Document

Sacred Tribes Journal Volume 4 Number 2 (2009):75-94 ISSN: 1941-8167

75

PERSPECTIVES ON A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF PEACE

Sylvie T. Raquel Trinity College and Graduate School

Introduction

When Christians think of peace, they usually think of an inner state of harmony, or tranquility in human relationships, or freedom from op-pressive forces.1 But, is this the concept of peace portrayed in the Bible? Most people would accept the fact that Jesus’ message to the masses was a message of peace and reconciliation. Even Mahatma Gandhi was fasci-nated with Jesus’ teachings and promoted its essence. He said “Jesus, a man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act (II-166).”2 He added “Jesus lived and died in vain if he did not teach us to regulate the whole of life by the eternal law of love (1-181).”3 If Gandhi venerated Christ, he was not a strong sup-porter of the God of the Old Testament.

Many others have perceived a striking difference between the mes-sage of the Old Testament and the message of the New Testament. First of all, first-century non-Jewish converts did not always see the necessity to abide by the Jewish law. After all, the council of Jerusalem freed those Gentile believers from the legalism of Judaism (Acts 15). In the second century, Marcion championed a difference of character between the Old Testament Yahweh and the New Testament Jesus. He claimed that Christ, the God of Christianity, was a superior being while Yahweh, who had created an imperfect world, was an inferior god. As a result, Marcion refused to accept as authoritative any scriptures that related somewhat to the Jewish god and proposed a limited “canon” of Scriptures.4 More re-cently, Richard Dawkins worded in a most contentious way the reasons why so many refuse to worship the Old Testament God:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic

Raquel: Perspectives on a Biblical Theology of Peace

76

cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, geno-cidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from in-fancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror.5

Indeed, the Old Testament relates gruesome stories of infanti-cides, genocides and incest. The common way to defend the Old Testa-ment God is to affirm that these happenings were the results of human decisions and not the will of God. Since Christians claim that the Old Testament relates God’s continuous attempts to redeem humankind, how can they explain the command Yahweh uttered to Joshua regarding Jeri-cho: “The city shall be under the ban, it and all that is in it belongs to the LORD; only Rahab the harlot and all who are with her in the house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent?” (Joshua 6:17). Did God not also order those who failed to follow His instructions to be de-stroyed?6 How could a benevolent, loving, and redeeming God express so much anger and be scheming enough to ask other people to do His dirty work? This picture surely does not fit the theme of peace that Jesus developed in the Sermon on the Mount.

Can the issue of why the God of the Old Testament seems so dis-graceful compared to the benevolent figure of Jesus Christ be solved? Can both Old and New Testaments be reconciled or are they antithetical on the issue of peace? Although I am not convinced that the Bible advo-cates pacifism per se (or passive pacifism as Cliff Williams qualified it7), I believe Jesus called his disciples first and foremost to be instruments of reconciliation with God and with all humankind. Even Paul declared “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom. 12:18).

For sure, dealing with the evil of this world involves many different responses. To echo Michel Desjardins, “‘peace’ that does not allow for resistance against physical oppression can be considered ‘violence,’ es-pecially when it is combined with a disregard for the need to transform society.”8 As James Hastings explained “we always despair of the world’s evil so long as we are striking no blows against it.”9 But, is war the only possible blow one can strike against evil? Is peace merely the absence of war? Hastings claimed that peace is not “the absence of struggle, the end of toil, or the removal of temptation. Instead it is the equanimity in toil and a repose in conflict.”10 The Bible bears witness that God has given His people many resources that have often been un-exploited or misused to respond to conflict and violence. Arthur Holmes surveyed patristic, medieval, and modern writers on the issue of war and peace and asserted that “those who assert continuity and agreement be-tween Old and New Testament moral teachings are likely to admit that tragic necessity and moral legitimacy of certain wars. Those who stress the discontinuity of the old and new covenants are more likely to inter-pret the New Testament as pacifistic.”11 Is this dichotomy unavoidable? Has not peace-making always been at the heart of God’s revelation? In


77

the present article, I would like to briefly explore the biblical concept of peace highlighting some equivocal passages that Christians have often used to justify war and see if they can be reconciled with what the Bible teaches on the subject of peace.

Why the Old Testament?

The first question to ask is: why do Christians still regard the Old Testament as authoritative for the understanding and the practice of their faith? If they dismissed those Scriptures all together, they would not have to deal with questionable passages. To answer this question, one has to return to the inception of Christianity. Why would the early Christians, especially the Gentile Christians, conserve the Hebrew Scriptures since their faith was anchored in a person and not based on written records? First, Christianity was grounded in Judaism. Its founder and first follow-ers were dedicated to its monotheistic belief, to its ethics, and to its three-fold collection of sacred writings.12 Second, Jesus Himself proclaimed the authority of the Old Testament: “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Mat. 5:17). He made many direct and indirect quotes from the Jewish Scriptures but gave them deeper meaning as recorded in the Sermon on the Mount (Mat. 5: 21-48). Third, the first Christians assumed the continuity between the Jewish Scriptures and Christian teaching. The book of Acts alone records several early Chris-tian sermons that were embedded in the Jewish Scriptures. New Testa-ment writers made about 400 direct quotes from and about 1,000 allu-sions to them. The book of Acts alone records several early Christian sermons that were embedded in the Jewish Scriptures. The early Church Fathers followed the same trend by quoting, adapting, or alluding to them.13 Therefore, the Old Testament was always an inherent part of the life and teaching of the Church and cannot be dismissed.

