Love your enemies part II
Another way that the pacifist reading of the Sermon on the Mount has been countered is to say that Christ was not referring to enemies of the public, but rather private enemies.
But: just because you become the enemy of a criminal because you are a magistrate, does not make them any less your enemy. That is, the private/public distinction does not really work in this case, as magistrates are doing harm to people (by the nature of the case, or at least by convention), and that makes those people de facto their enemies. The reason they are their enemies, that they are representatives of the public and thus take upon themselves the behaviour of avenging the public (as opposed to, say, being enemies because someone directly attacked the individual who is the magistrate), does not change the fact that they are their enemies.
Thus, one can’t say that magistrates avoid breaking Christ commands because they are not doing harm to their enemies, but someone else’s, because they have made someone else’s enemy their enemy.
This means that, basically, one can only avoid the pacifist reading by saying that Christ implicitly meant that magistrates were allowed to hate some of their enemies, while everyone else could not hate any of their enemies. As this significant qualification is not on the face of the text of Matthew, it must come from the context, i.e., in necessary truths, in the canon (for those for whom the Canon is authoritative), or in the historical context of Christ’s words. I doubt that the first context can provide that qualification, so that leaves the latter two: either this qualification must be justified on the basis of the canon, or because of the historical context of Christ’s words.
So here’s the challenge for non-pacifists: either show that the canon says that magistrates will, for all time (prior to the parousia, presumably), have to hate some of their enemies (so that Christ’s command could not possibly rule that out without contradicting this), or else show that some part of Jesus’ historical-linguistic context would have implied that when Jesus said “love your enemies”, he meant “love your enemies, unless you are a magistrate, then love your enemies in some situations and hate them in others.”
There is a beautiful movie called SoulMasters: The Movie that is the beginning of a huge healing on every level. Go to drsha.com and look at the website. There is help for forgiveness and karma clearing to release any experience of enemies and unrest.
Somehow I doubt a movie that teaches there is something like karma will ultimately give people rest…
I was sure that the first comment was going to be related to Ro 13… instead you got SoulMasters. Awesome.
Still, I’d be curious to hear how you would respond to those who would throw Ro 13 into the mix here. I reckon you’ll do something with it that looks a lot like what I’ve been doing with Ro 1 and Gen 1-2!
I think homosexuality is wrong and that the State can use violence… do I win a prize!
Yes, a degree from Patriot Bible College!
Dan O.: Firstly, LOL. I mean that literally.
Secondly, my view on Romans 13 is something of a synthesis between NT Wright’s view and Yoder’s: in light of Paul’s proclamation that Jesus is Lord (and therefore that Caesar is a pretender), he has to remind the Roman Christians not to engage in revolt. I also think Romans 13 is saying that God providentially guides (“ordains” ) the rulers for his purpose (e.g. Assyria as an axe in God’s hand against Israel, Isa. 10); but we can’t read God’s moral approval off of providence, so I don’t see Rom. 13 as implying violence is okay for magistrates, just that God uses it.
Thirdly, I think Paul is probably alluding to the “powers” in this passage, in which case I think he recognizes, and thus I do, that God created the powers to order humanity. I don’t think this ordering/hierarchy is in itself wrong; only when the State disobeys Christ by using violence (or by doing something else he prohibits) does it act in an evil manner. So in that sense it is not always wrong to follow the directive of a given State, and it is true that God set up the powers originally for our benefit.
Andrew,
While I agree with a lot of what you say, I’m curious as to how you draw your conclusion that Ro 13 does not imply that violence is okay for magistrates. What, then, do you do with vv 3-4?
(Keeping in mind the type of hermeneutic you apply to Ro 1!)
Dan,
Here is roughly how I read those verses:
3: For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behaviour but for evil.
This is generally true; rulers at least generally function under the pretense that they are punishing evil, and I believe God generally guides them in this way.
3: Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same.
Again, I think this is a generally true principle. Rulers tend not to punish people arbitrarily, so good behaviour in general will give you less of a chance of punishment.
4: for it is a minister of God to you for good.
