(Disclaimer—- This conversation between my friend and OT colleague Lawson Stone and me was strictly off the cuff chatting, not refined and carefully edited discourse. Caveat emptor)
Stone: Puzzling, as I often do, over alternatives to the
usual approaches to warfare and violence in the OT. Our modern notions of non-combatants,
collateral damage, etc. complicate the moral picture considerably. In a way,
this involves returning to some things I was working on almost 20 years ago!
Witherington: As my Granny used to say, don’t complexify
thangs. Jesus said no violence, and so did Paul.
Lawson Stone ?… And Marcion,
too, I suppose. In general, I have found “granny” solutions and
proof-texting unhelpful in my work with these texts. Maybe we had different
kinds of grannies. Mine was a terror, straight out of a Flannery O’Connor
story. Sort of ruined me for home-spun cliches.
Ben Witherington
Pacificism is no cliche Lawson,
though, I’ll grant you my granny was full of them. The real theological issue
here is does one have an adequate theology of progressive revelation? If so,
those OT conundrums are less confounding.
I’d hope you would assume that your colleague sort of
already knew about progressive revelation. 
But I regard the intentions of
the inspired authors as still divine revelation, and are the theology of the
text, and no amount of progres…sion simply negates those inspired intentions
or consigns them, dispensationlist-style, to the dust-bin. So getting from the
OT here to the NT there while fully respecting the aims of the sacred writers
still requires more hard work than Granny knew or most pacifistic hermeneutic
will acknowledge. Actually my question
is not pacifism at all. It’s the Bible. We have a mass of material in the OT
that portrays and assumes God as a Warrior just as thoroughly as he is
portrayed as Redeemer and Father. We also have a mass of material in the OT in
which obedience to God is framed in terms of divinely commissioned battle.
Whether one is a pacifist, just-war theorist, or “War as the Lesser Evil
In Certain Rare Cirumstances” person, we still have to figure out how to
preach and teach the Word of God from these texts. It’s not as if they are like
the dietary laws or animal sacrifice. The Divine Warrior motif figures in
Revelation as well, and the war heroes of Judges are commended as heroes of
faith precisely for their war-deeds in Hebrews 11. So my question isn’t whether
we are pacifists or war-mongers. The question is how are we teach and preach
faithfully, substantively and profoundly from these texts, which are close to
the center of the OT and not easily segregated from the rest of its revelation
or dismissed by appeals to progressive revelation. If in fact the end and goal
of history is Jesus on a war-horse with a two-edged sword, “clothed in a
raiment soaked in blood” (Isaiah) then progressive revelation might
suggest the Divine Warrior tradition must continue to function in our theology.
So the question is, how? That’s what is not answered by the easy cliches and
“WWJD” type responses.
Ben Witherington
Gotcha… and that’s a good question. My answer would be that the God is a
warrior stuff is less problematic, as the NT also says, leave justice and
judgment in the hands of God. Its a question of a different order to ask how to
preach texts where God’s people are called to practice the harem. I like what
Peter Craigie in his little book on the subject says. Lawson it seems to me we have to take
seriously what Hebrews 1 says— namely that the revelation to the OT saints
was partial and piecemeal, not a full revelation of God’s truth or will. And
more to the point as Jesus says, it was to some extent given the way it was due
to the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites.
Ben-I think that’s pushing Hebrews 1 way farther than it
wants to go. And “partial” does not mean “wrong.” Also, I
doubt seriously Hebrews 1 intends the pejorative sense carried by
“piecemeal.” The OT certainly is not. The OT is at least 2…000
years of a God relentlessly honoring his original purpose in creation,
tirelessly engaging a lost humanity, unfailingly keeping his promises,
repeatedly reminding his people of his purpose and character, and frequently
asserting justice in space-and-time, typically through the instrumentality of
human institutions of coercion such as government and warfare. So that specific
use of Hebrews 1 does not match the reality of the actual text of the Bible.
When an interpretation of a single phrase fails to match the reality of which
it speaks, I usually hunt for another interpretation.
Also, the hardness of heart saying is addressed to one
law, the permission on divorce, and it was more directed to Jesus’ questioners
than to the OT-note the use of “you/your” 3 times in Jesus’
statement. He’s talking more about his questioners than he is the OT. So I do
not see there a generalization that we can invoke whenever we are bothered
about some feature of the OT. Also, “hard of heart” does not describe
the authors of the OT, whom I’d rather call “inspired by the Holly
Spirit.” Was Isaiah hard of heart? Was Jeremiah? Was David? In actually
reading through the texts of the OT closely, that dog just won’t hunt. Again,
it’s a convenient generalization that turns out to be unhelpful to the
expositor or commentator trying to hew closely to the grammatical-historical
sense of the text.
