Christianity and violence

8/14/2019 Christianity and violence

1/14

ightingWordsReligion, Violence and the

In terpretation of Sacred Texts

Edited yJohn Renard

QUN IV ERSITY OF C LIF OR PRESS

Berkeley Los ngeles London


2/14

University of Californ ia Press, one of the most distinguished u ni vers itypresses in the Un ited Slates, enriches lives aroLlnd the world byadvancing schola rship in the hum anities, social sciences, and nat ur al sc iences.Its activities are supp orted by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institLltions. For more information visit \Vww.ucpress.edu.University of California PressBerkeley and Los Angeles , Ca liforniaUniversity of Ca lifornia Press , Ltd.London, England 2012 by The Regents of the University of Ca lifornia

Library of Cong ress Cataloging- in -Publication DataFighting words: religion, viole nce, and the int erp retati on of sac red texts

edited by John Renard.p. cm .

Includes bibliog raphical references and index.ISBN 978-0-520-25831-0 (cloth: alk. paper) - ISBN 978-0 52 0- 27419 -8

(pbk. : alk. paper) - ISBN 978-0-520-95408-3 (ebook)J. Violence-Religiousaspects. 2. Sacred books isto ry and

criticism. 3. Religions Relations. I Renard , John , 944BL65V55F64 2012201'76332-dc23 2012029403

Manufactured in th e Un ited S tates of America21 20 9 18 17 16 5 14 3 1210 8 6 4In keeping with a commitment to sllpport environmentally responsibleand sustainahle printing practices , VC Press ha s printed this book on50-pound Enterpr ise, a 30 post-consumer-waste, recycled, deinkedfiber t hat is processed chlorine-free, It is acid-free and meets all A NSli1>IISO (z 39.48) requ ireme nt s.
http:///reader/full/Vww.ucpress.eduhttp:///reader/full/Vww.ucpress.edu


3/14

. E. Watson,

version, and

r Ju ismnee in th

s the Bibli-n Age ed.ess, 1993),;hauowof

nl. lta .lks

(Minne

4

Violence in the N wTestamentand the istory of Interpretation

Leo D. Lefebure

Even though Jesus proclaimed a gospel of peace (Matthew 10:12-13; Luke 10:5; Joh14:27; 20:19, 21, 26), Christians have repeatedly engaged in violent conflicts bothwith their neighbors in other religious traditions and with other Christians. Christian warriors have worn the sign of the cross in battle and have often seen themselves as figh ting on behalf of God s cause; they have cited biblical passages tojustify violent assaults, inquisitions, and persecutions. Christians have also invoked the Bible to place lim its on violence or to end violence altogether.

TIle roots of this ambi valence lie in the ambiguities of the Christian scripturesand the Jewish heritage from which they emerge. The earliest followers of Jesuscontinued to read the Jewish scriptures in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Septuagint, which present both Isaiah's moving call to transform swords into ploughshares and cease training for war (Isaiah 2=4), and the brutal divine command toexterminate all the inhabitants of the Promised Land without exception lest theytempt Israelites to idolatry (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). While Jesus commands hisfollowers to love their enemies (Matthew 5:44) and respond nonviolently to evil(Matthew 5:38-42), he also engages in fierce controversies: Do not th Ilk that Ihave come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword(Matthew 10:34)1

Scriptural hermeneutics has ahYd ; S been embedded in the life-forms and practices of the Christian community, with multiple assumptions lurking in the background of every act of interpretation. The explanation of any individ ual verse presupposes a sense of the entire Bible, of the practice of the Ch ristian life, and of therelation between Christianity and other religious traditions. from Origen d. c. 254)and Augustin e (d. 430) to the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), Christian inter

75


4/14

76 LEO O. LEFEBURE

preters have insisted that any particular verse mu st be understood in light of thewhole corpus of biblical texts and the life of the Church; Origen and Augustinewarned against literal interpretations that would violate jesus s fundamentalprinciple oflove. 2 The father of modern hermeneutics, the Protestant theologianFriedrich Schleiermacher (d. 1834), stressed the twofold hermeneutical movementfrom the interpretation of a part to the interpretation of the whole. Vie interpretthe part in light of the whole, and then we reinterpret the whole in light of OUrnew understanding of the part 3

With varying degrees of self-reflection, every generation and every com mu_nity of Christians decides which biblical passages to place in the foregrou nd andwhich in the background. This principle is of particular importance concerningbiblical passages regarding peace and violence. Rabbi jonathan Sacks expressesthe challenge:

Every scriptura l canon has within it texts which, read literally, can be taken to en dorse narrow particularism, suspicion of strangers, and intolerance toward thosewho believe differently than we do. Each also has within it sources that emphasizekinship with the stranger, empathy with the outsider, the courage that leads peopleto extend a hand across boundaries of estrangement or ho stility. The choice is ours.Will the generous texts of our tradition serve as inter pretive keys to the rest, or willthe abrasive passages determine our ideas of what we are and what we are called onto do 74Complicating the task of biblical interpreters is the unresolved question of what

books should be included in the Christian scriptures. The Book of Revelation,which presents the influential combat myth of the divine warrior, was rejected bymany in the early Church; and the Byzantine Orthodox tradition to this day doesnot read this book in the liturgy.5 After centuries of debates over which bookswould be accepted as scripture, today most Christians accept the same canon ofthe New Testament, but differences persist concerning what books constitute theFirst (or Old) Testament of the Christian Bible.

Tragically, Christians have frequently had violent relationships with thoseto whom they are most closely bound by history, geography, and theology: jews,Muslims, and other Christians. This essay will examine the interpretation of NewTestament passages that have been of special importance in the conflicts with thejewish and Muslim communities and with Christians deemed here tical. The discussion will begin by surveying New Testament text s that would later be understood to justify violence, particularly those passages regarding the con fl icts ofjesus and his followers with their contemporaries, especially other jews. Becauseof the extensive scholarship on the New Testament , this discussion can offer onlythe most cursory overview of some of these texts in their original setting. Thesecond section of this chapter will examine the later history of interpretation of

IOLENCE IN Til NEW T E S T A ~ l l N T

the New Testament in relation to jews, Muslims, and dissenting Christians , withparticular attention to two themes that fueled historical Christian animosity to"rard jews and Muslims: (1) the condemnation, passion, and crucifIx ion of ) esus,which influenced Christian attitudes toward jews for centuries; and (2) sacredcombatand the figure of the Ant ichrist in New Testament apocalyptic texts, whichshaped many Christian views of Muslims from the seventh centu ry to the present.The final section will explore the hermeneutical situation of Christians readingthe New Testament in dialogue with jews in the wake ofthe Holocaust and in lightof shifts in historical scholarship regarding the origins of Christianity and Rabbinic Juda ism.