Regardless of the way they connected both testaments, whether through the promise and fulfillment approach, the progressive approach, the typological approach, the thematic approach, or the allegorical ap-proach, the New Testament writers and the early Church Fathers saw continuity between them. They revealed God’s unfolding plan of re-demption. They saw the prophecies of Micah 4:1-4 and Isaiah 2 already fulfilled in the Christian sphere. For many, the Old Testament prophetic vision of nonviolence and peace had already become a reality in the church.14 The Church Fathers embraced, proclaimed, and cherished the New Testament message of peace. Clement of Rome (ca AD 95) admon-ished the Corinthians to “seek peace, and pursue it” and to “cleave… to those who cultivate peace with godliness.”15 Ignatius of Antioch (ca AD


78

110) wrote: “Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.”16 Justin Martyr (ca AD 150) defended nonviolence as well: “We who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, die willingly con-fessing Christ.”17 Clement of Alexandria (d. AD 215) wrote: “… it is not in war, but in peace, that we are trained.”18 Irenaeus (ca AD 180) pro-claimed: “… these [nations] did form their swords and war lances into plowshares and … pruning hooks … [that is] into instruments used for peaceful purposes, and that they are now unaccustomed to fighting, but when smitten, offer the other cheek …”19 Origen (AD 185-252) pro-claimed: “For we no longer take up ‘sword against nation,’ nor do we ‘learn war anymore,’ having become children of peace for the sake of Jesus.”20 Tertullian (AD 160-220) summarized the early Church Fathers’ attitude toward war with his famous saying: “The blood of the martyrs has become the seed of the church.”21

These Fathers of the faith all wrote between the years of AD 95-250 and were living in various corners of the Roman Empire: Rome, Gaul, North Africa, Palestine, and more. They promoted nonresistant suffering as an expression of their commitment to Christ. Many early Christians followed that path, even in the Roman army. Eusebius gave examples of military martyrs: Marinus from Caesarea in Palestine (ca AD 260); Maximilian (ca AD 295) in North Africa; Marcelus, a centurion of the 7th Legion in Spain (ca AD 298); Julius (ca AD 303); the companions of Pachomius (c. AD 290-346) in Egypt; and Martin of Tours (ca AD 397). To be fair, not all Christian soldiers faced the same fate. When the pro-consul ordered him to serve and receive the military seal, Maximilian refused on account that he had already received the sign of Jesus Christ his Lord. The proconsul replied: “There are [other] soldiers who are Christians, and they serve.” To this Maximilian responded: “They know what is best for them. But I am a Christian, and I cannot do wrong.”22 This story indicates that some Christians did not see any conflict between their allegiance to Christ and serving and receiving the seal of the Roman army. However, Maximilian seems to question their Christianity. In summary, it seems that most early Christians interpreted the whole Bible in light of the law of love Jesus expressed in the Gospels. A shift oc-curred after the officialization of Christianity under Constantine.

Theology of Peace in the Old Testament

If these ancestors of the faith recognized a notion of peace in the Old Testament, to what extent is this peace warranted? The Hebrew word for peace, ָׁשלֹום (shalom), comes from the word ָׁשֵלם which means “to be completed, finished, fulfilled, and restored.”23 The root word puts strong emphasis on the material side of well being.24 Commonly, shalom refers to a group, e.g., a nation enjoying prosperity, rather than individuals.25 Although rarely, the word may refer to a spiritual matter,26 yet no spe-


79

cific text denotes the spiritual attitude of inward peace. The word was also used for salutation. In this case, it meant the relief of apprehension for war and the wish that the interlocutor would find thriving prosper-ity.27 William Swartley, quoting Perry Yoder, listed other views on the concept of shalom: 1. it can refer to the correct order of life. In this con-text, “war is not the antithesis to shalom . . . . Whatever blocks Yahweh’s order for the world, materially and relationally, is the foe and antithesis of shalom.”28 2. It can also pertain to a moral quality. In this context, vio-lence and evil (e.g., oppression, deceit, fraud) are the opposite of shalom. Nevertheless, in its most common use ָׁשלֹום is a social concept.

Throughout the Old Testament, God initiated covenants with certain individuals. As long as they would abide by the terms of the covenants, they would receive God’s blessings and enjoy a good and fruitful life on earth.29 In the book of Exodus, God established His covenant with an entire people group. The story of the Hebrews’ deliverance from Egypt has captivated many audiences because it is the epitome of God’s direct intervention on behalf of an oppressed people. The Hebrews did not have to engage in war; they just had to follow God’s prerogatives. God called the nascent nation of Israel to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant and be the bearer of His shalom that would “[flow] into friends, family, nations, and even the whole world.”30 However, the Israelites, quite rapidly, broke the covenantal stipulations. Disobedience, distrust, and disloyalty brought constant interruptions of shalom in the community. Such absence of sha-lom is expressed in “the Old Testament lament over war and violence (1 Chron. 22:7-10; Ps. 46:8-11; Ps. 120; Lamentations), in the messianic hope (Is. 2:1-5; 9:1-7; 11:1-9), in condemnations of unbridled warfare and excessive violence (Deut. 20:10-20; Amos 1), and in the summation of Old Testament ethics in the New Testament law of love (Mat. 5:9, 21-26, 38-48; Rom. 13:8-10).”31 The rest of the Old Testament recollects Israel’s numerous failures to carry on shalom in the world. God ex-tended His merciful forgiveness and provided leaders and prophets to lead the Israelites to righteous living and thereby become again a channel of his shalom.

