Where Wars Come From (by Valerie Elverton Dixon)
Peace is a respectful, harmonious, and cooperative relationship between groups and nations. Peace is the serenity that comes from clarity, the assurance that the truth will reveal itself, even if only in part. Biblical wisdom teaches us that "there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed nor hid that shall not be known" (Luke 12:2). Violence arises from fear born of deception. Scratch a conflict and find a lie. Love rejoices in the truth and perfect love, complete, mature love casts out fear (1 Corinthians 13:6; James 4:18). This is a Christian formulation of Satyagraha, Gandhi's concept of truth/love force. For peace theory, love and truth are powerful.
Given these definitions, we can trace wars, systemic violence, and the verbal violence we perpetrate back to ourselves. All too often we divide the world into them and us. We call them evil; we call ourselves good. And, when the Other does evil acts, this becomes the justification for our own retaliatory evil. We tell ourselves it is only reasonable to prepare for war and to fight wars in the name of defense or of retributive justice. However, New Testament wisdom also teaches us to be self-reflective when locating the cause of war.
James 4:1 asks: "Where do wars and fights come from among you?" James answers: "Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You covet and cannot obtain." Finally, James informs us that we do not have because we do not ask; we do not receive because our motivations are wrong. We only want what we want for the sake of our own pleasure (James 4:2-3).
So where is the deception? The deception is the idea that pleasure comes from what we receive, from what we acquire. True pleasure comes from what we give because "it is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). When our sense of self is tied to what we own, what pleasures we acquire, when these things are absent we lose ourselves, become fearful, and fear leads to violence. This is not only true for us, but it is true for the enemy.
When violence happens, our questions ought to be: "How do my own desires figure into this conflict? What do I fear? What good can I do to overcome this evil? The objection could be made that this is a "blame the victim argument," especially if we are fighting a defensive war. Is not war justified to protect the weak? Peace theory recommends other strategies to avert such crises before they reach the point of violent conflict.
Sept. 21 is the U.N. International Day of Peace and Global Ceasefire. Let us take time that day for our own self-reflection and make peace in the wars raging inside ourselves.
Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in Religion and Society from Temple University and taught Christian Ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Thanks for you article and there is much that I can agree with.
Item:
I believe that we should pull all our military personal out of South Korea and bring them home. The North seems to have been peaceful the last few weeks and if our presence is causing the problem. Let us get out of there and let peace reign. They can guard the DMZ without our presence there.
So - how long do you think it will take the Nut in the North to attack the South and then they all can live in peace.
The UN brought the war to an 'end'. Let the Blue Helmets handle it from now on.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 3, 2008 4:41 PM
I believe big guy is being sarcastic.
That being said, first there is no sign that NK is really interested in attacking SK these days. The SK military is quite capable, FWIW, and the NK one is large but poorly trained and equipped.
Most war comes from greed of one or more sides. If we can truly cease to covet, we can avoid war. Of course, with the world being fallen and all, war will unfortunately always be with us.
Posted by: Ngchen | September 3, 2008 5:19 PM
Maybe this is the reason for the depiction of God coming down from heaven with a shout in 1 Thessalonians. I picture an absolutely fed up parent putting an end to children fighting.
Posted by: M | September 3, 2008 5:54 PM
I agree with Ngchen. I cannot think of one problem in our world, violent and non-violent, that hasn't arose because of some sort of greed or selfishness.
Posted by: NJL | September 3, 2008 6:07 PM
Ngchen and NJL
I agree. I have taught my children that war is the last act of a rational society to deal with an irrational entity. No one really wins in war because the losses are so great. But sometimes that is the only way to deal with evil that will not contain itself.
I believe big guy is being sarcastic.
Yes - or tongue in cheek
Blessings -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 3, 2008 7:49 PM
All of the evidence points to the fact that North Korea actually had WMD. So how did Bush decide which country to invade? Did he and Cheney flip a coin?
