Sermon on the Mount

   Now that we as Christians are partakers of this new and very different covenant, we are called to live different. It is our job to follow the text, wherever it leads. We will now explore what Jesus said and what its implications are in the face of violence.

·       Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

 As we have seen in the last section Jesus has come not to simply overwrite the Law or render it obsolete but rather he came to fulfill it. What does he mean by “fulfill the law”? The answer comes right after in Matthew 5:22-48. In this next section Jesus—

1.      Gives the traditional Old Testament teaching (5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43)
   
2.      Jesus’ Contrasting Teaching (5:22, 28, 32, 34a, 39a, 44)
   
3.      A Further Explanation of His Teaching (5:23-26, 29-30, 34b-37, 39b-42, 45-47)
   

   Although we can go through each ethical demand of Jesus we will remain on the verses that are most applicable to issues of violence.

·       Matthew 5:8:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

  The Old Testament taught (Exodus 21:24, Lev 24:20, Deut 19:21) that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed. When we read these verses we often picture a violent and harsh scene where justice is demanded in brutality, when the reality is, God told his people to act this way in order to be different than the pagan nations around them. One scholar sheds light on the Old Testament Law—

“The Law says to take an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (Exodus 21/Matt 5:38). This law serves to guarantee justice in the community, so that if a neighbor knocks out your tooth, you cannot lop ff his head in exchange. Contrary to the way in which this law is commonly understood today, it was originally meant to be merciful, not vindictive; the penalty should fit and not exceed the crime.”[1]

  With this in mind we now turn to the three hypothetical and historically grounded situations Jesus addresses.

1. (5:39b) A personal dispute that leads to someone slapping someone else.
2. (5:40) A legal dispute where one is ordered to give up their under garment, likely in order to satisfy a claim of damages or satisfy a debt
3. (5:41) A Roman Soldier forcing a Jew to carry his belongings

 All of these three examples would have been relevant to the 1^st century Jewish listener. Hitting someone on the right cheek was one of the most insulting things someone could have done during Jesus day in Palestine. In fact, both Jewish and Roman law permitted prosecution for this type of physical insult.[2] Right after Jesus quotes from the Old Testament law he gives his own unique kingdom response. Jesus commands his listeners to not resist an evil person, but to let someone that has insulted you in the most profound of ways (which was a slap on the right cheek in Jesus’ context), to allow them to do it again. It is hard to stress just how counter religious and counter cultural this was within the Jewish and Roman context. This was Jesus’ first command within this section—to be willing to be abused unjustly.

  His second example would have also hit home. Many legal disputes ended in someone being ordered to give up their garment for the person wronged. Jesus commands that the kingdom response is to also give them your cloak. A cloak was a more important type of coat that a common Jew would wear. Jesus doesn’t hint at whether or not justice or injustice is being served in the first place in giving the undergarment away. But regardless of whether one should give his undergarment, one should continue and offer the more important part of the Jewish attire, the coat. He tells all those listening to be willing to give more than is demanded of you. This might seem an arbitrary command in the 21^st century, but for a Jewish commoner that was very poor, it means a great deal to loose a coat.    

  The third and final command is to go the extra mile with someone. The Romans occupied Israel during Jesus’ day. When a Roman soldier had to travel from one location to another they would sometimes single out a Jewish person along the road to carry their things. The soldiers of the time actually had the legal right to demand such service.[3] Jesus teaches his followers that the kingdom reaction isn’t to run away or simply go one mile but to take the enemies things and carry them even further. Both the Jewish revolutionaries (Zealots) that wanted to overthrow Rome and the common Jew would have seen this commandment as extreme.   

·    Matthew5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

  The command to love ones neighbor in Lev 19:18 is speaking about loving a Jewish neighbor within the Israeli community. There is no Old Testament command to hate one’s enemy at all. The Jewish leaders probably intensified the Old Testament teaching in the wrong way during the silent years (400 years between the Old and New Testament) and that is the reason Jesus believes the saying is normative in his day. A bitterness and hatred would have been developing over time as the Israelites were awaiting the Messiah.[4] Jesus provides a new way of dealing with not only our own people, but also our enemies. He calls us to love them and pray for them. He tells us to do those things in order that we may be sons of the Father. This is one of the hardest and extreme commands Jesus teaches. We need to be willing to love everyone with the same measure of love that Jesus showed, even those that are our enemies. In the same way that God doesn’t show partiality and causes the sun and rain to fall of both evil and the good, we are called to love those who don’t seem to deserve or be worthy of our love.