In the sense that it is an agent of God, is used by God, for our benefit. This is also true generally (in that God keeps order through proleptic judgments).
4: But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing;
This is just the converse of the above principle: generally the state will punish those who do evil.
4: for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
Again, God uses the state as an agent to carry out his wrath on evil. But this does not mean he approves of the acts that he providentially orders to his own purposes (cf. Assyria and Israel, or Cyrus who is called the “servant of YHWH” (associated with “ministering” ) because he is used by YHWH to execute judgment on Israel).
Thus I don’t think these verses unambiguously imply that God morally approves of violent acts of the state, and thus I can retain the same hermeneutic I used in Romans 1 (that whatever Paul says is authoritative) and be a pacifist.
Hey, I’m not trying to suggest that Paul is not authoritative. I believe that he is.
However, you have handily managed to neglect Paul’s reference to the sword, and the implication that the reason why the state is feared is precisely because it has been appointed to use violence to punish evildoers.
Further, although you have mentioned Assyria and Israel (twice now), you have failed to mention that God appears to punish Assyria not for its use of violence but because it is too violent (apart from that, the more relevant expression of violence to keep in mind in this passage is the corporal punishment practiced by the state — and Paul does appear to suggest that this is as it should be).
So far, the difference I see between your exegesis of this passage and Ro 1 is that, when it comes to Ro 1, you want to place a lot of value on words that are not Paul’s main point, whereas here you seem to be dancing around the words that appear to go against your reading.
“However, you have handily managed to neglect Paul’s reference to the sword, and the implication that the reason why the state is feared is precisely because it has been appointed to use violence to punish evildoers.”
I don’t think I’ve neglected it at all; I’m just saying “appointed” does not mean “appointed by God’s moral design”, but rather “appointed by God’s providential/historical design”. The sword is something God wields through people, though that does not imply they are right to do so.
My use of Assyria is not meant to apply a perfect analogy or a complete substantiation of my argument, just the analogy: sometimes people are servants of God in the sense that their actions are used providentially by God to his own ends, without necessarily being servants in the stronger sense of carrying out his moral will. Another relevant analogy would be Habakkuk’s message: God raises up the Chaldeans to conquer many nations and then punishes them for conquering many nations. Or on a more individual level, the story of Joseph in Genesis, climaxing with: (Gen 50:20) “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it [the same act that they meant for evil] for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” Even without these analogies the point, theologically, still stands: God can order things providentially which he despises morally.
I think Paul is affirming God’s providential use of the state’s violence is to be respected (in the sense of not violently rebelled against, and as something to thank God for) by Christians, but not that we are to morally respect the human aspect of this use of violence.
“So far, the difference I see between your exegesis of this passage and Ro 1 is that, when it comes to Ro 1, you want to place a lot of value on words that are not Paul’s main point, whereas here you seem to be dancing around the words that appear to go against your reading.”
Respectfully, I don’t think I’ve danced around anything. I do think, however, that you are doing some dancing when you call Paul authoritative, but feel free to reject some of his words as not authoritative.
Rom 13 is emphatic that the State has power because of God’s express desire and purpose.
It also takes care to note that the State does not do so in vain.
This does not jive with the sort of “accidental” will of God you are suggesting; God using evil for good. Let’s be honest: Rom 13 justifies the State. It is no other sword but God’s sword, and as you said Andrew, God’s sword is no sinful
I realize that I sounded like am immigrant with that last quote. Please excuse my horrific grammar.
im teh best!
“This does not jive with the sort of “accidental” will of God you are suggesting; God using evil for good.”
And why exactly does it not?
“Let’s be honest: Rom 13 justifies the State.”
I am being honest, and I don’t see that it does
God has ordained the State’s power. He has not only ordained its power, but its use of force. Why?
Well, we know the State has force (it bears the sword) but we also know that it is right for the State to use it (it do not bear the sword in vain – lit. inconsiderately; without just cause).
The State does bear the Sword unjustly. Who is the arbiter of Justice? The Lord. The Lord has deemed it just (thus right) for the State to bear the Sword. The State exists for that very purpose.