CO NF LICTS I N THE N EW TESTA ME N T:T EX TS IN THEIR O RIGI NA L CO N TE X T

Synoptic Gospels Matthew Mark and LukeIn the synoptic gospels , jesus repeatedly engages in fierce polemics against theScribes and Pharisees. When they challenge him for allowing his disciples to eatwithout washing their hands, he calls them "Hypocrites!" and severely chastisesthem (Matthew 1s:3-9; Mark Tl-8 . jesus cautions his disciples against the "yeast"of the Pharisees and Sadducees, that is, their evil corruption (Matt hew 16:5-12).jesus warns th e cro wds in jerusalem against the example ofthe Scribes and Pharisees, again accusing them of hypocrisy; they are "blind guides" Matthew 2p6,24). jesus angrily foretells the suffering that will come upon the Scribes andPharisees:

You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?Therefore I send you prophets , sages, and scribes, some of whom you will kill andcrucify, and so me you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town,so that upon you may come all the righteous blood sh ed on earth, from the bloodof h t e o L ~ .\bel to the blood ofZechariah son ofBarachiah , whom YOLI murderedbetween the sanctuary and the altar. (Matthew 23 :33-3 6)

jesus also laments the infidelity of the inhabitants of jerusalem and foretells thecoming destruction of their city (Nlatthew 23:37- 24:2; :Jark 13:2; Luke 13:34-35;21:20). Donald Senior comments on the context of) esus's polemiC against the jewish leaders in Matthew 23: "Matthew's strong critique of the jewish leaders in thispassage and els(;\.:here in the gospel also reflects th e tension between his largelyjewish Christian community and the Pharisaic leadership of formative judaism?as both communities were attempting to define themselves in the period prior toand contemporary with the composition of the gospel. Such tension and debate,while often hostile in tone, remained essentially an intra-Jewi sh debate and cannotbe und erstood as 'anti-Sem.itic' in the sense the term is used today. 6


5/14

7879

LEO D LEFEBURE

At a meal in the home of a prominent Pharisee, Jesus tells a parable of a greatroyal feast to which many persons are invited. After all the original invited guestsdecline the invitation, the master of the house orders a servant to "bring in thepoor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame (Luke 14:21). The servant does so andreports that there still is room. "Then the master said to the slave, 'Go out intothe roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may befilled' (Luke 14: 23). In the original context Jesus addresses the warning to thePharisees and lawyers with whom he is dining, hoping to gain their acceptanceof his message lest they, like the original invitees in the parable, find themselvesexcluded because of their own decision. Joseph Fitzmyer comments on the admonition: "Those who are excluded from the banquet have only themselves tothank; God will not drag the unWil ling into it against their will."7 While Jesusis here in an adversarial relationship with the Pharisees, it is important to notethat not all Jews reject Jesus: "Luke is at pains to show that some of the Palestinian contemporaries of Jesus did accept him. s Of greatest importance for thelater Christian tradition was the master's command to compel people to enterthe feast. Fitzmyer explains th at in its original con te xt the command to makepeople come to the dinner means merely that the po or and others will under-standably resist in their modesty such an invitation, until they are gently takenand led into the house. 9

The synoptic gospels were composed before the clear differentiation and separation of Jews and Christians into two distinct religions. IOMany of the first followersofJesus were Jews who accepted Jesus as Lord and Messiah; they did not see themselves as leaving the religion of Judaism in order to join another religion. Jesus'svigorous debates over Torah with Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees reflect theJewish context of his day; fie rce disagreements and sharp rhetoric were characteristic of Jewish halakhic (legal) debates before, during, and after the time ofJesus.])As Amy-Jill Le vine notes, "Jesus himself was a Jew speaking to other Jews. Histeachings comport with the tradition of Israel s prophets. Judaism has always hada self-critical component."12In his study of the historical Jesus, John Meier notesthat despite the usual adversarial tone, there are indications that some Phariseeswere open to Jesus's message and that their interactions were not all negative.1 3Inthe context of the minist ry ofJesus and of the synopti c gospels, it is not anti-Jewishfor Jesus to debate with other Jews about Jewish practice.Similarly, E. P Sanders sums up the image of Jesus in the synoptic gospels: "Thereis no good evidence th at Jesus was an anti-Jewish Jew TI1 e evidence from theGospels, however, indicates that Jesus accepted the Jewish version of ancient religion, as well as the common belief that illness and mental problems were oftencaused by demonic possession. He probably did criticize and argue with some ofhis contemporaries, but the criticisms that we find in the Gospels are rather modest

VIO LENCE IN THE NEW TE STA MEN T

in comparison to the wor ds that some of the biblical prophets, such as Amos andHosea, directe d against their contemporaries."14 The cu lmin tion ofJesus 's con fl ictwith other Jews comes at the end of hi s life, when, the go.spels repor t, Jewish leaders plotted against him and a Jewish crowd in Jerusalem demanded his death. Inthe most in famous scene of all, according to the gospel of Matthew Pilate is reluctant to accept responsibility for the execution ofJesus (Matthew 27:24); in response,the crowd in Jerusalem dem ands the death of Jesus of Nazareth. W hen Pilatedemurs, the people as a whole answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children ' (Matthew 27:25). Regarding the involvement of Jews in the condemnationand cr ucifixion of Jesus, Raymond Brown comments: "In the Christian pictu re ofwhat was done to Jesus , at first there was no thing anti-J ewish in depi cting tbe roleof the Jewish authorities in his death; for Jesus and his disciples on one side andthe Jerusalem Sanhedrin authori tie s on the other ,\'ere all Jews. The depiction ofthose Jews opposed to Jesus as plot ting evil was not d erent from the OT depiction of the wicked plotting against the innocent."IS

This does not mean that there are no tensions . Daniel Harrington notes thatsome scholars seek to minimize the problem posed by Matthew 2T25 by interpreting it as referring only to a relatively small gathering 00 ews in Jerusalem; however,Harrington observes: "But in M att 27:25 he switches to pas ho la s ("all the people").Elsewhere in his Gospel, Matthew uses laos to refer to the Jewish people taken asa collectivity. Matt hew meant more than the small group of Jews who gatheredaround Pilate's judgment seat at Passover time in A.D. 30 Given Matthew'sconcern for Christian identity within Judaism, it seems likely that for him 'a ll thepe ople' represented th e Jewish opponents of the Church."16The synopt ic gospelsproclaim that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the fulfillment of the hopes of ancient Israel. In its original context, this is not a denunciation of Judaism as a religion; but it did mean a vigorous debate with other Jews who rejected the claimsmade about Jesus by his diSCiples.

The Johannine TraditionSome of the fiercest controversies between Jesus and Jewish leaders occur in thegospel of John, where Jesus repeatedly disputes with "hoi iudaeoi, which is usually translated as "the Jews." In the climax of the argument, Jesus pointedly assertsto them: "You are from your father th e devil, and you choose to do your father'sdeSi res. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth,because there is no truth in hi m Whoever is from God hears the word s ofGod. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God (John 8:44,47-48).

Francis Moloney warns against interpreting the term hoi iudaeoi as referringto the entire Jewish people: A criti cal reading of the Johannine Gospel makes it
http:///reader/full/religions.IOhttp:///reader/full/religions.IOhttp:///reader/full/religions.IOhttp:///reader/full/religions.IOhttp:///reader/full/negative.13http:///reader/full/negative.13http:///reader/full/religions.IOhttp:///reader/full/negative.13


6/14

8180 LEO D l EFEBURE

clear that 'the Jews' are those characters in the story who have made up their mindsabout Jesus. They are one side of a Christological debate." 7 Mo loney notes thatth e fact that the Johannine Christians were being ejected from the synagogue

indicates that many members of the hannine community were also ethnicallyJewish, and committed to the religi on ofIsrael."18 In its original context, the disputeis a family quarrel that has become extremely heated19

According to the passion narrative in John, Jewish officers coopera te with Ro-man soldiers in the arrest of Jesus (18:12) and take him to the Jewish authorities,Annas and Caiaphas, to be interrogated. As in the synoptic tradition, Pilate appears reluctant to condemn Jesus but does so at the urging of the Jews" (19:6-16).The chief priests profess: "We have no king but the emperor (19:15).