Lastly, I can’t help but notice that in the end, war will cease because the
Lamb will go forth to war and destroy his enemies, not because suddenly
reconciliation got popular. So the warrior themes must be more than a
concession to heart-hardness. I’m not saying I know the answer, but I think we
sometimes use these generalizations to turn away from the texts and the
disturbing realities they deal with.
The ultimate ethical solutions
are not as problematic as the continuous, authoritative pastoral and theological
exposition of the texts in detail. But also, I don’t agree with you that God
has told us to leave justice to him. The context yo…u cite specifically deals
with personal vengeance, which indeed we should leave with God. But God
commands us throughout scripture to work for just communities, to
“do/implement justice.” God enjoins judges and rulers to implement
justice, which legitimates force and puts the responsibility squarely upon
God’s servants for figuring out how force, coercion, may be used in accordance
with godliness to protect the weak and steward the resources of the earth
appropriately. And is the responsibility to work for justice, protect the weak,
and steward the creation only applicable within our own
“nation-state?” I don’t find in scripture an ecclesiology that says
to abandon the structures of governance and enforcing justice. So if Christians
can be police officers or politicians, or doctors or judges, then they do use
force, coercion. If one believes in government provided health-care and basic
income guarantees, one believes in coercion. Violence and war are just the most
conspicuous forms of coercion. So God as Warrior, and God as the leader of his
faithful warriors, remains more than a mere type, but something other than the
stereotypes most Christian toss around (like the herem allusion, which you know
is not just “kill them all”).
*Well brother I’ll give you the last word if you want.
I’m totally out of ideas!
Ben Witherington
Wow… that’s a mouth full. I think we should have a fuller conversation about
this in more than 125 characters. But Lawson I think it is clear enough that
there is an obsolescence factor involved in various things OTmental. For
example, I would say various of the imprecatory psalms are a true revelation of
the human heart, not the divine character.
One more thing. The use of power is not the same as the use of violence.
And the use of force is not the same as the use of violence to harm or kill
another human being. The instructions in the NT about governmental officials
are always …about ‘them’ as opposed to us, who are supposed to submit to
their authority. That’s a very different matter than signing to be soldiers or
even tax police. I don’t think Christians are called to do that. I think we are
supposed to do something very different— mirror the values of the kingdom
come where the swords are beat into plowshares and we study war no more.
Lawson
Stone Hey you get more than 125 characters on Facebook! I actually would
not call “fulfillment” “obsolescence.” In general, these
categories that are part of the legacy of post-reformation scholasticism, such
as the generalization of hardness of heart to the entire OT revelation, have
not been helpful to me but seem to flatten the text. Rather than struggle with
the enduring cruces, they treat them like spots on the window, merely to be
wiped off.
Actually we disagree on the power/force issue. All power
to coerce derives from the ability to compel someone against their will by the
ability to credibly threaten their access to what is needed to live. You can
deny them their livelihood …by imprisoning them, but even imprisonment
assumes the ability to back up confinement with lethal force. Even fines and
taxation ultimately still involve separating someone from the vital support of
their life. It’s a continuum, not a contrast. Again, your rosy citation of the
Isaiah passage is a peroration not a real argument. Maybe that text was given
because of hardness of heart? Maybe that text was one that was obsolesced by
the NT when Jesus in fact will hurl the wicked forever into the lake of fire?
Sounds to me like God will not be hammering his sword into a plowshare.
Ben Witherington
Lawson do you really think we will be fighting wars in the new heaven and new
earth? Come on now…. In that age not only will there be no war, there will be
no death!!! My point is this. We are in the eschatological age, and we as
Christians are meant to bear witness to the values of the final eternal state
of affairs, not simply deal with business as usual, or the world as it is. We
are not supposed to be conformed to the values of this world. Period.
I would love more conversation too, but tempus fugit as
they say. One issue I think we clearly do disagree on is the force vs. violence
issue, and I would enjoy more conversation on that. I don’t see them on a continuum.