---

[1] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, Pg 93

[2] Criag Keener, Bible Background Commentary New Testament, Pg 60

[3] We see a Jewish man being forced to help Jesus carry his cross in the gospels (Mark 15:21).

[4] We know for certain the Qumran community had a distain for those outside of the true Jewish community. Harrington writes, “In the Qumran scrolls there are directives to “hate all the sons of darkness” (1QS 1:10) and “everlasting hatred for all the men of the Pit” (1QS 9:21).” Daniel J. Harrington, Sacra Pagina: Gospel of Matthew, Pg 89

Jesus As The Fulfillment Of The Law

So now we turn to issues of the covenants. A covenant is a legally binding agreement held either unilaterally or bilaterally. An example of a unilateral covenant would be the Noahic covenant where God promised humanity that he wouldn’t flood the entire earth again. This is unilateral because God bound himself to it, and it is up to God to keep this word. God is bound by this covenant regardless of what the other party (humanity) does. 

  An example of a bilateral covenant would be the Mosaic Covenant. After Moses leads the Israelites out of Egypt God tells Moses and the people that if they obey his commands he will bless them (Exodus 19:5-6). God bound himself to that promise. In short, the commands that the people bound themselves to in Exodus 24:7 extend through every command that Moses wrote on behalf of God (much of the Pentateuch). So the commands that God gives Israel in Exodus 20:3-23:19—they are bound as individuals and as a people. All of the commands they are bound to are known as the Mosaic Law. Whenever you see the word “Law” in the New Testament it is always referring to the Mosaic Law. After God tells them that he will bless them if they do good, he also tells them that he will curse them if they disobey (Exodus 20:20-23). God lays out the specifics of the blessings and cursing in Deuteronomy 28.

  It is important to understand the intent of the Mosaic Law. “The law was God’s means of shaping Israel into a “counter-community.”   Yahweh had consecrated Israel as a witness to the nations by showing them in the law how to mirror his perfections. Through God’s law, however, the godly came to know how to reflect God’s love, compassion, fidelity, and other perfections.” (Willem A. VanGemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 28) Simply put, God set forth the law to (1) reveal God’s righteous standard and (2) to provide the means to remain in covenant relationship with him. As we know, Israel failed at keeping their commitment and was taken into captivity as Moses predicted. The Jewish nation was being held captive in their own land when Jesus was born. This was a result of their covenant unfaithfulness before God.   

 

  So why is this relevant to our discussion? The Mosaic covenant has within it the moral code by which the Israelites must adhere to. Their justification for killing and conquest is found within this written law.  Are Christians still under the Mosaic Law? After all, Christians do not have church on Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath) and we don’t adhere to the food laws. Also, we see Paul discounting many commands in the Law in his early writings to the churches (Col 2:16-23) and Peter was receiving visions telling him that all food is clean to eat (Acts 10:9-16). Paul also teaches “The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” (Galatians 3:24-25) Jesus himself says, “I have not come to abolish the Law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matt 5:17) So we see Jesus claiming to fulfill both the Mosaic Law and what the prophets of old had spoken. Right after Jesus says he came to fulfill the law He begins to quote from the Law. The “You have heard it been said…but I say to you…” formula is found many times in Matt 5:22-48. This section is the first part of Jesus most famous teaching known as The Sermon on the Mount. His hearers were probably amazing, perplexed, and offended at what he was doing. Jesus was taking the ethical commands that God has laid out for His people and in His name, changed them. This is what Jesus meant in Matt 5:17 when he says, I have come to fulfill the Law.   