As in the case of the synoptic gospels, contemporary scholarship stresses theJewish character of the fourth gospel. The Jewish scholar Adele Reinhartz comments: "The Fourth Gospel has an overall Jewish ' feel.' Jesus and most of theother characters in the Gospel are Jews, and they participate fully in the Jewishworld of early first-century Palestine . 2 oNonetheless, Reinhartz notes the problem that the Gospel ascribes a villainous role to the Jews in its historical tale,associates them with th e negative terms through the rhetoric of bi nary opposition in its Christological tale, and undermines Jewish covenantal idenlity in itscosmological tale."21

The First Letter ofTohn provides the first explicit mention of the Antichrist:Children, it is the la st hour As yo u have hea rd that antichrist is coming, so nowmany antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour.. . Who isthe liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, theone who denies the Father and the Son. 1 John 2:18, 22)In this context the antichrists are tho se who oppose the belief that Jesus is the

Christ who has come in the fl esh 1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 7); these are false teacherswho oppose the Joh an nine community and who are to be shunned. The originaluse of the term antichrist comes out of a Christological dispute over the identityoEJesus and whether th e Word had truly becomef1esh .22Antichrists are adversariesof God and of the Messiah (Christ). The term is not necessarily a title for a particular individual or a dreaded apocalyptic figure; it could simply mean "an antiChrist or opponent of Christ. 23The term comes from the dissidents' denial thatJesus was the Anointed One or the "Christ."24

Acts of the ApostlesThe death and resurrection oEJesus did not halt the cycle of controversy, for intenseand sometimes deadly conflicts between followers oEJesus and other Jews continued afterward. Accord ing to the Acts of the Apostles, the deacon Stephen, a Greekspeaking Jew who has accepted the gospel, engages in heated polemics with rep-

VIOI . ENCE I N Tl l E N E W T E STAMENT

resentatives of the synagogue of Freedmen from Cyrene, Alexandria , Cilicia,andAsia (Acts 6:9-15). In response to the charges against h im, Stephen recounts thehistOry of ancient Israel, accenting the repeated rejection of God's representativesby Israelites and Jews. Stephen sums up their sinfulness:

You stiff-necked people, uncircu mcised in heart and ears, yo u are forever opposi ngthe Holy Spirit, just as yo ur ancestors us ed to do. Which of the prophets did yo uran cesto rs not persecute? Th ey killed those who foretold the coming of the RighteOUS One, and now you have become his betrayers and murderers. You are theones that received the law as ordained by angels, and ye t you have not kept it. (ActsT51-53

The crowd then stones Stephen to death , with Saul's approval (Acts Ts8-8:1 . Inits original context, this polemiC comes in a dispute among Jews. For a Jew to reca llthe history ofJew ish infidel ity to other Jews is not anti-Jewish; it is a recapitulationof much of the Hebrew Bible with ma ny points of contact with nonbiblical Jewishliterature of the time.25 Luke Timothy Johnson notes the central purpose of thespeech: Luke seeks to legitimate the messianic appropriation of Torah by showing how Torah itselfdemanded such an appropriation. 26 1 he speech inflames thecrowd of listeners, who proceed to stone Stephen to death as the young Saul standsby approvingly (Acts Ts8 8: 1 .Later in the narrative, Acts reports that "the Jews" approved of Herod Agrippa'sdecision to kill James, the brother oEJohn, with the sword (Acts 12:2-3) Acts alsonarrates that after experiencing Ch rist on the road to Da mascus, Paul proclaimedthe message of Jesus Christ and also encountered difficulties with the Jews." InThessalonica, "the Jews became jealous, and with the help of some ruffians in themarketplaces they formed a mob and set the city in an uproar. W hile they weresearching for Paul an d Silas to bring them out to the assembly, th ey attacked Jason 'shouse" (Acts ITS , W hen Jews in Beroea proved more receptive to Paul and Silas,the Jews from Thessalonica came to stir up opposition to them (Acts 17:10 3). Itis noteworthy that Paul regularly preaches in synagogues (Acts 13:5, 14; 14: 1; J]:1,10), and th at when he speaks at the Areopagus in Athens, he appears as a Jew ishphilosopher27Later in the narrative there are said to be thousands of believersamong the Jews" (Acts 21:20; but Jewish opposition to Paul also continues as well,even to the pOint of violent attempts to kill him (Acts 21:27-3 1]).

Pauline LettersPaul's letters include a number of statements that reflect conflicts with Jews, mostnotably in Thessalonica, the same place where th e Acts of the Apostles also reportstrouble:

For you , brothers and sisters, became imitato rs of the churches of Go d in ChristJesus th at are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your ow n compatriots
http:///reader/full/f1esh.22http:///reader/full/f1esh.22http:///reader/full/f1esh.22http:///reader/full/f1esh.22http:///reader/full/Christ.23http:///reader/full/Christ.23http:///reader/full/f1esh.22http:///reader/full/Christ.23


7/14

8382 LEO D. LEFEBUREas they did { rom the Jews, who killcd both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, anddrove us out; they displease God and oppose e\'cryoue y hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been fillingup the measure of their sins; but God's wrath has overtaken them at last. 1 'Thessalonians 2:14-16)

This passage, which appears in \ ,hat is quite possibly the oldest surviving Christian text, resembles the Johannine usage of the Jews and Stephen's linkage ofearlier Jewish persecution of the prophets to their involvement in the killing ofJesus. t is very harsh in its assessment of Jewish behavior past and present. t is,however, not characteristic of Paul's other writings and poses manypuzzles. 28 EarlRichard contends: The expression 'the Jews ' is non-Pau line in its negative usage. 29Full discussion of the difficult exegetical issues invol ved exceeds the limi ts of thisessay; Richard and many other interpreters believe that this passage is an interpolation by a later Gentile Christian writing after the destruction of the Templein 70 C.E.: The author is post-Pauline and is writing from a Gentile-Christianperspective which one should characterize as anti-Je wish The plight of the Jews.following the destruction ofJerusalem and later dispersal from Palestine, is seenas the result of divine retribution finally being meted out for centuries of hostilitytoward God and the whole ofhumanity. 3o Gerd Ludemann, however, pointedlydisagrees, arguing that this passage on no account derives from a subsequentaddition by an alien hand. 31 Ludemann acknowledges that th is passage contradictsPaul's hope for the salvation of all Israel in Romans 11:25-26, but he believes Paulchanged his mind in the intervening years.

While Paul assumes that the Church comprises both Jews and Gentiles, he writesvery critically about the lack of understanding of Jews who do not accept Jesus:

The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry of death, chiseled inletters on stone tablets, came in glory so that the people of Israel could not gaze atMoses ' face because of the glory of his face . a glory now set aside, how much morewill the ministry of the Spirit come in glory' But their minds were hardened.Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of th e old covemnt, that sameveil is still there, since on y in Ch rist is it set aside. Ind eed. to this ver) day wheneverMoses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one turns to the Lord, the veilis removed. (2 Corinthians 3:6 -8, 14-16)

Jan Lambrecht comments on the meaning of this passage in its original context:The old covenant is the ministration of death and condemnation; because of the

absence of the Spirit it is only engraved on tablets of stone. No Jew who was not aChristian would speak in this way. It is a Jewish Christian who looks back on hisnon-Christian Jewish past. 32

Writing to the Galatians, Paul interprets the Genesis account of Abraham,Sarah, Isaac, Hagar, and Ishmael allegorically as a basis for rejecting his opponents

VIOl. E N CE I N T H E NE W TE S TA M ENT

,,,ho insist on observance of the Mosaic Law. Paul urges the Galatians to followthe example ofAbraham an d drive outthe slave woman and her son lest th ey sharein the inheritance of the free son:

NoW this is an allegory: these two women are two covenants. One woman , in fact,is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. Now Hagar is Mount Sinaiin Arabia and corresponds to the present jerusalem, for she is in slavery with herchildren. But the other woman corresponds to the jerusalem above; she is free andshe is our mother . Now you, my friends , are children of the promise, like Isaac.But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecutedthe child who waS born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does th escriptu re say? Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will notshare the inheritance wit h th e child of the free woman. So then. friends, we arechildren , not of the slave but of the fre e woman. (Galatians 4: 2 4- 3 1)While commentators have often understood the present Jerusalem to refer to