Wh…en I have to push my office door a little harder to open it, I have used
force but I have neither harmed the door, nor done violence to it. And I would
say the same applies when God is using the subtle solvent of grace and his
Spirit on us. It is certainly a force to be reckoned with, but not something
that harms or does violence to me.
Hi Ben-Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, informed
by a lifetime of serious engagement with Christian thought on many levels. I do
think that there is a world of difference between forcing an inanimate object
and overruling the will of… a human being created in the divine image, making
them do what they really do not want to do. God has re-gifted humanity with a
freedom to respond to his light via prevenient grace, but grace is resistible.
The Spirit does not compel or coerce us, but woos and entices us, helps us see
clearly what is truly best for our own happiness and holiness. I do not believe
God’s interaction with the soul–the illustration you use– is coercion or
“forcing” us. But in pointing out the dangers of divine judgment and
hell, God is still showing us the rotten fruit of our own choices and using
those consequences to reason with us. In the end, though, God will use force to
eliminate oppression and injustice and a number of other evils from his
creation when he judges the wicked. So destructive force-hurling them into a
lake of fire-must not be ultimately incompatible with holy love, since will use
exactly that kind of force in the end. In your last sentence you shift the way
you use the word “force.” “A force” is any impartation of
energy, but when I ‘force” a person, I have overwhelmed their contrary wishes
via superior physical force or threats to life or livelihood. That’s a kind of
coercion. Returning to an earlier point: do you really believe a Christian
cannot volunteer for military service or police service? Or for that matter,
would you call on Christians to practice universal civil disobedience in
nations with compulsory universal military service?
Lawson I realize other equally sincere Christians will
disagree, but yes I do not think Christians should either serve in the miltary
or as police. I don’t think Rom. 13 at all suggests otherwise, since we are
talking about a pagan governme…nt entertwined with pagan religion which a
Christian couldn’t in good conscience participate in. I think Paul and Jesus
both call us to non-violence, to following the earthly example of Christ
himself. We are not called to follow the example of God the Father in the OT.
We are called to be disciples of Jesus and follow his earthly example. I agree
with you that love is not inconsistent with discipline or even judgment in the
character of God. God however is an omniscient being. We are not. We have an
infinite capacity to get the justice issues wrong. I have sometimes thought
perhaps its alright for Christians to be chaplains or medics in the military,
but I am not entirely sure even about that. What I think is that we are called
to be a people set apart from such worldly things. Killing as a human behavior
is a result of the Fall (see Cain and Abel). It’s not God’s highest and best
for us, and its not following Christ’s earthly example.
Ben-Thanks for making your view on this clear, and
especially for acknowledging that people who see this differently are equally
sincere. I’d hope you’d also agree, equally competent and earnest readers of
scripture, which I think you do me…an here. You certainly have my great
respect and appreciation for your faith, the courageous stands you take for the
gospel in the paganized world of scholarship, and for your friendship. While I
agree that God’s perfect wisdom authorizes his use of force, and our lack of
wisdom puts a question mark over ours, my basic point of principle, that
“violent” force is not incompatible with holy love still stands. And
I respect and appreciate your strong convictions about police, even though my
own reading of the Bible leads me to think humans have an obligation with fear
and trembling, to use the power to take life or deprive persons of their
liberty or property in the maintenance of that just society. Such cannot be
undertaken lightly, but in the fear of God and with as many checks and
correctives as possible, hence the OT so strongly cautions judges about
impartiality. I do think Christians can serve their communities and serve the
kingdom by being police officers and soldiers. But I do respect you and your
views, and I’m grateful for this serious and, for me at least, fruitful
conversation. I feel I know you more deeply, which is a gain for me. I am
satisfied with the conversation and so will likely not post any more for now
unless I think of something that I can’t resist saying! Thanks again for the
gift of godly conference!
Great! A good chat. I will just add a final p.s.
I think our ways of thinking about this are actually clarified the less
Christian the larger culture really becomes. By this I mean, Christians are
always called to be in the world, but not… of the world, and in this I think
the Amish fail, as they simply withdraw from engagement with the world by and
large. I think Christians are called to provide a witness as to an alternative
King, an alternative Kingdom, a peacable one, right here and now and not just
at the eschaton, bringing forward the values of that new earth, here and now,
and foreshadowing it. In short, for the Christian, there are plenty of things
worth dying for and giving your life for, but nothing worth killing for, for
life is of sacred worth, and we are called to save it, even from itself.
