(Disclaimer—- This conversation between my friend and OT colleague Lawson Stone and me was strictly off the cuff chatting, not refined and carefully edited discourse. Caveat emptor)
Stone: Puzzling, as I often do, over alternatives to the
usual approaches to warfare and violence in the OT. Our modern notions of non-combatants,
collateral damage, etc. complicate the moral picture considerably. In a way,
this involves returning to some things I was working on almost 20 years ago!
Witherington: As my Granny used to say, don’t complexify
thangs. Jesus said no violence, and so did Paul.
Lawson Stone ?… And Marcion,
too, I suppose. In general, I have found “granny” solutions and
proof-texting unhelpful in my work with these texts. Maybe we had different
kinds of grannies. Mine was a terror, straight out of a Flannery O’Connor
story. Sort of ruined me for home-spun cliches.
Ben Witherington
Pacificism is no cliche Lawson,
though, I’ll grant you my granny was full of them. The real theological issue
here is does one have an adequate theology of progressive revelation? If so,
those OT conundrums are less confounding.
I’d hope you would assume that your colleague sort of
already knew about progressive revelation. 😉 But I regard the intentions of
the inspired authors as still divine revelation, and are the theology of the
text, and no amount of progres…sion simply negates those inspired intentions
or consigns them, dispensationlist-style, to the dust-bin. So getting from the
OT here to the NT there while fully respecting the aims of the sacred writers
still requires more hard work than Granny knew or most pacifistic hermeneutic
will acknowledge. Actually my question
is not pacifism at all. It’s the Bible. We have a mass of material in the OT
that portrays and assumes God as a Warrior just as thoroughly as he is
portrayed as Redeemer and Father. We also have a mass of material in the OT in
which obedience to God is framed in terms of divinely commissioned battle.
Whether one is a pacifist, just-war theorist, or “War as the Lesser Evil
In Certain Rare Cirumstances” person, we still have to figure out how to
preach and teach the Word of God from these texts. It’s not as if they are like
the dietary laws or animal sacrifice. The Divine Warrior motif figures in
Revelation as well, and the war heroes of Judges are commended as heroes of
faith precisely for their war-deeds in Hebrews 11. So my question isn’t whether
we are pacifists or war-mongers. The question is how are we teach and preach
faithfully, substantively and profoundly from these texts, which are close to
the center of the OT and not easily segregated from the rest of its revelation
or dismissed by appeals to progressive revelation. If in fact the end and goal
of history is Jesus on a war-horse with a two-edged sword, “clothed in a
raiment soaked in blood” (Isaiah) then progressive revelation might
suggest the Divine Warrior tradition must continue to function in our theology.
So the question is, how? That’s what is not answered by the easy cliches and
“WWJD” type responses.
Ben Witherington
Gotcha… and that’s a good question. My answer would be that the God is a
warrior stuff is less problematic, as the NT also says, leave justice and
judgment in the hands of God. Its a question of a different order to ask how to
preach texts where God’s people are called to practice the harem. I like what
Peter Craigie in his little book on the subject says. Lawson it seems to me we have to take
seriously what Hebrews 1 says— namely that the revelation to the OT saints
was partial and piecemeal, not a full revelation of God’s truth or will. And
more to the point as Jesus says, it was to some extent given the way it was due
to the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites.
Ben-I think that’s pushing Hebrews 1 way farther than it
wants to go. And “partial” does not mean “wrong.” Also, I
doubt seriously Hebrews 1 intends the pejorative sense carried by
“piecemeal.” The OT certainly is not. The OT is at least 2…000
years of a God relentlessly honoring his original purpose in creation,
tirelessly engaging a lost humanity, unfailingly keeping his promises,
repeatedly reminding his people of his purpose and character, and frequently
asserting justice in space-and-time, typically through the instrumentality of
human institutions of coercion such as government and warfare. So that specific
use of Hebrews 1 does not match the reality of the actual text of the Bible.
When an interpretation of a single phrase fails to match the reality of which
it speaks, I usually hunt for another interpretation.
Also, the hardness of heart saying is addressed to one
law, the permission on divorce, and it was more directed to Jesus’ questioners
than to the OT-note the use of “you/your” 3 times in Jesus’
statement. He’s talking more about his questioners than he is the OT. So I do
not see there a generalization that we can invoke whenever we are bothered
about some feature of the OT. Also, “hard of heart” does not describe
the authors of the OT, whom I’d rather call “inspired by the Holly
Spirit.” Was Isaiah hard of heart? Was Jeremiah? Was David? In actually
reading through the texts of the OT closely, that dog just won’t hunt. Again,
it’s a convenient generalization that turns out to be unhelpful to the
expositor or commentator trying to hew closely to the grammatical-historical
sense of the text.