Paul Hanson proposed that the meaning of shalom evolved with Is-rael’s history. The wars waged by Israel’s kings led to a new understand-ing of the word. Shalom was no longer depending on the deliverance of God but on the achievement of the kings as sons of God.32 The prophets became the social critics of their time and condemned these “royalist perversions.” Joseph Grassi explained: “This false peace was promoted by government and religious leaders who trusted in military solutions rather than the true peace found in the covenant of peace that God had made with his people.”33 Jeremiah, for example, spoke against the false


80

prophets who proclaimed a deceptive and false peace: “From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all prac-tice deceit. They dress the wound of my people as though it were not se-rious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.”34 Considering the failure of communal integrity in the pre- and post-exilic Israel, the prophets began to give a cosmic dimension to the word; shalom came to relate to “a renewal of creation to its divinely intended wholeness.”35 Shalom became again God’s undertaking through Messiah as the Guar-antor and Guardian of shalom in the eschatological Messianic kingdom. In Hanson’s historical approach, God’s community was responsible for the interruption of peace because of its involvement in war.

Because shalom was God’s mandate for Israel, the Old Testament offers troublesome stories where God Himself asks His people to deci-mate entire cities or people groups.36 Did God’s providence and protec-tion for His own people bring death to “innocent” people? As Mark O’Brien and Howard Wallace wrote, “the problem is that, whether fact or fiction, the ritual destruction is commended.”37 Such command un-dermines the character of God. How can one reconcile these genocidal claims with Jesus’ command to bless one’s enemy? Five main views are competing in explaining or justifying those genocides.

First, some claim that they did not really happen. Archeological sites like Jericho show no evidence of ramparts or walls as described in the biblical account.38 The cities listed as being utterly destroyed show no archeological evidence of experiencing such destruction by the time the Israelites would have been entering the Promised Land.39 Also, some people groups supposedly destroyed reappear later on.40 This view holds that the texts were added by Deuteronomistic writers later in the history of Israel.41 At first glance, this view seems to solve the problem of the genocidal accounts in the sense that they would not represent Yahweh’s command but the wishful thinking of an ulterior writer who wanted to justify Israel’s involvement in war. However, this view adds new prob-lems. If these accounts were later additions to the text or underwent edi-torial modifications, can one trust the Old Testament to be reliable? How could God allow these stories to circulate and remain in His Word if they were contradictory to His nature?42

The second argument for the defense of Old Testament genocides is that the stories were culturally-bound. Other ancient near eastern cultures practiced exterminations of whole people groups in the name of their deities. The destruction of all living things was viewed as consecration to the deity. Extra biblical examples of herem (the total destruction of a people group at the command of God) exist. One of the most famous arti-facts is the Mesha Stele, also known as the Moabite Stela, which is a ninth century BC black stone inscribed with Mesha’s victories over Omri king of Israel and his son. Mesha boasted in decimating an entire popu-lation.43 The problem with this view is that it brings the Israelites to the same ethical level as their pagan neighbors. Was Yahweh any different to


81

their gods? Some would respond that Israel progressively understood the nature and will of God. Its ethical understanding gradually evolved to higher levels of morality. However, the prophets clearly indicated that Israel’s life did not demonstrate any moral improvement and thus the need for Messiah to come.

The third view emphasizes the sacrificial aspect of the stories. The Canaanites were consecrated to God and offered as human sacrifices. But, as Susan Niditch clearly stated, “a God who accepts human sacrifice is problematic.”44 It contradicts the biblical view of God who values hu-man life and desires obedience above sacrifice. To answer this problem, Dwight Van Wrinkle attempted to engage in what Eryl Davies called “ethical criticism.”45 Most ancient Near Eastern people groups under-stood their gods to be warriors who were fighting on their behalf. Those gods intervened in battles by performing “miracles” that led to victory.46 For Van Wrinkle, the Old Testament presented a similar religious reflec-tion based on “the reconstruction of intention of the human author who bears witness to the revelation of God.”47 Therefore, God probably did not command the Canaanite genocide, but the Israelites thought God commanded them to do so.48 In that sense, the command to commit genocide did not represent a defective ethics but a flawed religious inter-pretation, similar to that of ancient Near Eastern people.49 Van Wrinkle’s solution still undermines biblical authority.

Fourth, God ordered the destruction of certain nations so that they would not lead the Israelites astray to worship other gods. The Israelites were entering an “ideologically toxic environment”50 that needed to be purified.51 In the words of Rivon Krygier, “idolatry is perceived as a per-nicious abomination, the extreme vision of blasphemy and as an act det-rimental to the basic humanity of the idolater.”52 This view is acceptable if the stories are metaphors of spiritual, not political or military purifica-tion by divine command. Otherwise, it would describe a capricious God using humankind for His own purpose, disinterested in human life unless He is worshipped. This description does not fit the character of God ex-pressed in the rest of the Bible. It seems more accurate to say with Schillebeeckx that “God does not take vengeance; he leaves evil to its own.”53 The wickedness of those nations brought them to their own ruin.

The last view claims that the Old Testament genocides were expres-sions of God’s justice. The sins of the Canaanites had provoked God and he could not leave them unpunished. But, as Goetz said, why would “Is-rael [be] helped in spite of her sins, while the Canaanites [were] being destroyed because of their sins?”54 The Deuteronomist writer indicated that it was because of God’s covenant with their ancestors: “It is not be-cause of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take


82

possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these na-tions, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”55 Some would answer that a sovereign and holy God has the right to punish sin whenever, wherever, and however he sees fit. This argument assumes that God is not fair. Should not God abide by the same moral standards He prescribed for His people? Deuteronomy 13:12-19 indicates that the Israelites had to abide by the same value system that was imposed on the Canaanites. If an Israelite city would give in to idolatry, its inhabitants had to be totally destroyed and the city never rebuilt. So, if God’s stan-dards were the same for the Israelites, why were they not destroyed?