Judaism and the heavenly Jerusalem to refer to Christianity, Frank J. Matera, following the lead of J. L. Martyn, argues persuasively that this is not the contrastPaul intends: Paul talks about the children of two different apostolates: his circumcision-free apostolate and the circumcision-apostolate of the agitators. Animportant aspect of this approach is Martyn's insight that Paul is not referring tothe religions ofJudaism and Christianity in the Hagar-Sarah allegory but to JewishCh risti ans who insist upon the Law and Gentile Christians of a Pauline persuasionwho do not. In other words, this passage reflects a struggle between two factionsof early Christianity rat her than opposition between Christianity and Judaism. 33Paul is not calling for the expulsion of Jews or of Je\\' ish Christians as such; hisfocus is specifICally on his opponents in Galatia, the agitators who insist on observance of the full Mosaic La w in opposition to the agreement in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:3-10)34Scholars disagree on whether Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians or whether it waswritten by a later follower after his death 35 The letter warns of a coming lawlessone, described as the son of destruction (2:3; N RSV: the one destined fordestruction ; KJV: son of perdition ) who will play an important role in theevents of the end -time . To Christians who are concerned about claims regardingthe com ing of Jesus, the letter urges not to be quickly shaken in mind oralarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effectthat the day of the Lord is already here (2:2). This day will not happen until afterthe son of destruction has come and defiled the temple: He op poses and exaltshimself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seatin the temple of God, declaring himself to be God. (2:4). In this context theSOn of destruction refers to a human being, not to Satan l6 The author may bethinking of a false t eacher in the threatened situation of Christ.ians of the firstcentury C.E. , or possibly of an historical figure such as Antiochus IV, Pompey,
http:///reader/full/puzzles.28http:///reader/full/puzzles.28http:///reader/full/puzzles.28http:///reader/full/puzzles.28http:///reader/full/puzzles.28http:///reader/full/puzzles.28


8/14

8584 LEO D. LEFEllURl '

or Caligula, who desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem. 37 ~ h e letter assumes a timeof conflict and crisis, as Bonnie Thursto n notes: "The writer of 2 Thessa loniansknows that the mystery oflawlessness is active because evil has not yet reachedits zenith."38

ook RevelationThe Book of Revelation also reflects tension s between Jews and followers ofJesus,but this does not mean that it i s anti-Jewish. The author was mo st likely Jewish,possibly from Judea 9 The work assume s that followers of Jesus are withirr thecommunity of Jews. Peder Borgen proposes that John builds on traditions,thought-categories, and outlooks held by segments of Jewish people, and that hetransforms them on the basis of beliefin Jesus Christ. The book reflects a situationin which Christians understood themselves to be a distinct group within a Jewishcontext, and even thought themselves to be the true Jews. 40

The prophet John sees a vision of one like the Son of Man (Revelation 1:13) andhears his mes sage to the church in Smyrna: "I know your affliction and yourpoverty, even though you are rich. 1know the slander on the par t of tho se whosay that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2:9) .There has been much debate over the referent of the phrase "syn agogue ofSatan."4IAdela Yarbro Collins comments on the original context in Smyrna: "The attackon the Jews in th e sa me context (vs 9) is an indication that some Christians inSmyrna were probably accused before the Roman governor by Jews. According toEusebius, Jewish ci tizens of Sm yrna assisted the Roman authorities in convictingand executing some Christians in about 160, including the bishop, Polycarp. Thusthe statement that the Jews of Smyrna are a synagogue Satan is a rem ark bornout of strife and controversy. It is not an expression of anti-Semi.tism. The title'Jew' is respected; in fact, it is claimed for the followers of Christ."42 Similarly, thechurch in Philadelphia is addressed: "I will make those of the synagogue of Satanwho say that they are Jews and are not, but are lying-I will make them come andbow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you" (Revelation3:9). The message to Philadelphia also implies a si tuation in which Jews have opposed followers of Jesus. Collins comm ents: As in the message to Smyrna , controversy is reflected here over who are the legitimate Jews. Members of the localsynagogue probably had expelled the Christians when they refused to change theirminds about Jesu s. 4

In the context of a Jewish Christian communitythreatened actuallyor potentiallyby the mighty Empire of Rome, the Book of Revelation renewed the ancient visionof a holy war fought by God and th e angels against tbe forces of evil in the world!4

Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Fa ithfuland True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. . , . He is clothed in a robe

VIOL E NC E I N T I-I E NE W S T A ~ E

dipped in blood, and his name is called jhe Word of God, And the armies of heaven,wearing fi ne lin en, white and pu re, were following him on white horses. (Revelation19:11,13-14)

At the climax of the battle, the leaders of the evil annies are thrown alive into thelake of fire that bu rns with sulfur (Revelation W20 . "All the rest were killed bythe sword of the rider on the horse, the sword that came from bis mouth, and allthe birds were gor ged with their flesh " (19:21). TI1e Book of Revelation promisesChristia ns in the late first cen tu ry c, E. that their enemy, a mighty evil empire, willbe destroyed and justice will at la st be establi shed ; C hristian s who have beenfaithful th rough their trials will exult triumphantly in heaven (RevelationIS:J-l9:S).

VAR IETIES OF EX EG ESI S IN THE LATER C HRISTIA N l RAD ITIONGeneration after generation of Christi ans looked to the New Te stament for guidance in their struggles against tho se with whom th ey disagreed, both thos e withinthe Christian com munity and w ithout, A complete survey would require vo lumes; this discussion 'ill briefly Dote some aspects of the history of interpretation of the Ne w Te stament in rel ation to Jews, Muslims, and other Christiansviewed as here tical.

Relations with ewsDuring the first centuries of the Common Era, there developed a complex, overlapping, and troubled network of relationships between Jews and Christians. Forcenturies, many believers considered themse lves to be Jewish followers of Jesus.Recent studies have documented that Jewish-Christian practice was more widespread and long-lasti ng than had previously been thought45 For Jewish Christiansor Chris tian Jews, there was no contradiction between being Jewish and followingthe path ofJesus: "th ey insi sted that there was no need to choose between beingChristians or Jews. Indee d, for them it was an altogether fa lse choice."46However,the vcry existence of the Jewish Christian c ommunity posed a grave threat to theJewish and the Christian elites, John Gager notes that according to the SOC iology ofconflict, the rul e holds that the closer the relationship between two parties thegreater the potential for conflict , In other words , whenev er we encounter polemicalJ nguage or the rhetoric of separation, we should look close to bome for its source,47Jews who believed in Jesus claimed to be the tru e Christians and the tr ue Jews;because of this claim, they posed a threat to Jews and Christians who sought todraw clear boundary lines betwee n th ese communities,

were, to be sure, numerous Jews who were not in any way followers of


9/14

8687

LEO D. I .EFEBURE

Jesus; but increasingly Jewish scholars have recognized how important relationswith Christians were for the formation of Rabbinic Judaism 4 8 There were alsoChristians such as Marcion d. c. 160) and the Gnostics who radically opposedJudaism, rejected the Hebrew Bible, and even denied that the God of Israel wasthe God of Jesus Christ. 49 However, most Christians refused to follow Marcioor the Gnostics and continued to read the Jewish scriptures, usually in the form ofthe Septuagint, as the First Testament of the Christian Bible. This set up a fierce,multisided debate over the interpretation of their Jewish heritage.