Lastly, I can’t help but notice that in the end, war will cease because the
Lamb will go forth to war and destroy his enemies, not because suddenly
reconciliation got popular. So the warrior themes must be more than a
concession to heart-hardness. I’m not saying I know the answer, but I think we
sometimes use these generalizations to turn away from the texts and the
disturbing realities they deal with.
The ultimate ethical solutions
are not as problematic as the continuous, authoritative pastoral and theological
exposition of the texts in detail. But also, I don’t agree with you that God
has told us to leave justice to him. The context yo…u cite specifically deals
with personal vengeance, which indeed we should leave with God. But God
commands us throughout scripture to work for just communities, to
“do/implement justice.” God enjoins judges and rulers to implement
justice, which legitimates force and puts the responsibility squarely upon
God’s servants for figuring out how force, coercion, may be used in accordance
with godliness to protect the weak and steward the resources of the earth
appropriately. And is the responsibility to work for justice, protect the weak,
and steward the creation only applicable within our own
“nation-state?” I don’t find in scripture an ecclesiology that says
to abandon the structures of governance and enforcing justice. So if Christians
can be police officers or politicians, or doctors or judges, then they do use
force, coercion. If one believes in government provided health-care and basic
income guarantees, one believes in coercion. Violence and war are just the most
conspicuous forms of coercion. So God as Warrior, and God as the leader of his
faithful warriors, remains more than a mere type, but something other than the
stereotypes most Christian toss around (like the herem allusion, which you know
is not just “kill them all”).
*Well brother I’ll give you the last word if you want.
I’m totally out of ideas!
Ben Witherington
Wow… that’s a mouth full. I think we should have a fuller conversation about
this in more than 125 characters. But Lawson I think it is clear enough that
there is an obsolescence factor involved in various things OTmental. For
example, I would say various of the imprecatory psalms are a true revelation of
the human heart, not the divine character.
One more thing. The use of power is not the same as the use of violence.
And the use of force is not the same as the use of violence to harm or kill
another human being. The instructions in the NT about governmental officials
are always …about ‘them’ as opposed to us, who are supposed to submit to
their authority. That’s a very different matter than signing to be soldiers or
even tax police. I don’t think Christians are called to do that. I think we are
supposed to do something very different— mirror the values of the kingdom
come where the swords are beat into plowshares and we study war no more.
Lawson
Stone Hey you get more than 125 characters on Facebook! I actually would
not call “fulfillment” “obsolescence.” In general, these
categories that are part of the legacy of post-reformation scholasticism, such
as the generalization of hardness of heart to the entire OT revelation, have
not been helpful to me but seem to flatten the text. Rather than struggle with
the enduring cruces, they treat them like spots on the window, merely to be
wiped off.
Actually we disagree on the power/force issue. All power
to coerce derives from the ability to compel someone against their will by the
ability to credibly threaten their access to what is needed to live. You can
deny them their livelihood …by imprisoning them, but even imprisonment
assumes the ability to back up confinement with lethal force. Even fines and
taxation ultimately still involve separating someone from the vital support of
their life. It’s a continuum, not a contrast. Again, your rosy citation of the
Isaiah passage is a peroration not a real argument. Maybe that text was given
because of hardness of heart? Maybe that text was one that was obsolesced by
the NT when Jesus in fact will hurl the wicked forever into the lake of fire?
Sounds to me like God will not be hammering his sword into a plowshare.
Ben Witherington
Lawson do you really think we will be fighting wars in the new heaven and new
earth? Come on now…. In that age not only will there be no war, there will be
no death!!! My point is this. We are in the eschatological age, and we as
Christians are meant to bear witness to the values of the final eternal state
of affairs, not simply deal with business as usual, or the world as it is. We
are not supposed to be conformed to the values of this world. Period.
I would love more conversation too, but tempus fugit as
they say. One issue I think we clearly do disagree on is the force vs. violence
issue, and I would enjoy more conversation on that. I don’t see them on a continuum.