And as Forest Gump says, ‘Dat’s all I got to say bout
dat’.
posted December 2, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Interesting conversation. I am fascinated by the warrior imagery used to describe God in the bible. or even describing people in matthew 11:12 “the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force.” this must be violence of a spiritual nature.
I have seen God’s push-back to physical, warrior violence in the way he doesn’t allow David to build the temple “because you are a warrior and have shed blood.” 1 Chron. 28:3
bw3, I think you make a good point: “We have an infinite capacity to get the justice issues wrong.” we have proven that time and time again, sometimes realising it decades too late.
posted December 2, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Wow! What an interesting & fruitful conversation. I love to hear scholars speak with one another about such issues. Thanks so much for sharing this with us!
posted December 2, 2010 at 6:48 pm
As for Christians not being police officers, wasn’t the first gentile Christian a “cop”?
Cornelius the Roman Centurion (police Sgt.?) was known to be a God-fearer during Jesus’ time and still considered righteous AFTER His death and AFTER the new Covenant. Righteous enough that God Himself gave him a vision to go to Peter to be baptized as a Christian.
I’m certainly no theologian but I’ve heard that there is some debate that Cornelius might have actually met Jesus before, albeit as some unnamed centurion.
Either way, I don’t recall Jesus telling the first Centurion to resign his post and I don’t think after his meeting with Peter it says anything about him resigning or rebuking or lamenting the post of Centurion.
Truth be told, I’m not even sure of my question. I suppose it’s how do you figure if Cornelius the Roman Centurion (and the possibility that he is the centurion that actually met Jesus before) doesn’t feel any shame over his post (or even quit after his baptism) why would a modern day police officer enforcing the righteous secular laws of his day feel any shame about his?
Matthew
posted December 2, 2010 at 8:35 pm
The story of Desmond T Doss is one of the most amazing war stories I have ever heard. Here is a short clip from You Tube. This clip is taken from the longer movie. What an amazing story!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mk-pX4LIyU
and this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix0EPH3jPxk
and this one
http://www.desmonddoss.com/
It was once said of Abraham Lincoln, that he was a man of Steel And Velvet. I think in a slightly different way so was Desmond Doss. Like Abe Lincoln a rare man.
posted December 2, 2010 at 8:45 pm
The movie about Desmond T. Doss, ‘The Conscientious Objector’ is up on iTunes. It is about one and a half hours in length or a bit longer. Well worth seeing!
posted December 2, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Oops it doesn’t appear my first post made so here’s the YouTube clip again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix0EPH3jPxk
posted December 2, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Matthew you are overlooking that every single Roman legion had a patron deity whom they worshiped each morning. Once the implications of the actual teaching of both Judaism and Christianity about there being one God only sunk in, a centurion would have to muster out to be true to his new Biblical faith.
BW3
posted December 2, 2010 at 11:36 pm
So Ben, to continue with the centurion example, are you suggesting he should muster out because of the “pagan culture” of Roman legions? Initially, it seemed like you were trying to suggest he should bow out because of the potential for violence in that line of work. But if it’s also because of the pagan culture, I can think of a LOT more jobs that a Christian would have to bow out of than military or police work!
posted December 3, 2010 at 7:43 am
I’m suggesting both obviously, I am simply telling you which issue would present the first ethical dilemma to a centurion every single day he served, and first thing in the morning when they worshipped Sol Invictus or whoever. The implications of the Gospel and Jesus’ teaching on violence usually takes longer to percolate through the brain until one has to wrestle with the issue of consistency with the Gospel. One more point, there is a difference between secular and pagan. The ancient world was not secular, in any real sense, for everything was intertwined with religion, including politics.
BW3
posted December 3, 2010 at 8:50 am
I think the question isn’t whether we would be a police officer or not; the question is whether you would call one.
posted December 3, 2010 at 10:04 am
Ben,
Ive noticed NT scripture trusts civil peace-keeping into the hands of governmental authorities. are you saying only secularists should fill that role and if/when they believe they should leave that position?
posted December 3, 2010 at 10:40 am
What a fruitful conversation and employed in a loving tone. I would obviously disagree with Dr. Witherington as I’m a 2LT in the Army. However, my question Dr. Witherington is this: should we as Christians simply withdraw from doing ministry within the Armed Services? Is this not the Amish approach? And if so, how are truly fulfilling the Great Commission when soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan have no means to a proper worship service, spiritual counsel, or the administration of the sacraments?
posted December 3, 2010 at 11:23 am
My answer to Ray is, perhaps one could take a supportive desk job for the police, but not one that involved using deadly force. And my answer to Kevin is that I think on balance it is right and o.k. for a Christian to be a medic or a chaplain in the military for as you rightly say, our troops need Jesus as much as anyone.