In the often angry arguments of these debates, early Christian writers producedanti-Jewish works, known collectively as contra Judaeos or adversus Judaeos"Against the Jews." This tradition engaged in furious verbal polemics against Jews,long before there was physical violence. As we have seen, the writings in the NewTestament are originally Jewish texts and reflect the intense debates among Jewsin the first century C. E. During the succeeding centuries , Christians increasinglyinterpreted these texts in ways that impugned Judaism itselfand all Jews who didnot accept Jesus as Lord and Messiah. Alan Segal comments: "After Christianityseparated from Judaism, the polemical passages in the New Testament were readin an unhistorical way, as testimony of hatred between two separate religions,when they should have been read as strife between two sects of the same religion."5oAn entire web of anti-Jewish presuppositions came increasingly to form the backdrop for traditional Christian theology and practice. Interpreting the New Testament conflicts ofJesus and the Pharisees in light of their own situations centurieslater, Christians often viewed all Jews as hypocrites who fundamentally misinterpreted the Law of Moses. In the second century C. E., Justin Martyr d. c. 5)16debated with a Jew named Trypho. Continuing the style of argument of 2 Corin-thians 3, Justin cited passages from the Hebrew Bible, taunting, "Aren 't you acquainted with them, Trypho? You should be, for they are contained in yourScriptures, or rather not yours, but Ours. For we believe and obey them, whereasyou, though you read them, do not grasp their spirit."51

At the center of eady Christian reproaches of Jews was the drama of Jesus'scondemnation and death. In the late second century, Melito of Sardis d. c. 190)composed the first Christian meditation On Pascha that has come down to us.Inspired by the gospels, especially Matthew and John, Melito ponders the guilt ofthe Jewish people for the death of Jesus in moving rhetorical phrases:

But you cast the vote of opposition against your Lord,Whom the gentiles worshipped ,At whom the uncircumcised marveled,Whom the foreigners glorified,Over whom even Pilate washed his hands;For you killed him at the great feast.Therefore the feast of unleaven ed bread is bitter for you ..

VIOL ENC E IN THE NE W TE ST AMEN T

You ki1led the Lord in the middle ofJerusalem ..'lb erefore, Israel,You did not shudder at the prese nce of thi.: Lord;So you have trembled , embattled by foes:;2

Later generations of Christians often saw virtually all Jews throughout theaaes as rejecting God and God's messengers and as misunderstanding the covoenant gi ve n through Moses. For centu r ies Christians interpreted the words ofthe crowd in Matthew 2T25 as testify ing to the collective guilt of Jews for killingCh rist and attempting to kill God Y Not long after Melito, Origen commented:"Tllerefore th ey [the Jews) not only became guilty of the blood of the prophets ,but also filled up the measure of their fathers and became guilty of the bloodof Christ. Therefore the blood of Jesus came not onl y upon those who livedformerl y but also upon all subsequent generations of Jews to the consum ma tion."H The only way for Jews to escape gUilt was to accept baptism and becomeChristian.

Eusebius of Caesarea d. c. 340) interpreted the sufferings of the Jews duringthe Jewish revolt of 66-73 C E as "the penalty laid upon the Jews by divine justicefor their crimes against Christ."55 Similarly, Augustine interpreted the Jews'lossof an ,ndep( ndent kingdom and dispersal among the nations as a punishment forkilling Christ: "And if they had not sinned against Him, seduced by impious curiosity as ifby magic arts, falling away into the worship of strange gods and idols,and at last putting to death the Christ, they would have remained in the samekingdom which, even if it did not grow in extent, would have grown in happiness."56Later in the fourth century, probably between 366 and 384, the unknown authorreferred to as Ambrosiaster linked the Son of Perdition of 2 Thessaloni ans 2:3 tothe Jews. As Kevin Hughes notes, Ambrosiaster interprets the text of 2 Thessalonians to m ean that the Son of Perd ition will "either be born of the Jews or becomea Jew, so that the Jews may believe in him."s7 In this reading, the Son of Perditionbecomes a menacing Jewish figure who will lead astray some Christians and allJews during the apocalyptic struggles of the end-time.

FollO Wng Paul's model in 2 Corinthians 3, Augustine believed that an obscuring ve il covers the min ds ofJews when the y read the scriptures Against Faustus[2.11); Jesus Christ un veils the mysteries for Christians through his death, but theJews who killed Christ receive no benef1t from this because they fail to believeCity of God 18-46)58 Concerning policy toward Jews, Augustine cited Psalm 59:11:

"Thou shalt not slay them, lest they should at last forget Thy Law; disperse themin Thy might."' Augustine insisted that Jews be allowed to live as unwilling witnesses to Christ: "it is for the sake of such testimony, with which, even againsttheir wlll, they [the Jews) furnish us by haVing and preserving those books, thatthey themselves are scattered throughout all the nations."6o By viewing the Jews
http:///reader/full/Christ.49http:///reader/full/Christ.49http:///reader/full/Christ.49


10/14

88 89LEO D LEFEBUREas unwilling witnesses who must survive, Augustine's doctrine effectively protected th em for centuries, albeit in subordinate positions in Christian societies.

John Chrysostom (d . 407) bitterly attacked Christians in fourth-century Antioch who attended synagogues and practiced Jewish rituals. Chrysostom understood the statement of the crowd in Matthew 27:25 to apply to the Jews of his ownday, exclaiming pointedly to Christians who worshipped with Jews: Is it not tollyfor th ose who worship the crucified to celebrate festivals with those who crucifiedhim? This is not only stupid-it is sheer madness. 61Chrysos tom drew the conclusion that Jews could not share in salvation and that their sufferings were God'spunishment: You Jews did crucify him. But after he died on the cross, he thendestroyed your city; it was then that he dispersed your people; it was then that hescattered your nation over the face of the earth. 62 Chrysostom cited Stephen'sreproach to the Jews in Acts 7:51 as applying to the Jews of his day as wel1.63 RobertW ilken comments on the rhetor ical style of Chrysostom:

John will cite a text from the New Tes tament to make his polemi cal point; then,acknowledging that Jews do not accept the authority of the New' Testament, he im-mediately cites a pas sage from the Jewish proph ets, ostensibly making a similarpoint. . . . The techniqu e, however, is the same-exaggeration, insinuation, gUilt byassociation. Chance phrases in the Bible are singled out be cause they merge eas ilywith the rh etoricallanguage 6 4During the first millennium of Christianity, the violence di rected against Jews

was for th e most part rhetorical. Jews were generally in inferior positions inChristian-ruled societies, but there were no Widespread physical attacks againstthem. This situation changed in the eleventh century, after Europeans learned thatin 1009 Muslims had destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.In the wake of these reports, Jews in Europe were accused of urging the Fatimidcaliph AI-Hakim bi-Amr Allah to destroy the sacred shrine of Christ's tomb. Asa result, Rodolphus Glaber reports, in 1010 C.E. ma ny Jews were expelled fromtheir home s or killed, and some took their own lives 65

Conditions for European Jews worsened after Pope Urban II proclaimed theFirst Crusade against the Muslims who controlled the Holy Land. In the springof 1096 some crusaders launched attacks on Jews in France and Germany, killingthousands of them , es pecially in the Rhineland. While the Jewish scholar RobertChazan finds no evidence that Pope Urban intended the crusade to target the Jews,he notes the danger in the situation: The notion of holy war against the enemies ofChristendom could readily suggest that, of all the enemies of Christendom, nonewas more heinous and hence more properly an object of Christian wrath than theJews To eleventh century Christians, the Muslims merely denied Jesus, whilethe Jews were responsible for his death. 66 Christians generally believed that Godhad abandoned the Jews; this was thought to be demonstr ated by their weakness

VIO LEN CE IN TlIE NE W T E ST A I E N T

in the face of attacks. W hen crusaders attacke d the defenseless Jews in 1096, thiswas taken as further proofof God 's judgment. Even Christians who tri ed to protectthe Jews from the crusaders interpreted the violence against Jews as God 's abandonment of th em .6;According to a Jewish recollection, one of the crusaders attacking Jews in Mainzreportedly exclaimed: A ll this the Crucifi ed has done for us , so that we mightavenge his blood on the Jews. 68 Christopher Tyerman sees th e popular, apocalypticvisiona ry preacher Peter the Hermit as most likely responsible for inciting the violence against Jews: Part of the motive for the massacres of the Rhineland Jewsidenti fi ed in Jewish sou rces was a crude , vi ndictive and , 'iolent assertion of Christian supremacy and lust for vengeance for Chri st Crucified; many of these pogromswere the work of contingents associated with Peter. That there was little or no suchbarbaric persecution of Jews by the armies recruited by Urban and his agents maypoint to a distinct di fference of tone and content in Peler 's preaching. 69

For centuries, Christian celebrations of the death of Jesus during Holy Weekled to attacks on the Jews.'o Even in the twentieth century, children in Asturias inth e northern part of Sp ain would chant: Marra no Jews: you killed God, now wekill you, Thieving Jews: fir st you kill Christ and now you come to rob Christians. ?lRitual attacks often led to physical attacks on Jews , but did not int end to destroythe Jews completely. David Nirenberg comments: By alluding to and containingthe original act of vengeance at the foundation of Christian-Jewish relations in thediaspora, Holy Week attacks flirted with but ultimately avoided the rep etition ofthat violence in contemporary society. 72 Nonetheless, ritual accusations of Jewsrepeatedly led to physical attacks on them .