None of the previous views offer satisfying solutions.56 I find the in-terpretations of medieval rabbis more rewarding. As they wrestled with the ethical justifications for herem, they established that the interpreta-tion had to be consistent with the revelation of God’s character. Rivon Krygier surveyed the writings of several rabbis from the 11th to the 16th centuries.57 The common denominator between those commentators was they all understood that surrender, even repentance, had first to be of-fered to the Canaanites.58 The only issue at stake was if peace could be offered to distant cities as well as nearby towns before battle (Deut. 20:10-18). Even Moses sent messengers from the wilderness to Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace (Deut. 2:26) and admonished the Israelites to offer “terms of peace” before battle (Deut. 20:10). By giving Sihon another chance, Moses embodied the same spirit as Abraham who tried to spare Sodom and Gomorrah. Krygier remarked: “God rejoices at such a turn of events because it embodies high ethics, which deserves to win the day over merciless behavior, even if it be justified by law.”59 David also embodied this high ethics when he spared the life of Saul.60 Unfortunately, the Canaanites repeatedly rejected the viable alternative of peace.

The conquest of Canaan can also be seen as a story of survival, not contradicting the Abrahamic covenant. First, as they left Egypt, the He-brews were run-away slaves and, as such, merited death. No peaceful settlement was possible. All indicate that they were afraid to enter Ca-naan and were not looking forward to killing but to fleeing. Any nation that would accept them without resistance would strike a blow against its own economic and political stability. Hence, they repeatedly rejected the alternative of peace with Israel. Second, their idolatrous practices were toxic not only to the Israelites but also to the human race. Since those nations had not yet evolved to high levels of morality, it would have been suicidal for Israel (a group of run-away slaves) to implement Jesus’ prin-ciples of non-retaliation. God may have given the Israelites a right to fol-low the military practices of their time for the sake of survival although it did not match His ideal. Other biblical records indicate a progressive un-veiling of God’s ideal, moving from rules to principles. For example, the Old Testament did not condemn slavery but provided laws to prevent its abuse (lex talionis in Deut. 19:15-21). In the letter to Philemon, however,


83

Paul calls for a higher ethical demand and hopes that slavery will eventu-ally disappear with new relationships in Christ. In the same way, Jesus gave a deeper meaning to the Mosaic Law and even intensified its re-quirements in the Sermon on the Mount. At the end,

The New Testament’s witness is finally normative. If irreconcil-able tensions exist between the moral vision of the New Testa-ment and that of particular Old Testament texts, the New Testa-ment vision trumps the Old Testament. … so … Jesus’ explicit teaching and example of nonviolence reshapes our understanding of God and of the covenant community in such a way that killing enemies is no longer a justifiable option.61

Finally, God could have utterly destroyed the pagan nations Him-self. The reason why He asked the Israelites to be actively involved in this endeavor was because they had to learn a lesson. God did not want them to hate the pagan nations, but to learn to love and value life. Israel was called to be a blessing to the Canaanites and the only way they could prevent killing or violence was through obedience to God.

The violence of the Old Testament prepared for God’s unprece-dented intervention on earth. The message of the cross is certainly a mes-sage of love and reconciliation, yet it carries within itself a message of extreme violence. It expresses the brutality that human beings unleashed on God at the Garden of Eden when they decided to rebel against their creator. Since the day of the Fall, human nature has lost its peace with God, with all people, and with all creation. All human efforts to correct the problem of estrangement with God have been vain. Even if offered by faith, sacrifices appeased only incompletely and temporarily.62 God Himself provided the cure for this estrangement through the death of Je-sus Christ. The barbarity of the cross and the excruciating pains that Je-sus endured at Passover express only minimally what it cost God to re-deem all creation. The resurrection of Jesus Christ brings the hope of an eschatological redemption of all creation and the realization of complete peace on earth.

Theology of Peace in the New Testament

The story of the cross leads to an examination of the theology of peace in the New Testament. At first glance, it seems much easier to at-test for peace in the New Testament than for the Old Testament. Jesus made numerous statements about peace with God, others, and self. The Greek word εἰρήνη (peace) can refer to: 1. A state opposite to an armed conflict (Lk. 14:32); 2. An agreement between people (Ja. 3:18), in con-


84

trast with division or dissension; 3. A greeting or farewell; 4. A state of inner rest and harmony (Rom. 15:13); 5. A state of reconciliation with God; and finally 6. The state of eschatological fulfillment.63 The princi-pal meaning of εἰρήνη is salvation in a deep sense.64 It denotes the heal-ing of all relationships, not limited to the soul. It is peace with God and humanity, extended to the universe as a whole.65

The Sermon on the Mount is the main locus of Jesus’ teaching on the subject of peace. He declared: “You have heard that it was said ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Mt. 5:38)” and “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven” (Mt. 5:43-45). Is Jesus teaching in these two passages that all violence, par-ticularly war, must be abolished? To respond to this question, one must consider the following factors: 1. Scholars do not agree whether the ser-mon described an interim ethic, a private ethic, a civic ethic, or a special calling ethic. Yet, it is fair to assume that the principles exposed in the Sermon describe the Christian character par excellence in private as well as in public setting; 2. Jesus used creative language66 and did not expect an invariable literal application of His words. If all Christians had to ap-ply literally Jesus’ saying in Mk. 9:42ff,67 they all would walk blind, lame, and mute; 3. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus used an Oriental style of teaching rooted in wise sayings. Those are “seldom or never uni-versally true, and [do] not hold good in every case. It is often an extreme instance of the universal truth which it teaches.”68 Those sayings express the ideal of Christian disposition, what all believers should strive for but will probably never attain in a lifetime; 4. Jesus teaches a principle quite revolutionary for His time. The disposition of the heart and the inner life of the person were essential not only for the individual’s well being but also for the health of the community;69 5. Applying the Sermon’s sayings to one’s life establishes in Jesus’ own words, “a foundation on the rock.” It “is the unalterable standard, not of Christian practice, but of Christian standard.”70