BW3
posted December 3, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Excellent post. Thank you for expanding the audience of what you noted was a Facebook conversation between two friendly academic colleagues.
A question on the pacificsm, Dr. Witherington. I have noted that many will cite John the Baptist’s response in Luke 3:14; he directs the inquiring soldiers not to leave military service, but rather to avoid acting like bandits! I don’t have anything you’ve written on this passage with me at the moment, but I’m wondering how you approach this passage in the context of this discussion.
posted December 3, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Hi Dr Ben
It is great that you posted this conversation because I have been re-thinking some of the very issues in the last few days. I am a reluctant “just war” person in theory, but as a practical reality I am a pacifist. If you have a moment I would love to get your feedback on a couple of arguments that are decisive for me-
-On one level it seems to me that the real issue is whether a Christian can serve the government. Paul does make a distinction between personal retaliation in Rom 12 and civil government in Rom 13. But it seems to me that there is evidence that disciples served the government. Erastus the city treasurer; the centurions who are never told to leave their post; etc.
-In a previous post you commented that the centurions would have had to deal with pagan worship in conjunction with service. That is true, but wouldn’t any Christian serving the government have had the same issue, since paganism was ubiquitous in civil society. Yet it seems that argument proves too much, or else Paul would not have greeted Erastus – he would have rebuked him.
I REALLY wanted to embrace pacifism – I just can’t get around these arguments. So I am very open to a different perspective!
Thanks!
Shane
posted December 3, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Dr. Ben,
Add me to the chorus thanking you for presenting this. There were points where I agreed with each of you, which is the sign of a balanced and well-presented discussion (or evidence of my own inconsistency!).
Like Shane above, I consider myself a “just war” proponent in theory, but a pacifist in practice. Where I would draw the line would be to protect myself or my family. What do you think the Bible has to say about using violence in self-defense?
David
posted December 3, 2010 at 2:57 pm
I’d also like to pass along my thanks for posting this conversation. It seems like one big difference between Ben and Lawson is how they view a Christian person. Ben seems to be implying a big difference between Christians and other people, and an assumption that there will always be those other people around to do jobs that Christians aren’t supposed to (at least until the eschaton). Lawson seems to indicate that there really isn’t much difference between Christians and other people. They all are a part of the same humanity, and as such are called to participate in God’s general call to humanity to work for justice (which includes force/coercion for Lawson).
In other words, it’s not just about whether or not Christians should participate in some sort of legitimated violence. It’s also about whether or not Christians are a separate class from the rest of human beings, and then how that works out and what that means.
posted December 3, 2010 at 5:39 pm
I still think we have to think through the idea of calling the police to come protect us when we are attacked. If I voluntarily call for protection; and make no mistake, police come to a situation bearing lethal force, I don’t think it consistent to deny Christians a role in what we pay for and are protected by.
When at Asbury I argued forcefully and publicly for the pacifist position then I realized along with Lawton that paying my taxes, arguing for government coercion on behalf of the poor is embracing the use of force.. it is too fine a point to me to make a distinction between “force” and “violence”. If I don’t pay my taxes, the government is coming for me and will ultimately utilize lethal force. When I vote for president I am electing the commander in chief of the armed forces of the country. This is a difficult tension and I don’t know that Ben is wrong. However, as of now, I embrace a very careful acceptance of force as a truly last resort.
posted December 3, 2010 at 5:47 pm
I’m also fascinated by this conversation. It reminds me of Contra Celsus (of course, Lawson’s argument is quite different from Celsus’)!
Since historical method does not allow us to make an argument from silence we cannot say whether or not the Centurion left his post after conversion – we do know that some people had to change jobs. Zacchaeus might be a good example of this, but even then we don’t know if he quit his occupation or just did it more justly. There really aren’t a lot of examples in scripture to go on. But we can look at the early church and see how they handled such questions.