  So we see a new law being established during and after Christ’s life. This new law is not only being spoken by Jesus but now can be declared from within, from a person’s hearts. This is what Jeremiah means when he says, “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jer 31:31-34) This is referring to the Spirit of God that would serve as a powerful guide that would eventually indwell all believers at Pentecost. (Jn 14:15-24; Acts 2)    

  Do you see the parallels yet? The prophet Moses establishes (by God) a Covenant that has within it the ethical stipulations for obedience—also know as, the Law. In Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses writes to the people of Israel, “The Lord said to me…I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers.” The one that was eventually raised up in Israel was Jesus himself. Then, the prophet Jesus establishes the New Covenant that has within it the ethical stipulations for obedience. These commands are recorded in the New Testament, and are an outworking of the Spirit working inside believers. That is why they are called the fruits of the Spirit. An early follower of Christ named Stephen rightly declares that Jesus is the very prophet that Moses talks about hundreds of years back. (Acts 7:37) Right before Jesus goes to the cross he institutes communion and talks about the “Covenant of his blood” (Luke 22:14-20). Right then and there the New Covenant was being put into effect and with it--its teachings. Therefore, we are no longer under the Mosaic Law but rather under the Law that Christ has given. Christ’s teaching and the rest of the New Testament should be normative for how the Christian lives today. Here are quotes from some men that have helped me in understanding the tension and distinction between the old and new covenants. 

“There are both continuities and discontinuities between the OT and Jesus’ teaching, but Christ’s fulfillment of the Law, analogous to his fulfillment of OT prophecies, suggest that he is the one whom all of the Scriptures pointed and for whom they prepared. God’s will can now but understood only by following and adhering to his teaching (Craig Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, Pg 131).” 

“With the new age comes a new covenant (Jer 31:31, Matt. 26:28) and hence a new law. Citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven are no longer under the old covenant but are under the new and greater covenant. As the inaugurator of the new covenant, Jesus claimed to prerogative to interpret, expand, and even overrule the Law of Moses (Mark Strauss, Four Portraits One Jesus, Pg 247).” 

“In light of the antitheses (vs 21-48), the passage before us insists that just as Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies by his person and actions, so he fulfilled OT law by his teaching. In no case does this ‘abolish’ the OT as canon. Instead, the OT’s real and abiding authority must be understood through the person and teaching of him to whom it points and who so richly fulfills it…Here Jesus presents himself as the eschatological goal [future goal] of the OT, and thereby its sole authoritative interpreter, the one through whom alone the OT finds its valid continuity and significance (D.A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Pg 144).”  

  The God man Jesus is greater than Moses (Jn 8:48-58) and David (Luke 40:41-44). Israel was called to follow those great men of old and listen to what they had to say. We are not called to live like David or Moses. We can take principles from the Old Law but we are not called to follow it. Jesus summed up the entire Mosaic Law by commanding his followers to love God and every person around you. (Matt 22:36-40) Moses tells us to listen to Jesus and David calls Jesus his Lord. What Jesus teaches us to do is supremely important. If you would like to read more about the covenants there are a few good Journal Articles that you can read that give a more detailed overview on the Biblical covenants of the Old Testament. From here we go to the specific New Covenant teachings that are relevant to issues of war and violence.  

The Direction

  From here I hope to take the reader through the process that led me to a type of Christian Pacifism. If you are lost at any point or disagree along the way then you will disagree with the conclusions I ultimately come to. At the very least, it will give you a better understanding of why someone would come to such a conclusion and at the most, prove to be a Biblical alternative to what you have been taught. I started off this blog by saying that it is very possible that we have “spiritual blind spots” in this age and that we are arrogant to think that we, the church (whichever denomination you happened to be affiliated with) has Christianity fully figured out. Whether we like it or not, we are products of our time. The Bible should be the authority in these matters and that is why we started from the Old Testament and are working our way to the present day. Only by building upon what is true from the start can we understand why we are called or not called to do certain things now. 

  This is the outline of the process I hope to articulate correctly. (1) During the Old Testament times Israel was fully justified in war and conquest in part because of God’s direct commands to do so. Under certain circumstances killing was also justified under the written Law. (2) Simply because it was justified then doesn’t make it justified now. (3) In light of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant and the advent of Jesus Christ on earth, there is a new and greater Law, one both written on our hearts and recorded in the teaching of Jesus. (4) These teachings properly understood will lead the follower of Christ into a different and better ethic expressed by the New Covenant teaching (i.e. the NT). (5) The variations of ethical applications may vary depending on the situation, but the overall thrust of what is taught in the New Testament is different (in ways) compared to the Old Testament teachings. This is less of an issue of different “Testaments” and more of an issue of different “Covenants.” So the previous post by Shannon discussed the 1^st point and now we move to the 2^nd.       