I pray that our next president will not take such a casual attitude about committing our troops to a conflict. Candidates who unconsciously sing "Bomb, Bomb, Iran" scare me.
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 4, 2008 8:43 AM
Dr. Dixon,
You are taking James 4:1 out of context. It is not a general statement regarding wars between nations; rather it is commenting on infighting within the church and interpersonal conflict. It is not a proof text against war. This is poor Biblical teaching and an example of looking for Bible verses to make a personal, philosophical point.
Posted by: Tom | September 4, 2008 9:21 AM
"Dr. Dixon,
You are taking James 4:1 out of context. It is not a general statement regarding wars between nations; rather it is commenting on infighting within the church and interpersonal conflict. It is not a proof text against war. This is poor Biblical teaching and an example of looking for Bible verses to make a personal, philosophical point. (Posted by: Tom)"
Tom,
At least one Bible scholar came to a different conclusion.
"Wesley's Notes
4:1 From whence come wars and fightings - Quarrels and wars among you, quite opposite to this peace? Is it not from your pleasures - Your desires of earthly pleasures. Which war - Against your souls. In your members - Here is the first seat of the war. Hence proceeds the war of man with man, king with king, nation with nation."
Posted by: sister marie | September 4, 2008 9:41 AM
Sister Marie,
It is not so much relevant what Wesley said. Read the entire book of James. What is the big picture theme(s)? Who is the audience? What is the setting? You can't just pluck a verse out of its place in time and context and re-insert it 2,000 years later because you need something that fits your agenda. Let the Word speak for itself, and work around that, not the other way around.
Posted by: Tom | September 4, 2008 9:50 AM
Tom is right. James is addressing specific problem(s) within a specific group of believers, or perhaps a few small groups, if this was a "circulating letter."
However, Jesus makes a pretty clear statement in His "You have heard it said . . . . But I say to you, love your enemy. . ."
His implication is, we personally are not called to develop our own enemies; however, we can expect to have others define themselves as our enemy. And when they do, we are to simply love them. It is a conscious act of the will to love them. We decide to do it.
And, whatever else we can conclude, it is pretty clear that one cannot both love an enemy, and seek to kill him in a war.
Posted by: joekc | September 4, 2008 10:11 AM
Tom:
Wesley isn't the only one who arrived at a similar conclusion. Check out Matthew Henry (1706), for example:
v 1. The Jews were a very seditious people, and had therefore frequent wars with the Romans; and they were a very quarrelsome divided people, often fighting among themselves; and many of those corrupt Christians against whose errors and vices this epistle was written seem to have fallen in with the common quarrels. Hereupon, our apostle informs them that the origin of their wars and fightings was not (as they pretended) a true zeal for their country, and for the honour of God, but that their prevailing lusts were the cause of all... The Jews had many struggles with the Roman power before they ere entirely destroyed. They often unnecessarily embroiled themselves, and then fell into parties and factions about the different methods of managing their wars with their common enemies; and hence it came to pass that, when their cause might be supposed good, yet their engaging in it and their management of it came from a bad principle. Their worldly and fleshly lusts raised and managed their wars and fightings...
Jamieson-Fausett-Brown (1871):
JAS 4:1 whence--The cause of quarrels is often sought in external circumstances, whereas internal lusts are the true origin.
wars, &c.--contrasted with the "peace" of heavenly wisdom. "Fightings" are the active carrying on of "wars." The best authorities have a second "whence" before "fightings." Tumults marked the era before the destruction of Jerusalem when James wrote. He indirectly alludes to these. The members are the first seat of war; thence it passes to conflict between man and man, nation and nation.--emphasis mine
The bottom line, Tom, is that while Valerie's understanding of James 4:1 may not the only one possible, it has been held by a line of mainstream theologians.
Posted by: Don | September 4, 2008 10:23 AM
Having memorized the book of James in my teens (it's a short book on wisdom, you all should try it) I don't think the verse is about war between nations. Wars between individuals can generally be handled with a very small amount of effort.