It is often argued that since the earliest of the apostolic father’s were silent about a Christian’s participation in war that they must not have had an opinion. Dr. Robert Morey argues this very point in his book, “When is it Right to Fight?” He even makes the claim that, “They assumed that believers would remain in whatever calling or occupation they were employed in when converted.” Of course, this is unsubstantiated and he offers no evidence that this is the case. But there are plenty of historians who argue that the Christian pacifist overstates his case that the early Church was anti-war. Their line of reasoning usually rests upon the idea that war is assumed in the New Testament and in the early writings of the church, rather than openly refuted, and they are correct. War is assumed. The early Church did not stand against nations going to war. But the evidence suggests that they did stand against Christians participating in any form of violence, per the teachings of Jesus. Instead, they loved their enemies and were hospitable to them.
These same historians will point to Christians who did participate in military service. Again, the historians are correct; we have records from the second century on of Christians participating in the military. Take Marinus of Caesarea, for instance. Marinus held his Christian faith secretively until he was asked to make a sacrifice for the emperor. When he refused, he was given the chance to change his mind. After meditating on scripture, however, he submitted himself to the Roman government to be executed. They may also point to Julius the Veterin, who served for nearly three decades in the Roman military. Of course, when Julius was converted he was tried and beheaded. The reality is that when we look at those Christians who also served in the Roman military, we see a series of people who were killed for their faith because being a Christian was a direct assault on the priorities of the empire.
I’m with Ben. I believe that military service is incompatible with the Christian faith. I also acknowledge that there are good and faithful Christians who disagree and, too, that there may be jobs that are compatible with Kingdom living within the military.
posted December 3, 2010 at 6:44 pm
I also would like to thank Dr. Witherington for posting this conversation. I have two very good friends who are very mennonite. I consider myself, like so many of you, to be a Just War Theorist in thought, but a pacifist in deed. We have conversations back and forth all the time about this topic and it is good to hear some different insights.
Thanks again.
posted December 4, 2010 at 8:25 am
More good comments. Firstly, to my just war theorist friends I say this. There have been no just wars in my lifetime for sure. In fact the phrase just war is almost an oxymoron. Why? Because war involves the destruction of all moral values. Innocent people always get killed, and should never be called ‘collateral damage’. As General Mark Clark admitted about WWII— war is hell unleashed on the earth, and surely Christians should have no party to unleashing hell on earth. There are not merely moral dilemmas and compromises in war, there is a destruction of morals. Take the example of bombing. Even with the use of eye in the sky drones, women and children get killed. Bombs do not care who they blow up. They are not moral agents. I could go on, but let’s deal briefly with another topic.
As I said before, I think there are some roles of public service and government and perhaps even some roles in the military, say medic, that a Christian can play. Yes indeed there were persons like Erastus in Corinth who became Christians. But Erastus was a director of public works and a city treasurer. Last I checked those jobs are fine for Christians and are not morally ambiguous. The city treasurer was not a priest offering sacrifices to pagan gods.
Finally, what about protecting your family? A good and noble thing to do, but there are a myriad of ways to do this without using lethal force against another human being. Worst case scenario, you get in the way of the bullet, or some semi-pacifists would say, you just disable the criminal as a last resort– shoot them in the leg which is not a use of lethal force. I personally couldn’t shoot anybody at all, I’d probably miss their leg and kill them.
BW3
BW3
posted December 4, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Dr. Witherington,
While I wholeheartedly agree with your beliefs, I find myself in a constant struggle between defense and peacemaking. Being a 24 year old and having friends (whom are believers) actively serving overseas, I often hear stories from them that horrify me. So many innocents are massacred. In fact, one of my friends, a Marine, informed me that many in his platoon are so blood thirsty and craving for war that if anyone engages them in fire, they end up shooting anyone who is visible, including innocent civilians. I find this disgusting and a far cry from what God the Father had in mind for his creation.
The problem I most run into is that while I have this peacemaking acknowledgment, it is difficult to put it into practice. For instance, if someone were to come into my house to do harm to my wife and daughter, in my mind I believe that there would be nothing in the world that could stop me from employing every kind of wrath I know on the individual. This dilemma is difficult for Christians, in my opinion. It is biblically clear that violence is not a solution and should be avoided at all costs, but if put in a tough situation like the rape of family or murder of family in your sight with an ability to stop it, would you at all costs try to defend? I’m torn between defense of loved ones and the Biblical support for peacemaking and turning the other cheek. Maybe this tension between violence and peacemaking is also a direct result from the cultural influence. My generation has always been surrounded by violence and defense, so maybe anything contrary to what is the norm is foreign to us and hard to come to grips with.