Now, if you are taking “not in vain” to mean “God uses evil for good,” I think you might be playing fast and loose with the passage.
Again, and as you have pointed out, the State is called a minister of God – an avenger. Rom 12 told us not to take revenge for ourselves, but that revenge is the Lord’s…
“Paul, how does the Lord do this?” Keep reading! It’s in the next chapter!
Sometimes the Lord is pleased to avenge us through Divine intervention, but He often works through a minister. What is His minister of revenge? Who bears the sword on His behalf? The State! How do we know this? Rom 13 says so!
Consider, much of the law, the “10 Commandments” in particular, are directed toward individual conduct. This is why the Israelite army could go and kill but not be in violation of the Law. Different rules apply to the State than do to the individual.
Therefore, Paul’s reminder to us not to take revenge for ourselves does not necessarily apply to the State. In fact we see that Rom 13 justifies the State in doing so (God establishes the State so that it can execute His judgments, and it wields the sword rightly, justly, “unaccidentally”).
Parents can use the family credit card – children cannot. I must obey the speed limit – police can be exempt. The judicial system can incarcerate someone for decades – I would be prosecuted for doing the same.
What is true for the individual is not always true for the group, and this is a clear example of the that.
* * * * *
I’m hoping that if I antagonize you enough, you’ll try to land a punch at Keith’s bachelor party.
“Stop posting such long comments – thump.”
Correction: that first “why” should actually be, “How do we know?”
“(it do not bear the sword in vain – lit. inconsiderately; without just cause).”
Actually, “in vain” means “for nothing”; Paul is saying that God has not providentially given the soldiers swords for no purpose; he will use them if necessary.
For the rest of your comments, I’d direct you back to my original post, where I made an argument that you can’t apply that private/public distinction meaningfully to Jesus’ command.
I actually went back to the Greek this time, and “acting justly”is a perfectly acceptable definition for the term and I makes perfect sense given the context (that God is using them to execute His judgments).
The “accidental” quality you are advocating is more or less an argument from silence, and if anything is at least inferred by the text, it is the opposite.
Further, I’m aware that you are argued that there is no private/public distinction… this is simply and intellectual game you are playing. The very history revealed by the scriptures show there is one. God’s commandments to individuals vs the state show there is one. Basic human reasoning shows there is one.
The “magistrate” is not making a public enemy into a private one – the magistrate is carrying out the will of the State. He is simply a messenger for the Law. There is nothing personal about it.
You cannot reconcile God’s command, “thou shalt not kill,” with His command, “kill the women and children,” with your reasoning.
“I actually went back to the Greek this time, and “acting justly”is a perfectly acceptable definition for the term and I makes perfect sense given the context (that God is using them to execute His judgments).”
I checked too, and you are right. All I can say is my rendering (for nothing, in vain) is also possible, and often appears in English translations (e.g. it appears in my NASB, a highly literal translation). It would also fit the context: Paul is warning Christians not to revolt, to not be so foolish as to assume the state has weapons but won’t use them (later he makes a comparable point: they must obey “because of wrath/punishment”, i.e., to avoid punishment, because it will come if they don’t, and they shouldn’t be under the illusion that it won’t).
“Further, I’m aware that you are argued that there is no private/public distinction… this is simply and intellectual game you are playing. The very history revealed by the scriptures show there is one. God’s commandments to individuals vs the state show there is one. Basic human reasoning shows there is one.”
I didn’t say there wasn’t one; I said it was meaningless in a context where you are a magistrate commanded to love your enemy. That was not a command given in the Old Testament; the king of Israel (cf., Psa 5:5) and the prophets were praised for hating their enemies in the OT.
“You cannot reconcile God’s command, “thou shalt not kill,” with His command, “kill the women and children,” with your reasoning.”
Sure I can; the former was only intended to be applicable unless God commanded otherwise.
We’re NASB buddies! The NASB simply says, “not in vain,” and all I’m saying is that “vain” has several valid and equal definitions. I believe we are both conceding that not in vain can mean “not acting without cause,” and “acting justly”, the former not justifying the State’s actions, the latter seeming to.