On a completely different note: war is very complicated. I'm not for war as a rule, but I shudder that we were so slow to get involved in WWI and WWII and I hate when we let genocide go on unaddressed.
I'm not for policing the other nations either, like we know stuff they don't, but there are times when I'd love for us to step in and help people who are being beaten to a pulp by some freak dictator, or for people who are defending their nations against communism, or when Pol Pot was killing off anyone with glasses, because they were deemed intelligent.
Our involvement in a war isn't always about greed. Quite the opposite, really. I fully respect the views of a true pascifist and am not trying to convert them. This article is just a little too simplistic to me.
Posted by: frankie | September 4, 2008 11:00 AM
Oh, I get it now. Thanks for enlightening me.
So now, I can ignore the Ten Commandments since they were directed towards the Israelites and not me. Thanks guys.
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 4, 2008 11:38 AM
Good word, Frankie
War is horrific, no matter what, but to be blindly opposed to war at all costs is being terribly simplistic, as you point out. It is also being unrealistic about human nature. As long as there is human nature, there will be evil. As long as there is evil, there will be war. In the interest of protecting civilians and democracy, nations that would rather not will always have to maintain armies and be prepared to use them.
I shudder over a theology that says we can better ourselves - that we will somehow evolve out of ten thousand years of human history. It's a nice thought (as in John Lennon's "Imagine"), but simply not based in reality. Jesus Himself wages war - just read Revelation. He wars against evil. That sometimes becomes necessary for responsible nations as well.
As for James, the purpose of the book clearly is not a treatise against war. Yes, there are some viable principles that can be drawn from the book that relate to human conflict (Thus Matthew Henry, et al.), but to stretch the book to be a statement against war is stretching it way beyond its limits.
The debate among Christians betwen pacifism and war goes way, way back and is a worthy discussion, but on balance, I would have to say the body of Scripture supports the idea of a just war (until God Himself restores all things). It's hard to read books like 1 Samuel or Joshua or even Revelation and come away with any other conclusion. The Bible never portrays war as good, but only as necessary in light of the present state of humanity.
Posted by: Steve | September 4, 2008 11:52 AM
Hello and thank you for letting me join this interesting conversation.
Sister Marie and others, I am thankful that you brought up the Ten Commandments because number 6 has been misused and mischaracterized throughout all of histroy and even today is incorrectly quoted by many liberals and pasificsts. The 6 commandment in the original context and language says "you shall not murder." It has never said and will never say you shall not "kill" The law distinguishes between manslautgher, killing and premeditaed murder. The verb here is never applied to Israel at war, and capital punishment (kiiling evil men) was already authorized by God (Gen. 9:6; cf. Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:30-34). Sister Marie with all due respect the Ten Commandments apply to us today and we as Christians must APPLY them correctly. Sin is an ugly and devasting reality in the fallen and broken world we live in. As Christians we must fight the good fight daily within ourselves (James 4:1) and we must combat evil with the righteousness of Christ--and yes combating that evil means we must kill, not murder evil men who are trying to kill us and destroy the Kingdom of God on earth. And because God is a God of War and Peace (two sides of the same coin) we (Christians) must be both peaceful peacemakers full of love and courageous warriors for truth and justice, and justice sometimes unfortunatley means killing evil men.
In Christ!
Bob
Posted by: Bob Burns | September 4, 2008 12:05 PM
I though this was one of the best articles I have read in Sojourners. Especially the second chapter.
Sister Marie asked, "All of the evidence points to the fact that North Korea actually had WMD. So how did Bush decide which country to invade? Did he and Cheney flip a coin?"
Some documentation suggests that invading Iraq was decided before 9/11, possibly even in the nineties. The document "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" which started life as a semi annual review of our military by the then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in Bush 1's administration. It was modified later in the nineties by some in the "Project for a New American Century" which was what their website was called. They were very concerned that the U.S. not reduce our military might just because the cold war was over. Some now call them Neocons. It discussed our roles everywhere in the world, but only mentioned invading one country, Iraq. I think Pres Clinton may have given authorization to invade in the nineties too.