Does this Christian model allow involvement in war? The Sermon advocates a principle of non-retaliation, not of non-retribution. In the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament, God calls for the vindication of the weak and the oppressed. This was the cry of many of the Minor prophets such as Amos and of New Testament writers such as Luke and James. It is worth noting that, in their messages, retribution did not call for war and vindication was not obtained through violence. Lewis Bart-lett explained:

I have often wondered why the Bible does not condemn war . . . . It is simply because it would not be good to. What the Bible does is a much greater thing than that. It condemns the bad passions that lead to war – pride, arrogance, selfishness, envy, malice, ha-


85

tred, uncharitableness, self-seeking. War is only the fruit of these things, and, as long as they are, war will be.71

I am not sure that it would be good for the Bible to not condemn war. It does not condemn war de facto in the same way that it does not directly condemn slavery because it was impossible ideologically and economically to attain this ideal instantly. Although wars and rumors of war will always exist until His return, Jesus wanted His disciples to con-tinue His ministry of reconciliation on earth.72

The New Testament emphasizes that true peace will never come with the help of governments. Paul wrote “While people are saying, ‘Peace and safety,’ destruction will come on them suddenly.”73 Paul is of course referring to the Pax Romana (the pax et securitas), the promise that Rome would keep peace and security throughout the empire. Even Irenaeus wrote: “The Romans have given the world peace, and we travel without fear along the roads and across the sea wherever we will.”74 Yet, the Roman Empire was a brutal oppressor that found economic stability in slavery and the exploitation of many nations. The Pax Romana meant “compliance with government power and authority. Fear [was] its princi-pal weapon, inducing people to look for them for security, safety, and other advantages.”75 How could it promise peace? In a subtle way, Paul stated that Rome could not promise what was not its own to give in the first place. True peace and stability were the sole gift of God.

Jesus never encouraged overt civil disobedience or rebellion. The popular expectation was that Messiah would be a military ruler who would free the Jews from all foreign oppression and restore the Davidic rule in Palestine. The Gospels indicate that up to the end of Jesus’ earthly life, His disciples misunderstood His Messiahship and were preparing for a military attack or a political coup. When Peter drew his sword and struck the ear of the high priest’s slave, Jesus made his strongest state-ment against the use of arms: “Put your sword back in its place … for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”76 He told the Pharisees who came to arrest him: “Am I leading a rebellion that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me.”77 Jesus did not need armed forces. To Pilate, he declared “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”78 Jesus’ true kingdom is spiritual and heavenly. The only weapon that is allowed in that realm is the dou-ble-edged sword of the Word of God.79

According to Swartley, people who advocate Christian participation in war usually find about 24 texts in the New Testament to support their


86

view.80 I obviously cannot exegete all of these passages but I will make a few brief remarks. First, the facts that Jesus commended a soldier’s faith (Lk. 7), or that John the Baptist did not ask soldiers to quit their career (Lk. 3), or that the early church embraced Roman soldiers such as Corne-lius (Acts 10-11) do not support Christian participation in war. It indi-cates only that the Gospel is available to all people and that even people trained to kill are not out of reach of God’s redemption. Second, the fact that Jesus predicted war (Mk. 13) does not prove that he approved of war. He was simply stating an unfortunate fact of reality. The human race has proven more than once its inadequacy in keeping peaceful rela-tionships.

Third, Jesus’ strong criticism of the Pharisees in Matthew 23 did not promote war. He was the prophetic voice that criticized the social and religious status quo of his time. Fourth, Jesus did not use violence toward the merchants during the incident of the cleansing of the temple. He raised His hands over their belongings because they epitomized idolatry and spiritual abuse. The event did not raise the attention of the Roman guards so the violence was not as intense as some may have described it. As Carter Swain wrote “His ‘weapon’ … was a bundle of rushes used for bedding down the cattle. It is a far cry from that to an atomic blast.”81 Those who witnessed the scene certainly perceived Jesus’ action as an aggression. But Jesus echoed that day what the prophet Hosea wrote: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. … Though Ephraim built many altars for sin offer-ings, these have become altars for sinning” (Hosea 6:6 and 8:11).

Fifth, when Jesus taught to pay taxes to Caesar (Mt. 17:24-27), He did not approve of Rome’s use of the military to keep “peace” in Pales-tine. He stated what Paul will later explain in Rom. 13, to submit, mean-ing respect, existing authorities, as long as those do not take obvious stand against God’s law. Sixth, Paul’s use of military imagery (2 Cor. 10:3-4, Rom. 6:13, Eph. 6:10-20, James 4:1-3, and Phil 1:27-30) does not necessarily plead for a pro-war attitude. Following a principle of con-textualization, Paul and James were using metaphors that spoke to the heart of their readers. They mainly advocated a defensive technique to apply only in the spiritual realm. The only offensive weapons Christians needed to face the schemes of the evil one were the Word of God and prayer.

