![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/55\/2022\/01\/419JEV1s2-L._SX322_BO1204203200_.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis particular post is an exercise in hermeneutics, as a ground-clearing exercise before going into the various essays in the volume edited by Chris Hays and C.L. Crouch (Westminister\/J. Knox, 2021).\u00a0 In the first place, what the OT says about human produced violence and what the NT says about the matter is not the same.\u00a0 And this is true in spite of the fact that the ten commandments says clearly \u2018no killing\u2019 or at least \u2018no murder\u2019 and various prophets in the OT (particularly 3rd Isaiah, among others) prophesy a day when God\u2019s people will and should beat swords into plowshares and study war no more.\u00a0 If we seek to understand why we find what we do in the OT, the clue is provided by Jesus himself who tells us, in discussing divorce (cf. Mk. 10 and Mt. 19), that various commandments in the OT were given due to the hardness of human hearts.\u00a0 In short, they were given to limit the damage humans can do to one another as fallen creatures. They were not meant to license violence of any sort. Even the \u2018an eye for an eye\u2026. a life for a life\u2019 should be read, as \u2018only an eye for an eye\u2026and so on. Again, an attempt to limit violence already happening, not license it.\u00a0 I take it as fundamental that Christians should read the OT through the lens of Jesus and the writers of the NT on such issues, at a minimum.<\/p>\n
The second hermeneutical principle is that Christians are not under the old covenant, they are under the new covenant and as should be apparent, the disciples of Jesus are to live by the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount and more broadly the ethic of forgiveness Jesus\u2019 enunciated which is the opposite of revenge taking. As Mt. 18.21-22 says: \u201cPeter came to Jesus and asked, \u201cLord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?\u201d <\/span>22\u00a0<\/sup>Jesus answered,\u00a0\u201cI tell you, not seven times, but seventy seven times.\u201d\u00a0 What is notable about this teaching is it is Jesus attempt to reverse the worst effects of the curse and human fallenness, reverse the tendency to use violence to solve human problems. The only other place one finds the number seventy-seven times in Scripture is in the Lamech story in Gen. 4.24 where Lamech vows to his kin that he will take revenge seventy seven times. Jesus is ruling out such behavior by his own disciples and instead putting in its place the ethic of unlimited forgiveness.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Sermon on the Mount of course teaches the ethic of non-resistance and turning the other cheek, as persons as diverse as Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi rightly recognized in the 20th century.\u00a0 But it is not just the eschewing of violence that the new covenant ethic insists on. It goes on to insist on loving one\u2019s enemies and praying for those who persecute you.\u00a0 This ethic is expanded and expounded upon by Paul clearly enough in the second half of Romans 12 and Romans 13.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The third hermeneutical principle that should be in play is that the ethics of Jesus and Paul and others for disciples of Christ is one thing. The ethics of the general culture is another. For example the ethics Paul speaks about for governments in Rom. 13 assumes that governments have a right to carry arms to enforce the law.\u00a0 Paul of course says this assuming that Christians will not<\/em> be in the Roman military or government for that matter, not least because worship of pagan gods and later of the emperor was required of soldiers and public figures such as senators and Christians could not do those things.\u00a0 So, the ethics that are applicable to non-Christian governors or police or soldiers are not the same thing as the ethics Christians are called upon to follow. Indeed, it is precisely in Romans 13 that Paul speaks both of the ethics of rulers, and then later of the distinctive ethics of followers of Christ.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Underlying all that discussion is the assumption that Christian ethics cannot be imposed on a non-Christian government or general public.<\/em> One has to be persuaded to follow Christ and his teachings before it becomes incumbent on that person to obey God in the person of Christ rather than rules for humans in general.\u00a0 What this has meant for many Christians throughout the ages is the following: 1) the practice of personal pacifism; 2) the abstention of Christians from serving in roles in government and the military that require the commitment to use violence when necessary.\u00a0 So for instance, as in the movie Hacksaw Ridge,<\/em> a devout 7th day Adventist could be patriotic and serve his country as a chaplain and medic during a war, but not by taking up arms.\u00a0 Similar rules would apply in regard to public service in the local police.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n As I said at the beginning of this post, the ethics of the NT in regard to these matters is not the same as the ethics of the OT. And here is one more reason why\u2014 with the sending of the Holy Spirit to Jesus\u2019 disciples a higher and more demanding code of morality and ethics is required of the followers of Jesus, because one can do more and do better by the power of the Spirit, as the Spirit renovates, renews, restores the image of God, and eliminates the effects of human fallenness internally.\u00a0 As Paul says \u2018inwardly we are being renewed day by day\u2019.\u00a0 To whom more is given (in this case the indwelling presence of the Spirit which produces the fruit\u2014 love,joy,peace patience, kindness, self-control) more is required.\u00a0 In short, the commandments in the NT go well beyond what is demanded in the OT, because Christians are to follow the teaching and the personal example of Jesus who even reminded Peter at the last \u2018those who live by the sword, die by the sword\u2019 and then proceeded to heal the servant\u2019s ear severed by Peter.\u00a0 This is the same Jesus who from the cross asked God to forgive his executioners \u2018for they know not what they do\u2019.\u00a0 Bearing these things in mind, we can better evaluate the various essays found in God and Guns.<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Footnote: I am frequently asked about Lk. 22.36-38 which reads: \u201c<\/span><\/span>36\u00a0<\/sup>He said to them,\u00a0\u201cBut now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don\u2019t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.<\/span><\/span>\u00a037\u00a0<\/sup>It is written: \u2018And he was numbered with the transgressors\u2019;\u00a0and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 38\u00a0<\/sup>The disciples said, \u201cSee, Lord, here are two swords.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s enough!\u201d<\/span>\u00a0he replied.<\/span><\/p>\n Doesn\u2019t this imply that Jesus endorses Christians to carry weapons of all sorts?\u00a0 The context here is crucial. Notice that immediately prior to this Jesus had asked his disciples if they lacked anything when they went out to evangelize, without purse, bag, and sandals (presumably extra purse etc.) and the disciples say they lacked nothing. Then we have the verses cited above.\u00a0 What Jesus is talking about is the disciples carrying a weapon for protection when they are on the road and camping out. Protection from what?\u00a0 Probably he\u2019s talking about the sort of animals who are predators that one might run into in such situations\u2013 wolves, among others.\u00a0 He is not talking about the weapons of war used on humans.\u00a0 The Greek word \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 has as its basic meaning a knife, sometimes a large knife used for cutting up meat, and for use in offering sacrifices.\u00a0 It can also mean a razor, or even a small knife for trimming one\u2019s nails.\u00a0 The normal Greek word for sword, used in battle against other humans is \u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03af or \u03be\u03af\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2.\u00a0 \u00a0It is unlikely Jesus has this in mind.\u00a0 The disciples respond that they have two such knives and Jesus says that is enough.\u00a0 If you doubt this you can look it up in the exhaustive Greek dictionary done by Montanari and entitled The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek,<\/em> p. 1287.\u00a0 The other alternatives is that, in light of the quoted Scripture, Jesus is saying that his disciples will be the transgressors in the coming scenario, and they will need swords to play that part.\u00a0 Two will be plenty to make them appear that way.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This particular post is an exercise in hermeneutics, as a ground-clearing exercise before going into the various essays in the volume edited by Chris Hays and C.L. Crouch (Westminister\/J. Knox, 2021).\u00a0 In the first place, what the OT says about human produced violence and what the NT says about the matter is not the same.\u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41568","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n