But my favorite example is Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force in the spring of 2001. the ACLU later sued for documents from the task force meetings under the freedom of information act. This suit proved the main accomplishment of the task force was to divide a map of Iraq up by which major oil company would run which Iraqi oil field. That was in early 2001.
Posted by: Paul W. | September 4, 2008 1:02 PM
Bob,
Thanks for your contribution. I must admit that I am somewhat conflicted over what Christ's attitude would be over wars. I believe, for example that there was ample justification for our entry into WW1, but I don't think we should have become involved in WW1. For me, there is less ambiguity about our involvement in Viet Nam and in Iraq. In Christ's time (as in ours), nations have gone to war to defend itself. Usually this means that war is a last resort.
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld led us into a war to preempt what they judged the enemy might do. According to their logic, the lives that are lost (both U.S. and Iraqui) are justifiably expendable. If they do not answer for their actions in this life, they will have to stand before God to account for what they have done in the life to come.
My own reading and study of the New Testament have caused me to conclude that Jesus is opposed to war. The early church made its greatest impact in an era during which Christians did not resist the persecution imposed upon them by the Romans. The Catholic Church has what they call a "Just War Theory" which I don't fully understand. What I do know is that there is no way that I as a Christian can justify what my country has done in Iraq. May God in His infinite mercy forgive us for the violence that we have wrought in that country.
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 4, 2008 1:03 PM
Sister Marie -
I couldn't agree with you more about N. Korea, and all the 'Axis of Evil' countries. It's deplorable and I was never for it either.
No matter what happens in this election, I pray that all those involved in getting us into Iraq (and how they voted on that matter is not the real issue, as they were all misled with that) will be out of power.
Posted by: frankie | September 4, 2008 1:36 PM
Fascinating discussion with many thoughtful entries. The one thought i have is that there is still right and wrong in this world. America, in spite of all it's problems, still allows free speech and free worship. We are a shining city on a hill for those who live in Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, etc. While that is NO justification to start a war, we still need to promote these values to the world.
Posted by: Steve | September 4, 2008 3:51 PM
National and international violent conflict is caused by 3 things in any combination or permutation:
-lack of necessary resources (most commonly the cause of civil violent conflict)
-threat of invasion or significant reduction in power/agency
-psychopaths who think violence is acceptable or good and participate for the sake of it
It shouldn't be any surprise that these are the same three reasons why individuals participate in violence.
-want
-threat
-irrationality
The first two of these are easily solved by common rational secular and Christian values alike.
-charity
-open diplomacy
We can't, as evidenced by the Bush administration, control those who irrationally participate in wars because they're "good for us." We can control the other factors, if we bother to try. Afghanistan became what it is because we didn't follow our military provisions with economic and social ones. The same thing is true the world around. We go in; we get what we want; we leave the poor bastards to rot. Or, worse, we go in; we get what we want; we stay to milk it for our own wealth.
The Cold War stayed cold because, despite appearances, we were in constant communication and parlay with "the enemy." They knew what we were up to and we knew, mostly, what they were up to. Yes, it was sometimes a little sketchy and others on the way down-low, but the channels were there.
Now we're stuck in this fairy-tale that everyone else is evil and we beat the commies by being good Christians and putting God in the pledge. And, we can beat all those dirty towelheads the same way. No. We beat the commies because they weren't actually communists and controlled economies without specialization don't work, especially when the leaders are busy killing their citizens on purpose because (3) they irrationally think violence will help them. We will only "beat" fascism with freedom and diploimacy. We will only "beat" fanaticism by eliminating want. The leaders of the fanatics are that because they have power. They have power because they are capable of providing necessities. If we eliminate the want, we undermine the power. It's really, really that simple.