   It is clear that Israel was justified in killing throughout the Old Testament. When looking to the warriors mentioned in Hebrews 11 it is clear that they were used by God to do great things. God was accomplishing his purposes through these men but it is important to note that the writer(s) of those Old Testament books only described what happened; the authors didn’t prescribe a lifestyle that we should all adhere to. That is the nature of reading the literary genre historical narrative. There are certain things we should take from the text and other things we shouldn’t. Simply because God calls David a man after his own heart doesn’t therefore mean we should emulate his entire life. Also, simply because Samson had great faith doesn’t therefore mean we should do what he did. He was motivated by pride the majority of his life. Also, we must recognize that we are not Israel living in the Ancient Near East, and unless we want to subject ourselves to every aspect of the Law, we cannot pick and choose certain teachings as valid and others as arbitrary. That isn’t to say that we don’t look to the ethical teachings of God in the Old Testament as a guide for both personal and public life, or even look to the Ten Commandments as a guide by which to govern a people group. The point that is important to take away is—something obviously has changed between the Old Testament and the New Testament. And as I mentioned above, it is the Covenant that has changed things and has made arbitrary some teachings in the Old Testament and has reinforced others. I say all of this in light of some that believe that, “Because there is killing and war in the Old Testament, God supports it now.” Or some say, “Because David was a man after God’s own heart, and he was a warrior, it is ok to go to war.” Or lastly, “God’s people killed and went to war and because God doesn’t change, he supports those today.” The conclusions drawn from the first part of those statements don’t necessarily follow if it can be shown that the New Covenant discontinued the type of conquest seen in the Old Testament. If that is true—then those claims, and claims in the same vain, don’t stand.

  If this is the first time reading on these topics take note that steps 1-4 aren’t the controversial part but rather the application of 5 is what most people would disagree with me on. With that being said, if 1-4 aren’t established properly then you might have trouble seeing my application when it comes to 5. 

Old Testament Perspective

The idea that we as Christians have allowed something besides the word of God to direct our political opinions and worldview is truly alarming. The justness of a particular war or violence should not be based on an accepted culture in the church or a political party affiliation, but purely on the word of God. For years I unconsciously allowed my culture’s worldview to so permeate my thoughts regarding our role as Christians in American society that I allowed some of my personal opinion to overshadow Biblical truth. Thankfully, over this last year God has clarified some previous assumptions I had regarding topics such as violence and politics. Though my understanding is far from whole, I would say I have a clearer picture of our role today as Christians in America. And the reason for this is a renewed focus on what the Bible teaches, and a divorce from any reason or previous loyalty besides a pledge to my Savior Jesus Christ.
     

In the process of finding how God wants his people to respond to war, injustice, and evil we must start with a clear Old Testament perspective. We must understand the purpose of the war and killing seen in the Old Testament before we come to a Biblical conclusion regarding war and defense. Our understanding of the introduction of sin, the law, sacrifice, and mainly Israel’s role as God’s chosen nation will not only help us understand God’s view of killing in the Old Testament, but what parts of this view pertain to us today and which do not.

After creation and the fall of man in Genesis 3 we know sin was chosen by Adam and Eve, and ushered in death and killing. In Genesis 17 we see the beginning of the established nation of Israel when God established his everlasting covenant with Abraham and his descendants, and Abraham became the father of the Jewish people. The covenant was clarified after God rescued his people from Egypt and made a covenant with Moses and the nation of Israel, and introduced the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5, and the specification of the Old Testament law which included the directions pertaining to offering sacrifices for the forgiveness of sin. It is by this established nation of Israel, God’s chosen people, that we see God using killing (Deuteronomy 5-6, Leviticus 4:35, 5:10). The question is why did God allow and command his nation to kill and war?
     