Wh…en I have to push my office door a little harder to open it, I have used
force but I have neither harmed the door, nor done violence to it. And I would
say the same applies when God is using the subtle solvent of grace and his
Spirit on us. It is certainly a force to be reckoned with, but not something
that harms or does violence to me.
Hi Ben-Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, informed
by a lifetime of serious engagement with Christian thought on many levels. I do
think that there is a world of difference between forcing an inanimate object
and overruling the will of… a human being created in the divine image, making
them do what they really do not want to do. God has re-gifted humanity with a
freedom to respond to his light via prevenient grace, but grace is resistible.
The Spirit does not compel or coerce us, but woos and entices us, helps us see
clearly what is truly best for our own happiness and holiness. I do not believe
God’s interaction with the soul–the illustration you use– is coercion or
“forcing” us. But in pointing out the dangers of divine judgment and
hell, God is still showing us the rotten fruit of our own choices and using
those consequences to reason with us. In the end, though, God will use force to
eliminate oppression and injustice and a number of other evils from his
creation when he judges the wicked. So destructive force-hurling them into a
lake of fire-must not be ultimately incompatible with holy love, since will use
exactly that kind of force in the end. In your last sentence you shift the way
you use the word “force.” “A force” is any impartation of
energy, but when I ‘force” a person, I have overwhelmed their contrary wishes
via superior physical force or threats to life or livelihood. That’s a kind of
coercion. Returning to an earlier point: do you really believe a Christian
cannot volunteer for military service or police service? Or for that matter,
would you call on Christians to practice universal civil disobedience in
nations with compulsory universal military service?
Lawson I realize other equally sincere Christians will
disagree, but yes I do not think Christians should either serve in the miltary
or as police. I don’t think Rom. 13 at all suggests otherwise, since we are
talking about a pagan governme…nt entertwined with pagan religion which a
Christian couldn’t in good conscience participate in. I think Paul and Jesus
both call us to non-violence, to following the earthly example of Christ
himself. We are not called to follow the example of God the Father in the OT.
We are called to be disciples of Jesus and follow his earthly example. I agree
with you that love is not inconsistent with discipline or even judgment in the
character of God. God however is an omniscient being. We are not. We have an
infinite capacity to get the justice issues wrong. I have sometimes thought
perhaps its alright for Christians to be chaplains or medics in the military,
but I am not entirely sure even about that. What I think is that we are called
to be a people set apart from such worldly things. Killing as a human behavior
is a result of the Fall (see Cain and Abel). It’s not God’s highest and best
for us, and its not following Christ’s earthly example.
Ben-Thanks for making your view on this clear, and
especially for acknowledging that people who see this differently are equally
sincere. I’d hope you’d also agree, equally competent and earnest readers of
scripture, which I think you do me…an here. You certainly have my great
respect and appreciation for your faith, the courageous stands you take for the
gospel in the paganized world of scholarship, and for your friendship. While I
agree that God’s perfect wisdom authorizes his use of force, and our lack of
wisdom puts a question mark over ours, my basic point of principle, that
“violent” force is not incompatible with holy love still stands. And
I respect and appreciate your strong convictions about police, even though my
own reading of the Bible leads me to think humans have an obligation with fear
and trembling, to use the power to take life or deprive persons of their
liberty or property in the maintenance of that just society. Such cannot be
undertaken lightly, but in the fear of God and with as many checks and
correctives as possible, hence the OT so strongly cautions judges about
impartiality. I do think Christians can serve their communities and serve the
kingdom by being police officers and soldiers. But I do respect you and your
views, and I’m grateful for this serious and, for me at least, fruitful
conversation. I feel I know you more deeply, which is a gain for me. I am
satisfied with the conversation and so will likely not post any more for now
unless I think of something that I can’t resist saying! Thanks again for the
gift of godly conference!
Great! A good chat. I will just add a final p.s.
I think our ways of thinking about this are actually clarified the less
Christian the larger culture really becomes. By this I mean, Christians are
always called to be in the world, but not… of the world, and in this I think
the Amish fail, as they simply withdraw from engagement with the world by and
large. I think Christians are called to provide a witness as to an alternative
King, an alternative Kingdom, a peacable one, right here and now and not just
at the eschaton, bringing forward the values of that new earth, here and now,
and foreshadowing it. In short, for the Christian, there are plenty of things
worth dying for and giving your life for, but nothing worth killing for, for
life is of sacred worth, and we are called to save it, even from itself.
And as Forest Gump says, ‘Dat’s all I got to say bout
dat’.
Read Previous Post