We then must look out side the word to the rest of the passage, and beyond, to find was is most likely.
We can read it this way. We can also read this passage as Paul giving general instruction regarding how Believers are to respect and relate to the State. His focus is not expressly “don’t revolt,” or, “don’t try to start a revolution;” rather he gives almost equal stage time to the concepts of simple submission to authority, paying taxes, and God’s foreordained installation of power structures.
Regardless, reading this as a warning or more general tutorial does not bolster either of our points. The issue “is force justified” remains, and we can only come to a solid conclusion by looking outside of this particular passage (though as I’ve said, if the passage infers anything it infers that the State has been given the right to bear the sword, by God, and is therefore justified – the passage does not even imply that the inverse might be true, though based on your reading, there is at least some room to import that interpretation).
I don’t want to speak past your point, so before I say more, let me clarify: you are saying that the command “love your enemies”:
1) was not provided to God’s people in the Old Testament
2) applies to the magistrate in office, forbidding him from executing the full will of the State
If these requirements could be addressed aptly, would you concede that the State’s use of force is justifiable? If not, what would be reasonable enough proof?
You’ve said that in the OT, the use of force was subject to different principles and that we have no reason to believe there was carry over, and in fact the New Covenant has informed us otherwise. Since you grant violence was acceptable in the OT, would a simple demonstration that there is some continuity (I say “some” because even I realize there is a marked difference) be enough to convince you that there are times where force is justified, or is your mind made up?
Though I’m not entirely against this notion, I would argue that this cuts a straight path to moral relativism. The Law, while for our benefit, also reveals to us something of God – it reveals His values (and they are eternal as He is eternal). God is moral and shares His morality with us. God will not simply overturn a law because He has the power to do so – His Laws are firm because they are a manifestation of His values. Some laws find flexibility given certain unique contexts (individual vs state, one covenant vs the next, etc) but the values which they reveal about God do not change; and of course some laws simply remain permanent eternally (it is not conceivable that God could overturn the law, “Have no other Gods before me”). Saying, “God could command otherwise,” might be taking the easy way out when there are (possibly) more reliable and demonstrated methods to determine when exceptions are valid.
* * * * *
Sorry if these following questions seem trite or cliché! I’m just trying to gauge what kind of pacifism you’re advocating:
1) We live in a cursed world, sin is rampant. Prayer does not turn every heart and we are not told that it will. Consider then sociopaths and pedophiles. In the overwhelming amount of cases, they are beyond any rehabilitation and will certainly re-offend. Do you believe that incarcerating them (I’m not talking about being violent with them or depriving them of anything, simply removing them from society at large), is immoral.
2) An intruder stands poised with a hammer overtop your sleeping child. Is subduing him immoral?
3) You’ve said that Christ was not pacifist; so He would most likely not pass an innocent victim by and do nothing. Would imitating Him – pursuing His heart – in this act of intervention be immoral?
“His focus is not expressly “don’t revolt,” or, “don’t try to start a revolution;” rather he gives almost equal stage time to the concepts of simple submission to authority, paying taxes, and God’s foreordained installation of power structures.”
I think in the context of the entire letter that is most likely concern. We need to be able to explain why he would bother to even talk about the magistrate, and why at this point in the letter…
“If these requirements could be addressed aptly, would you concede that the State’s use of force is justifiable? If not, what would be reasonable enough proof”
If you could show from the OT that the magistrate’s executing of a criminal is compatible with obeying the command to love our enemies, I would concede that loving our enemies would not require pacifism.
As for your later questions:
1) is a hard one, but that is why you asked it. I suppose if I believed that Christ could save anyone, and that Christ commanded his disciples not to kill people, that at minimum we could not kill sociopaths and pedophiles. I’d have to think longer about this question…
2) I’d have no problem subduing him, and the postscript to my post “Love your enemies part IV” addresses this a bit.
3) When did I say Christ was not a pacifist?