Even so, I agree with you completely, but find it difficult to put into practice. Regarding OT war and the warrior symbolism of God, one must also look at the context regarding the background of such battles. Almost always (and I could be wrong in the almost or always direction) the battles fought were in defense of Israel and the plan of God. Could it be that the OT wars were simply God providing aid and support, though contrary to what he originally intended, for the furtherance of his elect nation Israel?
God’s Peace,
Ryan Collins
ryankcollins@gmail.com
P.S. You were a contributor to the Wesley Study Bible and I’m thinking about ordering one for myself. Apart from being a contributor, would you highly recommend it and is the binding sufficient? I find that many of my Bibles’ bindings are rather cheaply done and find myself re-binding them.
posted December 4, 2010 at 3:37 pm
In discussing whether the bible supports Christian participation in war, I think we have to take any “just war” argument off the table entirely. I say this for two reasons:
1. The just war argument was unheard of until the 4th/5th century when it was first adopted in very limited form by Ambrose and then Augustine. I say adopted, because they did not invent this concept. These categories were first used by Aristotle and Cicero. In other words, the origins of the just war arguments were thoroughly pagan. I am no expert on the church fathers, but I have seen no hint of any just war idea in any of the fathers until post-Constantine.
2. The OT images were of holy war, not just war, a thoroughly different conceptual model. For enlightenment on this model, I would suggest Millard Lind’s book, God is a Warrior. The archetype for holy war is found in the song of Deborah, where it is God who fights, not his people. It is for God to subdue his enemies.
The book of Revelation is a good example of this. Despite the popular evangelical hysteria about the battle of Armageddon, no Christian in the book is ever commanded or permitted to kill anyone. Rather they are the martyrs, not killers or even defenders. The most violent image (19.10ff) is that of Jesus on the war horse, dressed in white, robe dipped in blood, sword coming from his mouth. But this is before the battle even begins. The blood is not that of his enemies, but his own blood, shed for his enemies. The sword is most obviously the Word of God, not a weapon of violence. The Word of God, not human violence, provides the just conclusion.
My own view is that history has clearly shown that, even if it be allowed, human beings cannot be trusted to use violence in a just way. Such limited, possibly just, uses of violence are the exception rather than the rule. And, Christians, with some exceptions, have
been every bit as guilty as non-christians in this.
posted December 4, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Conversations like this make me quite glad to be a student at Asbury! Thanks Dr. Witherington and Dr. Stone for demonstrating not only excellent scholarship and critical thinking (even in an off the cuff discussion) but even more for demonstrating civility, respect, love and friendship in the midst of discussing such a contentious topic. That I believe is a much more powerful witness to the Kingdom than simply being ‘right’.
posted December 5, 2010 at 4:01 am
I’m not sure the idea of progressive revelation absolves the God revealed in the OT of using violence to achieve certain ends. We must be careful what we mean by “progressive”. It should mean “increasing revelation” but some take it to mean “improving ethics”. The former implies, as we see more of God, the less violent he gets. The latter implies some sort of actual moral progression of God himself. Whilst most theologians will opt for the former, it leaves the violence sanctioned unexplained. How does our increased revelation in Jesus shed any light on the God of the OT except in a negative sense?
posted December 5, 2010 at 4:16 am
“Non-violent” Paul said: “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!”
posted December 5, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Ben & Lawson, Great discussion. Prompts a question.
Whose the audience for these biblical positions?
It seems to me that our contemporary context is quite different from either the OT or NT. The audience in the OT is the ethnic tribal institution of Israel as the people of God. In the NT, it is the early Christian movement that lived under the authoritarian rule of Rome, which is far different than living in a modern democracy.
I can more easily see pacifism or militarism as a choice that the individual believer is required to make. In the former, the believer chooses not to join the military or enter law enforcement. For the later, the opposite, to see national defense or community safety as a valid ethical choice. However, if the audience is the nation state, then I find both choices problematic, on both pragmatic and philosophical grounds.
My real question has more to do with the need for a biblically understanding of contemporary institutions and organizations, and the Christian believer’s responsibility to and for them.
I hope my question is clear. Thanks very much.
posted June 2, 2011 at 8:57 am
Great article about this topic, I have been lately in your blog once or twice now. I just wanted to say hi and show my thanks for the information provided.