Seventh, some of Jesus’ parables speak of force and violence (Mk. 12; Lk. 11; Mt. 11). But they were the exact entities Jesus was condemn-ing, the result of the spiritual abuse that the teachers of the law were in-flicting on the common people. The Mosaic Law had been given to liber-ate the Israelites by giving directions on how to live a fulfilled life with God and others. The teachers of the law had turned it into a yoke of tradi-tions. Eighth, Jesus seems to appeal to war when he said “Do not sup-pose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”82 Jesus is simply using military words to explain the


87

magnitude of the cost of discipleship. Allegiance to Jesus may mean the severing of the dearest relationships. Loyalty to Jesus’ lordship can cause scission in family ties. Unfortunately, cases of tortured Christians are a constant reminder that the sword can be literal but, in that case, it is in the hand of the non-Christians.83 Again, the weapon that Jesus gives His followers is the double-edged sword of the Word of God. It brings life to those who abide by its precepts and it brings death to those who refuse its truth.

Finally, anyone who uses Luke 22:36 as Jesus’ literal command to buy a sword ignores the context of this saying. Peter had just claimed that he was ready to go both to prison and death for the sake of Christ (Lk. 22:33). Jesus used the symbolic image of the sword to warn Peter and the other disciples that the time of easy training (v. 35) was over. Soon, they will be on their own; Jesus will no longer provide for their daily needs (v. 35) nor will he be present to protect them (v. 36). The sword represented the true testing of their faith. They will face trials and tribulation they will face after the departure of their master who will be counted among the transgressors (Is. 53:12). The disciples, who were still dreaming of a military-type of Messiah, took Jesus’ saying literally (v. 37), but His response was swift and acute: “It is enough (v. 38).” He was disconcerted by their lack of understanding: armed resistance was not what he intended.

Desjardins claimed that “The New Testament strongly promotes peace and it strongly promotes violence.”84 It is certain that Jesus’ teach-ings as well as his actions confronted as much as they appeased. Jesus challenged and condemned his opponents but He never engaged in a physical altercation with anyone. His relationships with the sinners, the outcasts, the tax collectors, the prostitutes, the sick, and women were perceived as violence against the social status quo. To the Pharisees, He was a sinner, a blasphemer, and a slanderer. To the common people and the pilgrims, the Pharisees were the guardians of God’s law and the pri-mary examples to follow but, to Jesus, they were the hypocritical blind guides.85 Why did Jesus react so strongly against the Pharisees? Were they not sinners like any others who merited His forgiveness? The story of Nicodemus shows that Jesus did not have a negative attitude toward all Pharisees (John 3). He never denied forgiveness to a repentant person but He condemned self-reliance and spiritual arrogance. The teachers of the law inflicted religious burdens on people and forgot the more impor-tant matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.86

The book of Revelation presents a serious challenge to the biblical theology of peace. Many scholars are puzzled by the violence displayed in the Apocalypse and struggle with the fact that God makes war at the


88

end of times (Rev. 19:11-20:3). They see it as a book full of “barbaric elements,” teaching hatred and satisfaction over the punishment of ene-mies, advocating terrorism and annihilation of the other, and depicting a fearsome Jesus87 thirsty for the blood of his enemy. At first glance, it seems that the Jesus of Revelation is different from the Jesus of the Gos-pels. As Bredin showed, two responses emerge. First, the violence of Revelation is acknowledged and justified as a legitimate call for venge-ance against the oppressor. God is carrying out a redemptive vengeance that has a cathartic effect on His people. The second response focuses on the image of the slain Lamb, and therefore on the Gospel message. Reve-lation confronts yet seeks the conversion rather than the destruction of any dominant power, whether earthly or heavenly. Both views build on different depictions of Christ in the book. As for God’s people, the text itself does not indicate that they will participate in the cosmic eschato-logical battle.88

Conclusion

The issue of violence versus peace in the Bible demands careful in-vestigation. As seen in this article, a tension exists between the two. The Old Testament “pro-war” texts are not void of peaceful alternatives and the New Testament contains passages that could be seen as offensive. Nevertheless, the New Testament writers developed the idea that Christ came on earth to fulfill the covenant of peace. Ante Nicene Christians followed that path and understood that both testaments had to be inter-preted in light of this covenant.

Jesus challenged and condemned self-reliance and spiritual arro-gance but He never promoted, nor engaged in a physical altercation with anyone. It is certain that Jesus’ teachings as well as his actions con-fronted as much as they appeased. But, He never denied forgiveness to a repentant person. W. G. Rutherford explained: “The Gospel announced by Jesus Christ … turns men’s notions upside down, and reverses men’s verdicts.”89 Paul certainly experienced this reversal of personal notions. He could boast in his imprisonment, elevate humility to the level of a virtue, make suffering a paradigm,90 and still estimate that he was on the winning side. Christ was calling for a “radical countercultural commu-nity of discipleship.”91 Instead of seeking retaliation, personal pleasures, unfaithfulness, lust and hate, the disciple of Christ is called to follow His example, which Paul summarized in the Philippian hymn: He gave up his rights and privileges for the sake of all human beings and humbled Him-self unto death, even death on the cross. For James Douglass also, this reversal of notion was brought through the cross and leads to non-violence: “The logic of non-violence is the logic of crucifixion and leads the man of non-violence into the heart of the suffering Christ. The pur-pose of non-violence is to move the oppressors to perceive as human be-ings those whom they are oppressing.”92 Non-violence becomes a


89

weapon to pierce the heart of the oppressor and a window into the heart of Christ.

1Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition. 2Gandhi as quoted by Mark Bredin, Jesus, Revolutionary of Peace: A Non-

violent Christology in the Book of Revelation (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press, 2003), 12.