One of the first commands or restrictions for killing that God gives is seen when God speaks to Noah after the flood. Genesis 9:6 says: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” God states that his reason for holding murders accountable is because man is made in the image of God, so from the first mention of wrongful killing God makes the sanctity of human life very clear. Yet we also see throughout the Old Testament God commanding His people to war, and even specifying who to kill (Deut 20:13-18, Joshua 8:22-24, Joshua 10:28, 10:35, Judges 21:10). For example, in I Samuel 15 Saul is dethroned for not completely annihilating all of the Amalekites, and not obeying I Samuel 15:3 when God says, “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
     

How then do we balance these numerous accounts of God commanded killing with God’s clear command to the Israelites to love their neighbor as themselves, to not seek revenge as seen in Leviticus 19: 15-18, and the fact that Ezekiel 18:32 and Ezekiel 33:11 make it clear that God has no pleasure in the death of anyone? To answer this question we must understand the purpose of God allowing his people to war and kill, and the presence of direct revelation from God to his nation that uniquely justified what they did.
     

In the Old Testament God’s ultimate goal was to make Israel a great nation in order to glorify his name (Exodus 32:10, 2 Samuel 7:23, Isaiah 63:12-14), and he used war in order to achieve his promised plan for Israel (Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Numbers 21:34). Under this ultimate goal, there are three specific reasons for Israeli killing and war in the Old Testament that stand out above the rest; (1) to attain and defend the Promised Land (2) to punish evil nations (3) and to maintain purity. I will address these three specific reasons first, and close with the clarification of God’s ultimate goal of glory.
     

In the Old Testament, God's promises revolved around Israel occupying the land of Palestine, making war a necessity. The nations that stood in the way of the fulfillment of God’s plan and promise were annihilated. In Numbers 21 God commands the Israelites to wipe out the nations of Sihon and Og for not allowing them passage through their territory and for marching towards them in battle. Then in Deuteronomy 20:16-17 the Lord commands the Israelites to demolish “the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.”
     

The second reason war was justified was to punish those who perpetrated evil against God and the Israelites. A couple examples of this are seen first in Numbers 31:1-3 when God makes it clear that his reason for commanding the Israelites to go to war against the Midianites was to carry out his vengeance on them. And second, in I Samuel 15:2 when God declares his reason for commanding war against the Amalekites was to punish them for what they did to Israel.
     

Lastly, war was used as a tool to maintain purity of the Israelite nation. In Deuteronomy 20 God commands Israel to destroy six nations, and says in verse 18 “Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God." Preventing his people from falling into sin and worshipping other gods was a priority in the justifications the Lord gives for war. After returning from overtaking the Midianites, Moses said in Num 31:15-17, "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”
     

God is clearly focused on maintaining the purity of his people, in an effort to not bring shame but holiness to his nation and therefore glory to his name. Which is why the three reasons listed for Old Testament warring can fall under this one theme: the glorification of God’s name. God’s desire to glorify his name is evident throughout the Old Testament as God is constantly recognized as the reason for Israelite victory in battle (Joshua 10:30). We also see God expressing his desire for the glorification of his name in Exodus 7:3, 9:16, 10:2 and 11:9; when the suffering and killing seen in the plagues was used to show his power. Then in II Kings 19 the angel of the Lord defeated the Assyrian army by putting to death 185,000 men. In verse 34 God states his reason; “I will defend this city and save it, for my sake and for the sake of David my servant."
     

The justified killing the Israelites did in the Old Testament was not done for human glory, but for God’s. This is evident not only in the verses listed above, but in the account of David seeking to kill to avenge his name, not the name of the Lord. In I Samuel 25:21 we see David being mistreated by Nabal and being paid back “evil for good”, because Nabal refused to answer his request to feed him and his men. This unfair treatment prompted David to march toward Nabal’s home with 400 to kill those who mistreated him. The Lord sent Abigail, Nabal’s wife to stop him from fighting and having “on his conscience the staggering burden of needless bloodshed or of having avenged himself,” 1 Sam 25:31. As a man of God David responded in praise. “David said to Abigail, "Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, who has sent you today to meet me. May you be blessed for your good judgment and for keeping me from bloodshed this day and from avenging myself with my own hands,” I Samuel 25:32-33.
     

As we bridge into the New Testament perspective and the shift in purpose, it is important to remember all of these purposes for Old Testament warfare. And also to understand that the warring commanded by God in the Old Covenant required an enormous amount of faith from the soldiers and kings who answered the call. They were trusting that God would protect them as they obeyed his prompting, and that through his power they would claim victory for the glory of his name, because they fought for him. In Deuteronomy 20:1 the Lord says: “When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you.”