Posted by: brenna | September 4, 2008 4:56 PM
Where do wars come from? Abortion and war are the karmic reaction for killing animals. Pro-lifers look in horror as an entire class of humans are systematically stripped of their rights, executed, and even used as tools for medical research...but this is what we humans have been doing TO ANIMALS for millennia.
Where does the "slippery slope" begin?
The fate of the animals and the fate of man are interconnected. (Ecclesiastes 3:19) A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami said in 1974:
"We simply request, 'Don't kill. Don't maintain slaughterhouses.' That is very sinful. It brings a very awkward karmic reaction upon society. Stop these slaughterhouses. We don't say, 'Stop eating meat.' You can eat meat, but don't take it from the slaughterhouse, by killing. Simply wait (until the animal dies of natural causes) and you'll get the carcasses.
"You are killing innocent cows and other animals--nature will take revenge. Just wait. As soon as the time is right, nature will gather all these rascals and slaughter them. Finished. They'll fight among themselves--Protestants and Catholics, Russia and America, this one and that one. It is going on. Why? This is nature's law. Tit for tat. 'You have killed. Now you kill yourselves.'
"They are sending animals to the slaughterhouse, and now they'll create their own slaughterhouse. You see? Just take Belfast. The Roman Catholics are killing the Protestants, and the Protestants are killing the Catholics. This is nature's law. It is not necessary that you be sent to the ordinary slaughterhouse. You'll make a slaughterhouse at home. You'll kill your own child--abortion. This is nature's law.
"Who are these children being killed? They are these meat-eaters. They enjoyed themselves when so many animals were killed and now they're being killed by their own mothers. People do not know how nature is working. If you kill you must be killed. If you kill the cow, who is your mother, then in some future lifetime your mother will kill you. Yes. The mother becomes the child, and the child becomes the mother.
"We don't want to stop trade, or the production of grains and vegetables and fruit. But we want to stop these killing houses. It is very, very sinful. That is why all over the world they have so many wars. Every ten or fifteen years there is a big war--a wholesale slaughterhouse for humankind. But these rascals--they do not see it, that by the law of karma, every action must have its reaction."
Similarly, in his purport to the Srimad Bhagavatam 6.10.9, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami writes: "One cannot continue killing animals and at the same time be a religious man. That is the greatest hypocrisy. Jesus Christ said, 'Do not kill,' but hypocrites nevertheless maintain thousands of slaughterhouses while posing as Christians. Such hypocrisy is condemned..."
And:
"If one kills many thousands of animals in a professional way so that other people can purchase the meat to eat, one must be ready to be killed in a similar way in his next life and in life after life. There are many rascals who violate their own religious principles. According to Judeo-Christian scriptures, it is clearly said, 'Thou shalt not kill.' Nonetheless, giving all kinds of excuses, even the heads of religions indulge in killing animals while trying to pass as saintly persons. This mockery and hypocrisy in human society brings about unlimited calamities; therefore occasionally there are great wars. Masses of such people go out onto battlefields and kill themselves. Presently, they have discovered the atomic bomb, which is simply waiting to be used for wholesale destruction."
(Chaitanya Charitamrita, Madhya 24.251, purport)
Also:
"To be nonviolent to human beings and to be a killer or enemy of the poor animals is Satan's philosophy. In this age there is enmity towards poor animals, and therefore the poor creatures are always anxious. The reaction of the poor animals is being forced on human society, and therefore there is always the strain of cold or hot war between men, individually, collectively or nationally."
(Srimad Bhagavatam 1.10.6, purport)
"In human society, if one kills a man he has to be hanged. That is the law of the state. Because of ignorance people do not perceive that there is a complete state controlled by the Supreme Lord. Every living creature is the son of the Supreme Lord, and He does not tolerate even an ant's being killed. One has to pay for it."
The animal rights movement should be supported by all Christians.
Posted by: Vasu Murti | September 4, 2008 6:25 PM
Jesus praised peacemakers as the children of God, which should be sobering for those that follow Him. By implication, it casts in dark light those that pursue war. Equally sobering should be the commandment to love others as we would wish to be loved, even our enemies. It is integral to the teaching of Jesus.
