(1) The conquest in the book of Joshua is not to be treated as the norm. My reading of the Old Testament suggests that, apart from the stories surrounding the Amalekites, the conquest in Joshua is the only noticeable occasion in which God asks his people to use violence to attack a people group. We may call this war a "just war", in the sense that God himself used it for his own reasons. It seems, however, that the stories that clearly shape the life and theology of Israel in the Old Testament are not the accounts of violence but the creation narrative in Genesis, the exodus story, God's covenant with Abraham, and the expectation of restoration from exile. The conquest in Joshua seems to be a one-off event in which Yahweh fulfilled a particular purpose for a particular time and occasion.
(2) Judgment and vengeance on God's enemies are God's prerogative alone. Any intention to use violence to resolve conflicts must take this notion seriously. The term "holy war" is not found in the Bible. Rather, we have the concept of "Yahweh's wars". Here is what Paul says in Romans 12:19-21, citing Deuteronomy 32:35 and Proverbs 25:21-22.
"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' No, 'if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
Only God is the author of life, and only he has the right to judge the world. The New Testament states clearly that Christ is the Judge, and one day justice will be done. The Christ-community looks to Him to judge the world as they suffer from violence in this world. This future judgment is, however, also restorative. As the Christ-community seeks to overcome evil with good and wait on God for his just judgment, it has an amazing restorative purpose - because it calls people to stop their acts of violence and turn to God for his mercy and grace.
(3) I respect those who hold the view that in exceptional cases a measured expression of violence might be necessary as the last resort. For example, some argue that in the case of the genocide in Rwanda, it would have been a different outcome if there had been a United Nations peace-keeping force to prevent violence in the nation. I also want to say that in my personal life I have not experienced strong political oppression, and hence I am not in a position to judge others. If a Christian decides to defend her/his family and loved ones when their lives are under threat because of their faith, who am I to judge them for their defensive action, which is used as the very last resort?Obviously much more needs to be said on this topic. But space does not allow me to systematically discuss this matter.
For me, Jesus' teaching on loving one's enemies and praying for them is the key. Christ died for sinners. His willing sacrifice for humanity is how his love works in practice. His teaching on forgiveness and loving one's enemies was given in the context of Roman occupation (by violent means) of Judea, including Jerusalem. The earliest Christians also lived in the Roman Empire, where there was much violent oppression. But from the birth of the church in Acts to the writing of Revelation we find no intention in the earliest church to repay violence with violence. Rather, the Christ-community sought to live in peace with their neighbours. learned to love them (including their enemies) and often that meant suffering and dying for their faith. For me, if one holds on to Christ's teaching here, it is hard to accept the use of violence in resolving conflicts. The passage in Romans 12 above says it all.
I am all for peace-making!
No comments:
Post a Comment