I thought a bit more about 1), and here’s a bit of an answer:
At this point, not everyone is Christian, and thus I don’t expect everyone to be a Christian pacifist. Thus I assume, just as I believe Romans 13 teaches, someone will prevent the worst possible scenario with those kinds of criminals from happening.
On the other hand, I believe that eventually everyone will be Christian through the work of the church (along with being a tentative pacifist, I’m also a tentative postmillenialist; I like to keep people guessing
). Thus I believe that at some point there will no longer be a violent state; at the same time, by that point, I believe that the Spirit’s influence through the church (and apart from it) will be enough to prevent the worst possible case from happening at that point, as well.
Thus in both cases I believe God will take care of the problem, and it is our business to just obey…
Also, in the mean time, I would point out there are things the church can do about pedophiles; it can both protect children (anyone who cares can do this), and offer hope and the power of God to those people who are most warped by sin.
Rom 12 is a bit of Christian living potpourri – we see that Rom 13 entire, is no different. I don’t think we need to search for some undisclosed intent for this passage other than what is plain. As far as we know the church at Rome was not a graduating MDiv class, nor a society of gifted and eager exegetes. I feel we are justified in dealing plainly with the passage as they would have done. So, Paul talks about the State here as the topic follows naturally from the previous exhortation against taking revenge, in the midst of this miscellany. Paul reminds us that there is an agent of justice and we should act accordingly: don’t avenge yourself, as well, live within the law. Any other reasons beyond this appears (to me) to ask too much of the passage.
I’m up for it! I’ll fail I’m sure but if anything it will be a helpful exercise for me.
I’m relieved Andrew! That degree of pacifism is reprehensible. I believe it grieves our Father.
Oh, I assumed you agreed with what you noted about NT Wright. My apologies if this was unwarranted. Given Christ’s “kicking ass and taking names” in the temple, I think it’s certain He wasn’t one.
Fancy that, I’m an amillennialist!
So let’s assume your view of the future is right – I’d be more than happy to grant the abolition of the institutions of force at that point. However, today we are still very much under a curse; we are not guaranteed deliverance from the sins of our neighbors. I think we’d be hard pressed to deem protecting children by removing diseased criminals from society “sin,” or in any way mirroring God’s heart. God doesn’t call us to foolishness any less than He calls us to faith.
This is tangential; again, I’m just gauging what variety of pacifism you espouse
Well, yes, that’s true. The reason we have to invest in exegesis though is because we are removed from this culture quite a bit. It’s the same as high school students labouring to interpret what Shakespeare wrote for illiterate commoners as much as the landed nobility.
Put that aside, err, aside, the most immediate reading that comes to mind is that Paul is telling the Roman church, “hey, don’t break the law” and doing little else. Most of the Roman laws would have been acceptable to the early Christians anyway. Saying that Rome has the power of the sword and that God “ordains” such a thing would have been nothing but stating the obvious in the first century (unless Paul believed that God was weaker than the Roman state or the Roman gods – which he obviously did not). Suggesting that this gives license for all subsequent societies to use Roman types of state violence stretches the passage way beyond what it ever meant to say.
“As far as we know the church at Rome was not a graduating MDiv class, nor a society of gifted and eager exegetes.”
They were, however, the original recipients of the letter, and we are living 2000 years later in a completely different place and culture. Thus one would expect they would “see” more than we do.
Plus, I don’t take Paul as someone who would write “random” chapters in his letters. Perhaps specific words might be chosen without much thought (perhaps!), but not extended paragraphs.
“Given Christ’s “kicking ass and taking names” in the temple, I think it’s certain He wasn’t one.”
I believe we are allowed to strike animals, in case that wasn’t clear
“I think we’d be hard pressed to deem protecting children by removing diseased criminals from society “sin,” or in any way mirroring God’s heart.”
That assumes “we” are in control of society; but the church is not in control of this society, nor should it try to be (I have been arguing). Thus it is a misleading question.
Yes and no. We do not come, primarily, to the Scriptures as a historical book that written long ago, as though this were all merely an intellectual endeavor. We come to it as God’s living, breathing Word written for us today.