The idea that we Christians should feel justified in deciding who is evil and take it upon ourselves to kill them smacks of pride and arrogance on a disturbing level. Using Revelation as justification for war is beyond arrogant. Christ has the knowledge and authority to judge evil. I have every confidence that His actions and judgments at the end of this era will be just. In contrast, our knowledge and judgment of evil are at best imperfect and often result in injustice. Iraq is the perfect example as our leaders lied about the threat posed by Iraq (bearing false witness against 28 million people is quite the sin) and war brought untold suffering and persecution of Iraqi Christians.
Dr. Dixon hits the nail squarely on the head in exhorting us to examine our motivations and contributions to conflict. There is no question that such humility is consistent with the teachings of Jesus.
Posted by: David | September 4, 2008 6:47 PM
According to the Bible, the only times humanity is ever at peace is under a vegetarian diet. The Bible begins (Genesis 1:29-31) and ends (Isaiah 11:6-9) in a kingdom where violence is unknown. "Not until we extend the circle of compassion to include all living things shall we ourselves know peace," taught Dr. Albert Schweitzer, one of the 20th century's leading Protestant theologians. When a man questioned his philosophy, saying God created animals for man to eat, Schweitzer replied, "Not at all."
Some of the most distinguished figures in the history of Christianity have been vegetarian. These include: St. James, St. Matthew, Clemens Prudentius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Benedict, Aegidius, Boniface, St. Richard of Wyche, St. Filippo Neri, St. Colomba, John Wray, John Wesley, Joshua Evans, William Metcalfe, General William Booth, Ellen White, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, and Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore.
Thomas Tryon (1634-1703) warned the first Quaker settlers of Pennsylvania that their "holy experiment" in peaceful living would fail unless they extended their Christian precepts of nonviolence to the animals. "Does not bounteous Mother Earth furnish us with all sorts of food necessary for life?" he asked. "Though you will not fight with and kill those of your own species, yet I must be bold to tell you, that these lesser violences (as you call them) do proceed from the same root of wrath and bitterness as the greater do."
Reverend Basil Wrighton, the chairman of the Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare in London, wrote in a 1965 article entitled, "The Golden Age Must Return: A Catholic's Views on Vegetarianism," that a vegetarian diet is not only consistent with, but actually required by the tenets of Christianity. He concluded that the killing of animals for food not only violates religious tenets, but brutalizes humans to the point where violence and warfare against other humans becomes inevitable.
"Who loves this terrible thing called war?" asked Isadora Duncan. "Probably the meat-eaters, having killed, feel the need to kill...The butcher with his bloody apron incites bloodshed, murder. Why not? From cutting the throat of a young calf to cutting the throats of our brothers and sisters is but a step. While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered animals, how can we expect any ideal conditions upon the earth?"
U Nu, the former Prime Minister of Burma, similarly observed: "World peace, or any other kind of peace, depends greatly on the attitude of the mind. Vegetarianism can bring about the right mental attitude for peace...it holds forth a better way of life, which if practiced universally, can lead to a better, more just, and more peaceful community of nations."
In a letter to a friend on the subject of vegetarianism, Albert Einstein wrote: "Besides agreeing with your aims for aesthetic and moral reasons, it is my view that a vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament, would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind."
Our nation's moral institutions, both secular and religious, should begin to seriously address the issues of animal rights and vegetarianism.
Posted by: Vasu Murti | September 4, 2008 10:01 PM
The most-repeated argument against biblical vegetarianism I've gotten from Christians is that they think they are no longer under Mosaic Law, because the apostle Paul referred to his background as a former Pharisee and his previous adherence to Mosaic Law (with its dietary laws, commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals, etc.) as "so much garbage." (Philippians 3:4-8)
There is nothing in the synoptic gospels of Jesus, however, to suggest a fundamental break with Judaism. Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher," 42 times in the gospels. The ministry of Jesus was a rabbinic one. Jesus related Scripture and God's laws to everyday life, teaching by personal example. He engaged in healing and acts of mercy. He told stories or parables--a rabbinic method of teaching. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).