Relations with \ juslims: Sacred Combat and CrusadeFrom the beginning , the relations of Christians and Muslims involved militarycombat. In the seventh century C.E., Christians in the M iddle East experiencedthe onslaught of Arab Muslim armies on the warpath. Patriarch Sophronius (d.638) of Jerusalem interpreted the Muslims' initial victories in the Holy Land asGod's punishment of Christians for their sins?3

By the end of the seventh century, an anonymous writer known as PseudoMethodius had produced an apocalyptic interpretation of Muslims that wouldshape Christian attitudes for centuries .'4 Pseudo-Methodius wrote in Syriac in thelate seven th centur y C. E. under the pse udonym of the revered fourth-centurymartyr who was bishop of Olympus in Lycia and \\h0 was killed in the Romanpersecutions in 312 C E he Apocalypse o Pseudo Methodius interprets the ArabMuslim triumph s as part of the ongoing drama of the four kingdom s describedby Daniel, giving hop e to Christians that in the end they will share in Christ's finaltriumph over their enemies. Ps eudo-Methodius sees the Ish maelites (i.e., theArab Mu slims) as prepar ing the way for the Son of Perdition. Their victories are


11/14

9190 LEO D. LEFEBURE

not due to their righteousness or God's favor but rather to the sinfulness of Chris_tians: Similarly with these children ofIshmael: it was not because Go d loves themthat he allowed them to enter the kingdom of the Christians, but because of thewickedness and sin which is performed at the hands of the Christians, the like ofwhich has not been performed in any of the former generations. 75

Much of Pseudo-Method ius 's reflection turns on the application of 2 Thessa_lonians 2:3 to his situation: This is the chastisement of which the Apostle spoke:'The chastisement must come first, only then will that Man of Sin, the Son ofDestruction, be revealed.' "76 Pseudo-Methodius understands Jesus's parable ofthe wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30) to explain that the sufferings of Christians must increase so that the faithful m y be tested and known?? But after thissuffering, the king of the Greeks shall go out against them in great wrath ," bringing destruction to the Ishmaelites and peace to Christians, a peace unprecedentedin the history of the world.78There will , however, be more suffering when the kingof the Greeks dies and the Son of Perdition appears and works the signs of deception foretold by Jesus (Matthew 24:24). The Son of Perdition will then take his seatin Jerusalem. But at the Advent ofour Lord from heaven he wi be delivered overto 'the Gehenna of Fire' (Matthew 5:22) and to 'outer darkness,' where he will beamidst 'weeping and gnashing of teeth'" (Matthew 8:12). 9

For Pseudo-Methodius, Muhammad is a forerunner of the Antichrist andthe Son of Perdition; but the king of the Greeks, the Last Emperor (i.e., the Byzantine Emperor), brings hope for faithful Christians. Since the ultimate victory ofChrist is assured, Pseudo-Method ius urgently encourages Christians to resist theMuslims and continue the struggle against them through all hardships. PseudoMethodius opposes any form of collaboration or acceptance of Muslim rule.soBernard McGinn comments on the role of apocalyptic interpretations of difficulthistorical events:

One of the characteristics ofapocalyptic eschatology is its drive to find meaning incurrent events by see ing them in light of the scenario of the end. Such a posteriori,or after-the-fact, uses of apocalypticism are often reactions to major historicalchanges (like the conversion of the Empire or the rise of Islam) that do not fit intothe rec eived view of providential history. By making a plac e for such events in thestory of theend, the final point that gives all history meaning, apocalyptic eschatology incorporates the unexpected into the divinely foreorda ined and gives it pennanent significanceShe Apocalypse oj Pseudo-Methodius was translated into Greek and circulated

widely for centuries, becoming the third most important apocalyptic text formedieval Christians, after the biblical books of Daniel and Revelation8 It wasstill being reprinted and distributed a millennium later in 1683, when the Ottomanarmy was besieging Vienna83

VlO . E N C E IN THE NE W T ES T AM ENT

Medieval Christians repeatedly interp reted Muham mad either as the Antichristor as a forerunner of the n t i c h r i s t A long tradition in Latin Christianityreflected on the meaning of the Antichrist in relation to the Son of Perdition of 2Thessalonians.85n calling for a new Crusade in 1213, Pope Innocent III condemned;VIuhammad as the Son of Perdition (2 Thessalonians 2:3); Innocent expected himto have a reign of 666 ~ a r s almost all of which had already passed8 MedievalChristians applied the term from the Book of Revelation synagogues of Satanto Musli Apo calyptic imagery inspired Christians to fight against their Muslim adversaries for centuries, offering hope of eschatological vindication even inthe most hopeless of earthly situations.

In the long struggle against Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula, James theApostle, the son of Zebedee, became the heavenly patron in battle. Jesus had nicknamed James the son of thunder (Ma rk 3:q , apparently because he and hisbrother John wanted Je sus to call down thunder on th ose who rejected him (Luke9:54). Even though Jesus sharply rebuked his fiery disciple for his temper (Luke9:55), medieval Christians honored James for his ferocity, and he became the patronof Spain. According to legend, he miraculously intervened in the battle of Clavijoin 844, when Ramiro I of Asturias was leading Christians in battle against Muslimsled y the Emir of Cordoba. James's heavenly assistance in battle earned him thenew sobriquet Matamoros, the Moor-slayer who kills the enemies of Christ. Thechurch built in his honor at Compostela, where his remains were allegedly discovered, was one of the most important pilgrimage places ofEurope8s .

Decontextualized quotations from the Bible played an important role in thetheology of holy war throughout the Middle Ages. Christopher T),erman notesthe usual practice of biblical interpretation at the time of the First Crusade: "As ithad developed by the begin ni ng ofits second millennium in western Christendom,Christianity was only indirectly a scriptural faith. The foundation texts of the Oldand New Testaments were mediated even to the educated through the prism ofcommentaries y the so-called Church Fathers. 89 Individual sayings were oftentaken out of their original context and applied to situations undreamed of by thebiblical authors.