3Ibid. 4Irenaeus, Against Heresies (1.17.2 ). 5Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin

Company, 2006), 50. 6Then Joshua and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, the sil-

ver, the mantle, the bar of gold, his sons, his daughters, his oxen, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent and all that belonged to him; and they brought them up to the valley of Achor. … And all Israel stoned them with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones. They raised over him a great heap of stones that stands to this day and the LORD turned from the fierce-ness of His anger. (Joshua 7:24-26)

7Cliff Williams, “A Philosopher's Reflections on Peacemaking and the Just War Theory,” Sacred Tribes Journal Vol. 4 No. 2 (forthcoming). Internet re-source available from www.sacredtribesjournal.org.

8Michel Desjardins, Peace, Violence and the New Testament (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 34.

9James Hastings, The Christian Doctrine of Peace (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1922), 108.

10Ibid. 11Arthur F. Holmes, War and Christian Ethics: Classic and Contemporary

Readings on the Morality of War. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 7.

12The New Testament writers refer to them as “the Scripture” (Jn. 7:38), “the Scriptures” (Mt. 21:42), “the Holy Scriptures” (Rom. 1:2), and “the Sacred Writings” (2 Tim. 3:15). See Lk. 24:44 (“… all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms …”); See also Josephus in Against Apion 1.37-41 (5 books of Moses, 13 books of prophets, and 4 books of hymns). Consult also the council of Jamnia and rabbinic litera-ture.

13Bart Ehrman, Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels, NTGF 1, ed. Gordon Donald Fee (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 31.

14John Driver, How Christians Made Peace with War: Early Christian Un-derstandings of War (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1988), 21.


90

15A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, and A.C. Coxe, The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.

1: Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.: 1997),11, 9.

16Ibid, 55. 17Ibid., 176. 18Ibid.. Vol. 2, 234. 19Ibid., Vol. 1, 512. 20Ibid.. Vol. 4, 558. 21Ibid., Vol. 3, 55. 22Driver, How Christians Made Peace with War, 53. 23James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Do-

mains: Hebrew (Old Testament), electronic edition (Oak Harbor: Logos Re-search Systems, Inc., 1997), DBLH 8966.

24Judges 19:20; 1 Sam. 16:5; 2 Sam. 18:28 , Ezr. 5:7. 25Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theologi-

cal Dictionary of the New Testament, translation of Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament [Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, (1995, c1985)], 207. See 2 Kings. 20:19; 2 Sam. 17:3; 1 Kings 2:5.

26Is. 48:18. 27Hastings, The Christian Doctrine of Peace, 6. 28William M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New

Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2006), 29.

29Covenant with Adam (Gen. 3), covenant with Noah (Gen. 9), covenant with Abraham (Gen. 17), the Sinai covenant (Ex. 19-20), the Davidic covenant, the new covenant (Jer. 31:31-33; Hos. 2:14-18). The new covenant was fulfilled in Christ (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 8:8-12; Gal. 3:6-14).

30Joseph A. Grassi, Jesus is Shalom: A Vision of Peace from the Gospels (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2006), 10.

31Holmes, War and Christian Ethics, 6. 32Paul Hanson, “War and Peace in Hebrew Scripture,” Int. 38 (1984), 353.

Quoted by Swartley, 31. 33Grassi, Jesus is Shalom, 9. 34Jer. 6:13-14. 35Hanson, “War and Peace in Hebrew Scripture,” 359. 36See Joshua and Judges. 37Mark O’Brien, Howard Wallace and Howard N. Wallace, eds., Seeing

Signals, Reading Signs: The Art of Exegesis. Studies in Honor of Anthony F. Campbell, SJ, for His Seventieth Birthday (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 97.

38See the work of archeologist Kathleen Kenyon. 39Frédérick Gangloff, “Joshua 6: Holy war or Extermination by Divine

Command (herem),” Theological Review 25 (2004), no 1, 8-9.


91

40Rannfrid I. Thelle, “the Biblical Conquest Account and Its Modern Her-

meneutical Challenges,” Studia Theologia 61 (2007). See Judges 2:3, 3:1-6. 41Gangloff, “Joshua 6,” 16-17. 42If the text forwent major modifications, it cannot be dependable. I am

aware of the fact that scribes somewhat modified the biblical records, but most emendations were minor and explainable and only a few had theological impli-cations. The art and science of textual criticism explain those changes and show that the text remains reliable. Of course, Bart Ehrman will disagree with this statement. For the novice in this matter, I recommend a book from Paul W. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999).

43It reads: “And Chemosh said to me, ‘Go, take Nebo from Israel.’ And I went in the night and fought against it from the daybreak until midday, and I took it and I killed the whole population: seven thousand male subjects and aliens, and female subjects, aliens, and servant girls. For I had put it to the ban for Ashtar-Chemosh. And from there I took the vessels of Yahweh, and I pre-sented them before the face of Chemosh.”

44Susan Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Vio-lence, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 180.

45Eryl Davies, “The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible: An Examination of Some Proposed Solutions,” Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (April 2005): 219.

46Report from Mursilis II, who was in pursuit of Sunupassaer: “The proud Weather-god, my lord, stood beside me. It rained all night so that the enemy could not see the campfire of the troops. But as soon as the weather became clear in the early evening, the proud Weather-god suddenly raised the storm and brought it and went before my troops, making them invisible to the enemy. So I arrived at the land of Malazzia and burnt and destroyed it utterly.” Consult Eric A. Seibert, Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009),157.