Jesus began his ministry by teaching the multitudes not to "give what is sacred to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine." (Matthew 7:6) Dogs, like swine, were considered foul and unclean by the Hebrew people. (Deuteronomy 23:18; I Samuel 24:14; II Kings 8:13; Psalm 22:16,20; Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Revelations 22:15) These words were used by the children of Israel to describe the neighboring heathen populations.
When sending his disciples out to preach, Jesus instructed them not to go to the gentiles, but to "go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6) When a Canaanite woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter, he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel...It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:22-28)
Jesus regarded the gentiles as "dogs." His gospel was intended for the Jewish people. Even the apostle Paul admits that the gospel was first intended for the Jews, and that the Jews have every advantage over the gentiles in this regard (Romans 1:16, 3:1-2).
When a scribe asked Jesus what is the greatest commandment in the Torah, Jesus began with "Hear O Israel, the Lord, thy God, is One Lord." This is the Shema, which is still heard in every synagogue service to this day. "And you shall love the Lord with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength...And you shall love your neighbor as yourself," Jesus concluded.
When the scribe agreed that God is one and that to love Him completely and also love one's neighbor as oneself is "more important than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices," Jesus replied, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:29-34; Luke 10:25-28)
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus himself said, "Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven...unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)
Jesus also upheld the Torah in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."
Nor do these words refer merely to the Ten Commandments. Jesus meant the entire Torah: 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He then quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well: "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22)
Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but not biblical law. At no place in the entire New Testament does Jesus ever proclaim Torah or the Law of Moses to be abolished; this was the theology of Paul, a former Pharisee who never knew Jesus, but who used to persecute Jesus' followers. Paul openly identified himself not as a Jew but as a Roman (Acts 22:25-26) and an apostate from Judaism (Philippians 3:4-8)
Sometimes Christians cite Matthew 7:12, where Jesus says "Do unto others..." and this "covers" the Law and the prophets. But Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel taught a generation earlier. No one took Hillel's words to mean the Law had been abolished--why should we assume this of Jesus?
If Jesus really did come to abolish the Law and the prophets, Simon (Peter) would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10), nor would there have been a debate in the early church as to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). When Paul visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law," and that they were worried because they heard rumors that Paul was preaching against Mosaic Law (Acts 21).
None of these events would have happened had Jesus really come to abolish the Law and the prophets. Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law, he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals!
While teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)
On yet another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5)
Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock:
"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? And when he has found it," Jesus continued, "he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home,he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'
"I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance...there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)
Paul, on the other hand, said if anyone has confidence in Mosaic Law, "I am ahead of him" (Philippians 3:4-8). Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said whoever sets aside even the least of the laws demands shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19)?
Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who taught that following the commandments of God is the only way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22)? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus who said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17)?
Paul may have regarded his previous adherence to Mosaic Law as "so much garbage," but it should be obvious by now that JESUS DIDN'T THINK THE LAW WAS "GARBAGE"!
If Christians assign greater value to Paul's teachings over those of Jesus, then "Christianity" really is "Paulianity". Bertrand Russell referred to Paul as the "inventor" of Christianity.
I'm not saying Christians should all be circumcised and following Mosaic Law. The Reverend Andrew Linzey, the foremost theologian in the field of animal-human relations and author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals (1987), rejected such an approach in a 1989 interview with the Animals' Agenda.
I'm merely saying that Christianity for the past 2000 years has been based on a misunderstanding. My friend Rankin Fisher (a former Missionary Baptist minister), quoted a Methodist minister friend of his as having admitted, "We (Christians) aren't really following Jesus. We're following Paul."
Posted by: Vasu Murti | September 5, 2008 12:42 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?