I n particula r, the challenge of applying the paCific teachings of Jesus to practicalsituat ions in a warlike world was acute. Even though medieval Christians honoredthe iren ic ideals of Jesus as noble principles, they often applied them to private,personal relations while looking to the battles of the Hebrew Bible and the Bookof Revelation for guidance n the ir public affairs 9 C Medieval Christians frequentlyimagined Jesus as a warrior in conflict with his adversaries and interpreted hisharsh words as justification for their own attacks on opponents. The Christianimagination transformed the Prince of Peace into tlie Heroic Warrior of SacredCombat. Wa rs were, after all, waged in order to establish a just peace. An earlyEnglish poem, The Dream ojthe Rood, calls Jesus the Warrior . . . the Mighty King,
http:///reader/full/world.78http:///reader/full/world.78http:///reader/full/8:12).79http:///reader/full/8:12).79http:///reader/full/Thessalonians.85http:///reader/full/Thessalonians.85http:///reader/full/Thessalonians.85http:///reader/full/world.78http:///reader/full/8:12).79http:///reader/full/Thessalonians.85


12/14

939 LEO D. LEFEBURELord of Heavens and the Wielder ofTriumphs. 91 Charlemagne appeared as theideal Christian warrior, who asked the pope to pray that he might defeat his enemies by the arms ofFaith. 92 Ideals of chivalry com bined monastic-style devotionto Christ with the warrior 's courage in fighting for justiceY'

At the center of th e imagery of the First Crusade was Jesus's com mand to takeup one's cross and follow him (Matthew16:24). The holy war [against Muslims] wasperceived and possibly designed to revolve around Matthew 6 : 2 4 . For centur iesthe cru sades took shape as a concrete way to accept this challenge . This was thetext referred to in the deal between the south-east German abbey of Gbttweig andWolfker of Kuffern, who had decided to join the march to Jerusalem in lO96 because 'he wanted to fulfill th e Gospel command, who wishes to follow me.' 95

The sacred combat of the Book of Revelation was of particular importance inthis process. Earthly enemies were repeatedly seen as the Son of Perdition, theAntichrist, or their accomplices .The bloody images of batt le ofthe Book of Revelation shape the accoun ts of the sack of Jerusalem by the First Crusade in 1099.Raymond of Aguilers described the scene on the Temple Mount after the crusaders' victory: it is sufficient to relate that in the Temple of Solomon and the porticocrusaders rode in blood to the knees and bridles of their horses. 96 Tyerman notes:Raymond was quoting Revelation 14:20: And the winepress was trodden witho ut

the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles.' t ishard to exaggerate the dependence of Raymond s contemporaries on the Scripturefor imagery and language. 97

Relations with Christian HereticsJesus's parable of the great d inner (Luke 14:16-24) played a major role in the treatment of Christian heretics. In the original tale, the host respects the free decisionof the original guests; since they declined the invitation, they will no t share in thefeast. However, the later group that is to be found in the highways and byways isto be compelled to come to the feast. In one of the most influenti al interpretationsin all of Christian history, Augustine cited the command of the master in Jesus'sparable of the great d inner (Luk e 14:23) to justify forcing heretics into unity, or atleast conformity, with the Catholic Church98 Where the host in the parable respects the freedom of his original invitees, the later Christian tradition would drawthe exact opposite conclusion and attempt to force dissenters to embrace orthodoxChristian teaching and practice. During the controversy with the Donatists, Augustine interpreted the third invitation in the parable to go into the highways andhedges as. applying to heretics and schismatics99 For Augustine, after the churchbecame established as a power in society, it had the responsibility and duty torepress heresy and compel heretics to conform to Catholic belief and practice. Thisinterpretation ,,,ould later serve as the charter for the Catholic Inquisition. Oo

Du ring th e first millenni um of Christian ity, there was relatively little persecu-

V IO LEN CE I N T HE NE W T E STAMENT

tion of heresy. This too changed in the second millennium. In 1208, faced with themost widespread movement of Christian dissent in centuries, Pope Innocent [IIrequested the king and nobilit y of France to attack the Cathars in the south offrance.IU Wh ile the king declined, m any nobles accepted the challenge andslaughtered the inhabitants of Beziefs , regardless ofilheir religiOUS conviction, in1209. 'TIle Papal Inquisition was later established in 1233 to find the survivingCathars. Crusades were called not only against external enemies but also againstthose who claimed to be within the Christian community.

In consideTing whether or not unb elieve rs sho uld be compelled to believe,Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) first notes that John Chr ysostom interp i'eted Jesus'sparable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 2}:38) as teaching that heretics shouldnot be slain; but Thomas counterbalances this ( sed contra ) with Jesus's commandin Luke 14 :23 to compel them to come in. Aquinas argues that those who neverreceived the faith, such as heathen and Jews, shou ld not be compelled to thefaith. However, he fo llows the precedent of Augustine on hereti cs and apostatesand argues that heretics and a ll apostates . .. should be submitted even to bodilycompulsion, that tbey may fulfill what they have promised, and hold what they,at one time, received.I02Later, Aquinas specifies that if the heretic is obstinate,the Church no longer hoping for his conversion looks to the salvation of others,

byexcommunicating him and separating him from the Church, a nd furthermoredelivers h im to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world bydeath. JU3The combined authority of Augustine and Aquinas in int erpreting Luke14:23 provided a theological justification for the Inquisition and persecution ofheretics for cent uries.Medieval Popes applied the imagery of the Antichrist to their enem ie s, mostnotably to the Empero r Frederick Hohenstaufen. Gregory IX (d. 1241) queried:What other An tichrist should we await, when, as is evident in his works, he is

already come in the person of Frederick? lo4 Once the prinCiple of labeling anopponent an A ntichrist was es tablished, applications multiplied, iricluding tothe pope himse lf. Martin Luther (d. 1546) famously saw the pope as the Ant ichrist;since he also came to see Muhammad and Muslims as associated with the Antichrist , his followers developed a dual doctr ine of both pope and Turk as AntichristsWS Such applications fueled repeated battles among Christians.

R ES ULTS OF EXEGESIS THROUGH HISTORICAL EXAMPLE: JEWSAN D CHRISTl A N S READI l\ G THE N EW TEST AM E N T TO G ETHER

The her meneutical situation rega rd ing the New Testament ch anged drama ticallyduring the second half of the twentieth century. One factor lay in the atrocities ofthe Sboah (Holocaust). W hile the 1\azi ideology and crimes were profoundly antiChristian, many Christians and Jews recognized that centuries of Christian

94 LEO D. l .EF EIlURE


13/14

95vilification of the Jews had tragically prepared the w y for Nazi propaganda andatrocities I06 Another major factor has been the awareness that the Jewish andChristian communities did not neatly divide into two religions during the firstcentury C.E., as had often earlier been assumed. In this changed exegetical situation, descriptive and normative investigations intert wine . Jews and Christians indialogue with each other have sought to und erstand New Testament text s.

Perhaps the mo st problematic passage of all is Matthew 27:25 : "His blood beupon us and on our children." The Jewish scholar Steven 1 Jacobs strongly criticizes thi s statement:

From an historical perspective, Jews simply cannot affirm the accuracy of Matthew27:25 A religious tradition that continues to asse rt the sanctity of the family as thebas ic unit and bUilding block of soc iety, and primacyofchildren to make that familywhole, cannot abide a verse and scenario that not only degrades those Jew s whowere questionably present, but pu ts into their mouths a curse upon their own children, thei r children's children, and all generations to come.Evengranting that therewere those Jews possibly in leagu e with the Romans and those duplicitous Jew ishleaders interes ted in cozying up to their Roman oppressors, the announcement isitsel f so horrend ous as to defy credibility, and mu st, therefo re , be rejected as a truedepiction of events. 107

Jacobs demands that Christians recognize the complicity of this passage in preparing for the Shoah and drop the statement from the lectionary that is used in worshipser vices. lOS

A number of Ch ri stian theologians have reflected on this challenge. RosemaryRadford Ruether makes a very harsh judgment on the Jewish Christian communitythat produced Matthew 27 :25: "By the second decade of its mission it had come tobel ieve th at Judaism, represented by its dominant religious consciousness, washopelessly apostate and represented a heritage of apostasy which merited its rejection." 109 David Tracy acknowledges the problem, proposing that "anti-Judaicstatements of the New Testament bear no authoritative status for Chr istianity .The heart of the: few Tes tament message- the love who is God-should releasethe demythologizing power of its own prophetic meaning to rid the New Testament and Christianity once and for a ll of these statements."IlO