Paul is both speaking to Romans and is speaking to us, equally.
Consider that even the Romans would not be able to make real, meaningful sense of Paul’s teaching without the Helper anyway, and this Helper we share with the Early Church. In fact it was this same Helper that moved the pen through Paul.
Paul is making a general statement about power structures and he says it plainly: God ordains government:
Are Paul’s remarks more true for Rome than any other government? No. Am I excused from subjecting myself to the authorities because we’re not in Rome? No. It’s God’s justice bound to a Roman-style judicial system? Of course not. You are importing your knowledge and love of Roman history into your reading of the passage, and are over contextualizing it. Yeah, Paul was a Jew living within the larger context of Roman rule and occupation. Ok, the book is called, “Romans.” But just read Paul’s wording: it is an exhortation in general, to Christians in general, living in nations in general.
Be it crosses or Club Fed, the form is irrelevant: God establishes governments, and uses them to execute His will – it’s obvious from the passage.
Finally, Paul’s intent to educate the Roman church about it’s conduct does not make his observations of government less perfect. A lesson in politics might not have been his primary intent, but intent does not render something more or less true or more or less valuable.
I’m not saying it’s random, I’m just saying it’s not “story boarded,” in the way that one might lay out the plot for a novel. It’s a letter, and reading passages like Rom 12 shows us that Paul is taking some time to briefly talk about miscellany, probably while he had it on the brain, as humans writing letters tend to do. Rom 13 isn’t random, and I never said it was; we simply have no reason to believe that these letters follow the kind of broad theme or narrative that people in academic world often impose on writing…
We have no reason to think there are undisclosed reasons for Paul’s mentioning these issues in exactly the time and exactly place he has chosen to, for any other than they’re important issues and they had to go somewhere!
And even if there were some deeper narrative, it would not weaken the point: the words Paul uses when describing government are of an absolute quality. God establishes government, period. God uses its implements and institutions (whatever they may be) to execute his judgements, period.
This is an eternal truth.
Well, He flipped tables. A violent act. But He did more than that:
And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables;
We know He drove out the animals, but He drove something else – a them – out with the animals. Who’s them? What “them” was driven out with the animals?
The people defiling the temple.
I agree, we ultimately control nothing… save that which God has allowed us stewardship over… nature, family, bank accounts… oh, and government!
Now Andrew, I agree that Christians by and large waste their time with politics, have no place in it, and the exercise of trying to make the state “Christian,” or “moral,” is a waste of time. But I’m now nor have I ever been talking about Christian government – I’m talking about, well… just government.
“Rom 13 isn’t random, and I never said it was; we simply have no reason to believe that these letters follow the kind of broad theme or narrative that people in academic world often impose on writing…”
Well, all I can say is: look at the highly complex and deliberate structure of the essentially single argument that fills chapters 1 to 9 of this letter, and tell me again that Paul is likely just writing “miscellany”. The more I have studied Paul, the less accidental anything seems in his words.
Certainly, in the ancient world (with less access to writing materials, to the ability to write) where there were no such thing as myspaces and xangas, there would be much more concern with careful communication; I doubt very much there’d be the kind of verbal ejaculation we see in much writing today. Further, Paul was writing to the Gentiles for a reason: see chapter 11. Shortly before Paul, there had been unrest in Rome on the part of the Jews because of “Chrestus” (we know this from Roman sources), and Jews had been kicked out. Later they were allowed to return, and Paul is writing in this context to the Gentile churches. I’d say it’s pretty likely Paul at least had political revolt in the back of his mind.
Interpretive differences aside, context aside, intent aside, we still learn truth from the words that are used when the Scriptures make a declaration about a thing.
All I’ve ever said was that, regardless of the context, Paul’s words still make a statement about a thing – they justify the government. We are not told that the government is not justified (though I know as far as you are concerned, this is contingent on a response to the “love your enemies” problem, and that is a fair expectation).
verbal ejaculation?
I hope you found that funny Keith
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.
Thanks Sandra! I have actually changed positions on this issue since I wrote that post, so I hope you still like the blog anyway