From Rameses II during a Syrian campaign: “His majesty considered, and took counsel with his heart: How will it be with those whom I have sent out, who have gone on a mission to Syria, in these days of rain and snow which fall in winter. Then he made a great offering to his father Seth, and with it pro-nounced the following prayer: ‘Heaven rests upon your hands; the earth is under your feet. What you command, takes place. [May you cause] the rain, the cold wind and the snow [to cease] until the marvel you design for me shall have reached me.’ Then his father Seth heard all that he had said. The sky became peaceful and summer-like days began.” Consult Sa-Moon Kang, Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient near-East (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 104.


92

47Dwight Van Winkle, “Canaanite Genocide and Amalekite Genocide and

the God of Love,” The Winifred E. Weter Faculty Award Lecture Seattle Pacific University (April 1989): 36.

48Ibid., 34. 49Ibid., 36. 50Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: a Commentary (Louisville: Westmin-

ster John Knox Press, 2002), 424. 51Exodus 23:32-33 reads: “You shall make no covenant with them and

their gods. They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you.” (NASB)

52Rivon Krygier, “Did God Command the Extermination of the Canaan-ites?: The Rabbis’ Encounter with Genocide,” Conservative Judaism, Vol. 57, No. 2 (2005): 79.

53Edward Schillebeeckx, The Church: The Human Story of God (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 138.

54Ronald Goetz, “Joshua, Calvin, and Genocide,” Theology Today, Vol. 32, no. 3 (1975): 263-274.

55Deuteronomy 9:5. 56Consult also Stanley N. Gundry, series ed., Show Them No Mercy: 4

Views on God and Canaanite Genocide, Counterpoint (Grand Rapids: Zonder-van, 2003) for other insights on those views. The article written by Daniel Gard, “The Case for Eschatological Continuity,” brings a new dimension.

57Rabbi Rashi (11th cent.), rabbi Rashbam (12th cent.), the Nahmanides (13th cent.), the Maimonides, the Tosafists (16th cent.), rabbi Judah (16th cent.), rabbi Simeon (16th cent.)

58Krygier, Did God Command the Extermination of the Canaanites?,” 82. 59Ibid. 601 Sam. 23:14-24:22; 26. 61Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contempo-

rary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: Harper Collins, 1996), 336.

62 Hebrews 10:1-18. 63Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Vol. 4: Analytical

Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker's Greek New Testament library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books: 2000), 132. And Gerhard Friedrich, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vols. 5-9, Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.), electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans: 1964-c1976), 2:400-1.

64Ibid. 65Ibid. 66Jesus used graphic pictures, (Mt. 7:3-5), paradox (Mk. 10:31), riddles

(Mk. 14:58), similes (Lk. 13:34), and in the present case hyperbole (Mk. 9:42-48).


93

67“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life

maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. (Mk. 9:42ff)”

68Hastings, The Christian Doctrine of Peace, 148. Examine for example Proverb 26:4-5: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.” One’s attitude toward a fool will depend on the circumstances.

69ἀλλʼ ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει [“whoever slaps you (sg.)”] versus “ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν [“love your enemies (pl. your)”].

70Hastings, The Christian Doctrine of Peace, 154. 71Lewis Bartlett, The Spirit of Christ and War, 9. Quoted in Hastings, The

Christian Doctrine of Peace, 155. 72The titles of Christ bare the meaning of reconciliation. 731 Thess. 5:3. 74Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.30.3. 75Grassi, Jesus is Shalom, 148. 76Mt 26:52. 77Mt. 26:55. 78Jn 18:36. 79Heb. 4:12; Rev. 1:16. 80Lk. 22:36-38; Mk. 12:13-17; Mt. 10:34-35 with Lk. 12:51; Lk. 7:2-10

with Mt. 8:5-10; Lk. 11:21-22; Mk. 12:1-9; Mk. 13:7-13; Lk. 3:14; Lk. 14: 31-32; Mk. 9:42; Mt. 23; Mt. 26:52; Mt. 11:12; Lk. 16:16; Mk. 8:34-35; Lk. 12:39-40 with Mt. 24:43-44; Jn. 2:13-17; Jn. 15:13; Jn. 18:36; Acts 10-11; Rom. 13:1-7 with 1 Pet. 2:13-17; Eph. 6:10-17; Rev. 19:15; Rev. 12:7-9; Rom. 1: 19-21; 2:14-15.

81Carter Swain, War, Peace, and the Bible (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1982), 51.

82Mt. 10:34. 83Consult “The Voice of the martyrs,” at http://www.persecution.com. 84Desjardins, Peace, Violence and the New Testament, 111. He saw vio-

lence in the way the New Testament deals with issues of church or family disci-pline, the low view on women, the insider-outsider chasm, and the angry, self-righteous tone that some New Testament writers adopted.

85Mt 23: 15. 86Mt 23:23. 87Mark Bredin, Jesus, Revolutionary of Peace: A Nonviolent Christology in

the Book of Revelation (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press, 2003), 25. Bredin respectively alludes to the writings of A. N. Whitehead, Preisker, M. J. Selvidge (1996), and C. J. Jung (1965).


94

88See Sylvie Raquel, “The Theology of Peace in Revelation,” Essays in

Revelation: Appropriating Yesterday’s Apocalypse in Today’s World, ed. Gerald Stevens (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, forthcoming).

89W. G. Rutherford, The Key of Knowledge, 153. Quoted by Hastings, The Christian Doctrine of Peace, 99.

90Phil. 2: 1-18. 91Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 322. 92James Douglass, The Non-Violent Cross: A Theology of Revolution and

Peace, (New York McMillan: 1968), 71.

Document

Documents

Transcript of Document