The Problem

  It is assumed within the American context that killing and fighting back is justified. The Revolutionary War, Civil War, and American Indian War all show the warring and killing tendencies of our nation. War is a intrinsic part of our past history and continues to be one way in which we sustain our greatness in the present. It is not something that we question or typically enter into a discussion over because it is commonly held that war can and is justified. To be fair, simply because something is a common belief doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong, but I do believe that it is our American upbringing that makes it difficult to stand outside of our American worldview and test certain American “givens” with God’s Word. This has been a difficulty for the church throughout the ages. That is, it has been hard for the church to stand up to great social, political, and local evils because those very evils were so accepted within society.

    For example, churchgoers and the church leaders had a large hand in promoting the evils of the Apartheid system in South Africa from 1948-1990. A system that condoned the clearly murderous and racist tendencies of the state that left thousands of South African’s dead or impoverished. Large portions of the America church during the American civil rights movement didn’t support King Jr’s teaching or support his social action. Martin Luther King Jr. had to write a letter from prison to fellow ministers in order to justify his cause. Many pastors and Christians were fine with the segregation laws and preached against change. William Wilberforce was a Christian man standing up to the slave trade in the late 18^th and early 19^th century in Great Britain. Many British Christians didn’t see this as evil at the time. Richard Wurmbrand, a pastor of the underground church in Romania wrote about the church’s involvement in Communism during Russian occupation. Many of the local pastors doubled as spies for Russia and commonly sold out their congregation when the people supported the underground church. The great majority of church leaders were in bed with the Communists, at the expense of hundreds of Christians. 

   With all of these examples in mind, it is clear in looking back over history that the church has either been involved in the promotion of evil or guilty of promoting evil through the sin of omission. The sobering question that every Christian has to ask themselves is—What are different blind spots the church suffers from today? What will the church in 50yrs say about how Christians are living now? It is easy to look back over history at these different problems in the church and be frustrated at the ways in which the church went down the wrong path. We are arrogant as Christians to think that we have so fully arrived in our understanding of God that we don’t have a hard time perfectly seeing what God wants us to do in light of such great evils around us. 

   It is my contention that very many Christians believe that America’s warring is just not because we have wrestled with the Biblical teachings but rather because it is what we are taught from our youth. Now, simply because it has been taught to us from youth doesn’t make it wrong but if it is in contradiction with what God’s will is for His people—then it is fully wrong. This is my belief, still yet to be defended. This leads me to what must become a priority within the discussion for everyone involved.

    When discussing war, violence, justice, injustice, and the nature of evil the arguments can quickly turn practical, philosophical, experience based, or even emotionally based. Although there is a place for our emotional response, our experience, and philosophy in the discussion—if this is what guides this discussion then we fall victim to the enlightenment mentality. This mentality teaches that if we just think about it enough and search in the depths of man’s reason long enough, we can find the solution to the issue or problem at hand. This mentality has never worked and never will. Although we are a quickly developing world with enough food to feed every person on the planet, thousands die every week of starvation, the world is absolutely full of discord (both at home and abroad), and war is ever present. One of the main reasons all of these unwanted effects remain with us in the 21^st century is because humanity bought into the lie of the enlightenment, thinking we can answer life’s greatest questions apart from God. We must look for God in all areas of study and are called to look to God in His Word. The Bible is the compass by which we are able to construct a proper worldview. There are many types of arguments one can use in any discussion but Biblical arguments and the proper interpretation of His Word will lead us into truth. After all, we are trying to get at what God wants his people to do in light of war, injustice, and evil. So regardless of what I or anyone else thinks, we must look to God’s Word first, and let the proper interpretation of the scriptures persuade us.

Beginnings

I have been in a conversation with a friend about violence, justice, and the church's responsibility in the midst of a broken world. We thought it was time to publish parts of our discussion in order to think through these things with a wider audience. We will be hitting topics such such as war, the ethic of Jesus, Paul's intent in Romans 13, self-defense, the church fathers, the nature of the New Covenant and the Old, and what being a Christian looks like in a warring America. Although I am currently convinced that the church's vocation doesn't include supporting the vanity of American local and foreign killing, I am always open to discussing these things.