Jesus’ Repudiation of Old Testament Violence

By Greg Boyd

I think its very clear Jesus affirmed the divine inspiration of the Old Testament. Out of fidelity to Jesus, I feel compelled to accept this collection of ancient writings as divinely inspired. Yet, also out of fidelity to Jesus, I feel compelled to emphatically repudiate it’s violence.

What’s interesting is that Jesus himself repudiated the violence of the Old Testament — despite his belief that this collection of writings was inspired. Jesus taught, “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 anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also (Mt 5:38-39).

It’s true, as many scholars have argued, that most of the contrasts between what people had heard and what Jesus taught (“you’ve heard it said… but I say“) do not repudiate Old Testament itself but Jewish interpretations that rose up around Old Testament teachings. But this is clearly not the case with this passage, for the “eye for an eye” commanded is explicitly and repeatedly given in the Old Testament (e.g. Ex 21:24; Lev 24:19-20). In fact, this quid pro quo philosophy lies at the very heart of the law, especially its required violent punishments.

Most interestingly, in Deuteronomy Moses goes so far as to stress that the law must not be waved aside out of compassion. “Show no pity,” the text says, “ life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut 19:21). Yet, Jesus not only commands people to “show pity,” he replaces the Old Testament quid pro quo ethic with his radical ethic of unconditional love.

For example, while the Old Testament allowed Israelites to hate their enemies and sometimes command them to slaughter them, Jesus forbid his disciples from ever hating or doing any harm to an enemy. Instead, he commanded people to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:43-45). Luke includes the command to “do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you” and “pray for those who mistreat you” (Lk 6:27-28).

Most surprising of all, Jesus emphatically makes loving enemies rather than hating them the precondition to being a child of God. We’re to love, bless, pray for and do good to our enemies “that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Mt 5:45, emphasis added). Only if we love indiscriminately can we “be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked” (Lk 6:35). Small wonder, therefore, that when Peter drew his sword in self-defense — acting in accordance with Old Testament norms — Jesus rebuked him.

No where is the contrast between Jesus and Jehovah more evident than on this point. Jehovah commanded his people to “show no pity” on offenders and toward enemies. Jesus emphatically commands God’s people to do the opposite while teaching that this type of hostile attitude and violent behavior disqualifies one from being child of God. In other words, if you obey Jehovah, you’re not a child of God according to Jesus.

Abraham believed God told him to sacrifice his child, yet he trusted that God was not really like the bloodthirsty Canaanite god Molech and thus would not make him follow through with his request, even though he had no choice but to move forward in obedience. He trusted that God would supply the commanded sacrifice, if only at the last minute (Gen. 22:8).

Think about it.

Pax

See more at: http://reknew.org/2009/07/jesus-repudiation-of-old-testament-violence-2/#sthash.WGwLhl5k.dpuf

Would Jesus Have Killed His Enemies?

By Bill Wachtel

I

n defense of Christian participation in war, some mention Cornelius as having no negative mention in the New Testament. All agree that Christ accepts people just as they are. Cornelius was baptized into the Christian faith. After he was baptized, he was to be taught all that Christ laid down as instructions for his people to follow (Matt. 28:19, 20). Those instructions include a mandate to his followers to be peacemakers, not war-makers (Matt. 5:9, 43-48). We are to follow peace with all men, without which no man will see the Lord (Heb. 12:14). The weapons of our warfare are spiritual, not carnal (physical) (2 Cor. 10:4). As much as it depends on us, we are to live at peace with all men (Rom. 12:18-21). To me this means that no matter how others treat us as enemies, we are not to retaliate as enemies to them. Paul recognized that governments bear the sword. He did not however allow Christians the right to vengeance: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil…Beloved do not look for revenge, but leave room for wrath, for it is written ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (Rom. 12:17, 19). The state, however, is an “avenger for God” (Rom. 13:4).

These teachings, of course, are meant for Christians — those dedicated to the will of God and the teachings of Christ. They do not tell rulers how to rule or governments how to govern. The New Testament shows that governments are, per se, an integral part of what Scripture calls “the world.” Believers, though “in” the world, are called to be not “of” (John 15:19; 17:14) the world. They are appointed as ambassadors of the Kingdom of God. As such they are said by the New Testament to have “resident alien” status. They should stay out of the world’s wars. If they do not, inevitably they will kill fellow believers as well as enemies. How then can the international church be recognized “by the love they have for one another”? (John 13:35). The whole point of Christian witness is destroyed if believers take the lives of other believers. Churches seem to recognize this contradiction of the Christian witness when they do not allow chaplains to bear arms. But why only the clergy? Is not every Christian supposed to follow Jesus? Do we really imagine Jesus donning a uniform, firing a gun or dropping a bomb?

Church history reveals that the church of the first two centuries at least agreed on non-combatant status and would not participate in armed conflict. Soldiers in the Roman army, when converted to Christ, chose death if necessary, rather than continuing to fight and kill others. Such was and sometimes still is the cost of discipleship. It was only when the church had departed from the original faith, in Constantine’s time, and united the majority church to the state, that professing Christians began to join the military. (These are facts of history that are easily verifiable.) Their (false) assumption was that the state had become Christian! 

One of the great recoveries of the Anabaptists, the “Radical Reformation,” was that of pacifism — in contrast to the Lutherans and Calvinists, who continued to support the Roman Catholic view of a Church united with the State. Our Anabaptist forefathers were persecuted bitterly for this stand by both Catholics and Protestants. Most of the “evangelicals” of our day continue in this Protestant tradition of military participation. But are they in fact following the sometimes unpopular obedience demanded by Jesus?

Rulers are empowered to use the “sword” to punish evildoers (Rom. 13:1-5). The State may judge Saddam to be a threat to this nation and to the world. It makes its decision to declare war on Saddam. This does not mean, however, that Christians are required to take up the sword to help in administering the punishment. Thankfully, our nation recognizes the right of conscientious objection. Some nations do not. Christians in those nations have often been terribly persecuted for that stand, but where in Scripture are Christians promised exemption from persecution?

I hope these thoughts will clarify my views on this subject. I served in the Navy in World War II, and in fact was baptized while in the Navy. It was after my discharge that I began to study the Scriptures and to grow in Christ. Then I came to realize that military service was not meant to be an option for those dedicated to the will of God and to His service as “soldiers for Christ” (2 Tim. 2:1-5).