scripture functions as a pointer to him.  Take Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees as an example: “You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!  Yet you refuse to come to me to receive this life. “ (John 5:39-40, NLT) Jesus accuses the Pharisees of using the Bible as their endpoint destination rather than as a stepping stone to Jesus.  They studied the word of God in print, and they followed the word of God in print.  If they had a summary slogan it might be, “The Bible says it; that settles it; I believe it; let’s do it.”  But Jesus says to all of us, “Follow me.”  When reading the Bible, I believe we too need to need to make that next step to Jesus. 

I admit that it is possible to read Jesus from different perspectives. Having a ‘Jesus lens’ is not a magical way of solving all theological issues and interpretations. But I bring up the 'Jesus lens' as an example that we all choose wear lenses in the way we approach scripture. This is why when I begin a blog series on 'loving your enemy', I believe it is crucially important to talk about how we read Jesus. The phrase 'love your enemy' can be interpreted, as we will discover, in any number of ways.  

I am going to focus in on the different lenses Christianity has used to view the Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain in conjunction with the question: Is it appropriate for those who follow Jesus to take up lethal force against an enemy? 

Theological Lens	How do you read the Sermon on the Mount?	Is it appropriate for those who follow Jesus to take up lethal force against an enemy?
Catholic	Jesus’ teachings are for a select kind of super-Christians called “priests”,“disciples”, or “saints”.	Yes and no. Catholic laity can engage in justified war, whereas priests and nuns are to forsake the use of the sword.
Protestant  (Luther)	Jesus’ teaching is designed to function like the Old Testament law – to show us we can never be good enough and to prepare us for grace	Yes. “Christians may without sin occupy civil offices to punish evildoers with the sword, engage in just wars, and serve as soldiers.” Augsburg Confession. Luther.
Liberals	Jesus’ teaching was right for his day, but not meant for ours	Yes and no.
Evangelicals & Augustine	Jesus’ teaching was right in principle, but not meant to be put into practice in literally.	Yes. “Loving your enemies is an inward disposition, although it is not exhibited in bodily action or in words".- Augustine
Anabaptists, Eastern Orthodox, Early Pentecostals and the Early Church.	Jesus’ teaching is meant to be lived out today, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Christ followers are meant to imitate Jesus and his ‘way of the Cross’, by loving, forgiving, extending mercy to enemies, even  to the point of death.	No. A Christ follower cannot take a life. The Kingdom is without coercion. We persuade by love, witness, spirit, reason, rhetoric, and if need be: martyrdom.   “The Sermon on the Mount stands in Matthew’s narrative scheme as Jesus’ programmatic disclosure of the kingdom of God and the life to which the community of disciples is called”. -Dr. Richard Hays
Dispensationalism	Jesus’ teaching will be enacted in the future establishment of the Kingdom.	Yes. Jesus’ Kingdom ethic of enemy love will come one day, but today we fight.

Do you notice anything? 

Which lens do you identify with the most?  

Why? 

I self identify within the "Anabaptist/ Orthodox/Pentecostal" lens of interpreting the Sermon(s). I didn't always believe in nonviolence. I didn't always have the 'lenses' that I do now. But here are a few reasons why I am at this 'perscription': 

• I believe that the interpretative principal should be derived from the text.
• Jesus ends his body of teaching on the Mount/ Plain with the example of the wise and foolish builders. The wise builder is the one who "hears Jesus' words (meaning the previous body of teaching) puts them into practice". 
• Jesus expects his disciples obey and to enact the teaching of the Sermon(s).
• Jesus does not appear to regard the discipleship of the Sermon(s) as an impossible ideal 
• Jesus last words in the Gospel according to Matthew are a reiteration of the Sermon on the Mount. 
• "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."
• I believe that Matthew is teaching an 'inaugurated eschatology.'
• “Matthew is writing at least fifty years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. He is well aware that history is continuing and that the church must reckon with an extended period of time , ‘until the end of age’.  During that time, he (Matthew) envisions the church’s mission as one of discipling all nations to obey Jesus’ commands, including the command of nonviolent enemy love."  - Dr. Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament
• “Inaugurated eschatology, or the presence and the future of God’s kingdom, was a hallmark of Jesus’ public career. To pray “your kingdom come” at Jesus’ bidding, therefore, meant to align oneself with his kingdom movement and to seek God’s power in furthering its ultimate fulfillment.  It meant adding one’s own prayer to the total performance of Jesus’ agenda.  It meant celebrating in the presence of God the fact that the kingdom was already breaking in, and looking eagerly for its consummation.” - N.T. Wright, The Lord’s Prayer as a Paradigm of Christian Prayer
• I believe that the New Testament teaches the 'priesthood of all believers"
• "The suggestions that the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount is intended for a special class of supersanctified Christians is discredited by the Great Commision at the conclusion of the Gospel (according to Matthew). All baptized believers are to be taught to obeserve all that Jesus commanded." - Dr. Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament
• The Gospel(s) appear to  have a consistent prohibition of violence beyond the Sermon(s). 
• In the temptation narrative (Mt 4.1-11) Jesus renounces the option of wielding power the kingdoms of the world, choosing instead to worship and serve God alone
• 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) 
• Jesus imposes an order of silence to keep his disciples from proclaiming him as Messiah until he as redefined the time in terms of the Cross. He instructs his disciples that their vocation must be the same as his. (Mk 8:27-9:1) 
• Jesus withdraws from the crowd that wants to ‘take him by force to make him king’. (Jn 6.15)
• Jesus openly renounces violence as a strategy for promoting God’s kingdom. (Lk 9:51-56)
• 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 for his enemies. (Lk 23:34a) 
• Jesus tells Pilate that his ““My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight” (Jn 18:36)

Reflection Questions- (feel free to post answers in comment section) 

1. Which traditon of interpretation (lens) do you most identify with? (see chart above) Why do you most identify with this lens? 

2. What has been your experience (or lack thereof) of peace teaching in the church? 

3. 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, what issue will this blog series need to address before you would be convinced? 

4. Can you think of any serious objections to the 'lens' that I am currently looking through? 

(Click here to go to Part 2)