Clark Williamson, following Luke Timothy Johnson , int erprets the statementas typ ical of the rh etoric ofthat age: "Realizing that this kind of slander was common parlance, th at every bod y did it, relativizes our version of slander. . .. Theproblem with th e New Te stament is that it is too mu ch like other literature fromits time and place W ithout denying the intensity of th e slander against theJews that is found in pa rts of th e New Testament, we should regard this calumnyas typical of what passed for ' interreligiOUS ' discourse at the t ime and as reflectinganimosities that occurred in the late first cen tury."lll

VI O l. E NCE I N T HE N E W TEST AM E N T

Daniel Harrington also recommends contextual interpretation: "Matthew27:11- 16 (and especially 27:25) is a major text in the hi story and present reality ofChristian-Jewish relation s. Teachers and preachers have a serious obligation towork through this text with care and objectivity. Above all it is necessary toread Matt J: 5 CHis blood be upon us and upon our children ') in its Mattheansetting, not as applying to all Jews at all times or to ju st the small percentage ofjews in jerusalem who themselves in Jesus' trial before Pilate. TheMatthean setting involves both the time ofje sus and the time after A.D. 70, andit is rooted in an inner-jewish quarrel."ll2

Raymond Brown notes a problem in the tex t, but doubts that contex tualizationreally solves the difficulty: "One can benevolently reflect th at th e Matthean statement [2J:25J was not applicable to the whole Jewish people of Jesus' tim e, for relatively few stood before Pilate, and al so th at it was an affi rm ation of present willing-ne ss toaccept responsibility ,not an invocation of futu repu nishmenl or vengeance . . .On the whole Matthew's attitude is generalizing and hostile, and we cannot disguiseit. 1l3 Brown considers the proposal to drop thi s statement from the lectionary, butrejects it , reflecting on the und erlying hermeneutical problem: "Sooner or laterChristian believers must wrestle with the limitations imposed on the Scripturesby the circumstances in which they were Wr itten. They must be brought to see thatsome attitudes found in the Scriptures, how ever expl icab le in the times in whichthey originated, may be wrong attitudes if repeated today."1l4

Robert Daly notes that in tr ad itional Christian settings it can be difficult toreject the doctrine of supersessionism, and he suggests th at it is relatively easierto proclaim "th at Jews are not the murderers of jesus, however much some Christians of the past may have thought so. To claim that jews are 'Chri st-killers' or'God-murderers ' is itself a murderous lie." 5 Daly notes both the importance andthe limitations of explaining the historical context. In the end , he suggests that onlywhen Christian int erpreters have gone through an inner conversion from super sessionism and "have learned to love the jews" will Christian biblical interpretationbe in nocent.

In considering the problem posed by Matthew 2J: 25 the Pontifical BiblicalCommission of the Catho lic Church claims that the original context in Matthewnot onl y exp resses con tinu ity with the Old Testament, implying the possibilit y of"fraternal bonds" between Jews and Christians, but also "reflects a situation of tension and even opp osition between the two communities Since that situation[of t e n s i ~ n has radically changed, Matthew's polemic need no longer interfereWith relation s between Christians and Jews, and the aspect of continuity ca n andought to preva il." 6

john Dominic Crossan comments on Matthew 27:25 by way of jesus's sayingin Luke 23:34: "Father, forgive them; for they do not kn ow what the y are dOing.Crossan notes that each saying is unique to its proper gospel and comments: "If

, E FE UR .


14/14

I.' >96" Christians take evervthin a in the passion as actual, factual informat. . ;0111 I e;hey must take both Matthew 2J:25 and Luke 23:34 as historical data. But,

Jesus' prayer for forgiveness in Luke happened after the people's acceptanceresponsibility in Matthew, it must surely have annulled it. Unless, of course, GOdrefused Jesus ' prayer. Tor Christians, like myself, who think that Matthew all4Luke each created those specific verses out of their own theological b a c k g r o u n dthere is a slightly different conclusion. Inspired Christian texts contain both viru.lent bitterness and serene forgiveness. It is necessary to know the difference and. d d' I " 1l 7JU ge accor lUg Y.Finally, as Jonathan Sacks insisted, the interpreti ve community chooses whichtexts to place in the foreground. In most of the recent Christian hermeneuticalproposals, there is a stark recognition of how deeply harmful traditional ChristianexegesiS of Matthew 2J:25 has been. Historical contextualization is important butby itself insufficient The horizon of interpretation, including the entire networkof interpretive presuppositions , must shift; to a Significant degree this has begunto happen in Jewish-Christian dialogue over the last half-century. Problems cer.tainly remain, but'there is a wide and probably unprecedented degree of collabora.tion and Jewish-Christian dialogue in exploring the mixed heritage of violence inthe texts of the New Testament.

NOTESL Unless otherwi se noted. all scriptural quotations are taken from th e New Revised Standard

Version . Use d by permis sion. For a range of nterpretat ions of th e teac hing of)esus on pe ace and violence. see Willard M. Swa rtl ey, ed . The Love of Enemy and Nonretalint ion in the New Testame I(Lo uis vill e: Westminster John Knox . 1992); Michel Desja rdin s, Peace, Violence. and the New Testa-ment (Sheffield : Sheffield Academ c. 1997).

2. O rigen, On First PrinCiples, tr an s. G. W . Butter worth Gloucester: Pet er Smith 1973), 269-8 r.Augu st ine . Teaching Christianity [De Doc trina Christiana]. trans. Edmund Hill. ed. John E. Rotelle.Work s of Saint August in e ( Hyde Park: New City. 1996). 175 - 80; Vatican Co uncil II , Dogmatic Con-stitu tion on Divine Revelation. Dei Verb um. in Vatican CouncilIl: The Con ci liar and PostconciliarDocuments, ed. Austin Fla nnery, rev. ed. Northport: Cos tello. 2004). 756-58.

3. Fri edrich Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics: The Handwritten lvlanuscr ipts. ed . H ein z Kimmerle.t ran s. James Duke and Jack For stman Missoula : Scholar s. 1977). 11 5-1 7.

4 Jonatha n Sacks . The Dignity of DiJlerel ce: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations , r ev. ed .(Lon do n : Con tinUL1m . 2003), 207- 8.

5. William C. Wienrich , ed Revelation. voL 12 of Ancient Christian Commenta ry on Scriptu re(D own ers Gro ve: InterVar sity . 2005). xx .6. Donald Senior , The Gospe l of Matthew Nashville: Abingd o n, 1997). 1597 Joseph A. Fitzmyer. The Gospel according to Luke (X-XXIV) . voL 28a of The Anchor Bible (NeW

York: Doubleday. 1985) , 10 538. Ibid9 Ibid ., 1057 Fitzmyer notes the similar sit ua tion in Genes is J9:3.10. Daniel Boyari n. Border Li nes: The Partition ofJudaeo-Cinistianity (Philadelphia: Univers it),

of Pennsylva ni a Press . 2004); Adam H. Becker and Annette Yosh iko Reed . eds .. The Ways 7h ut

\[ :r par.,rUcss.

11. Lu:\ncicnt P

12. }\.T.: lris/io nAJdl Rei

'3 . Jot~ N e \14. E

C lri 5ti nAJele Re il

15 . Ra '1997; Ne\\

16. Da2007).392 .

17. Fra18. b i19 Joh20. A('

dnd Reinh2 1. lbi22. Brl23 . Ke

:VI : Eerd I24. Ihi25. Lu

114 - 20; Jos(998).36 4

26. 10127. Fit28 . Ea

Press, 229. IV30 Ih

\lelv Testa31. Ge

(Louisvi\the passa242- 53. RCorrespo

32. In33 fr34 S35 Ib

shall, / l /~ 4 5 . Fo

2 TI,ess,"36 . G
http:///reader/full/2007).39http:///reader/full/2007).39http:///reader/full/2007).39http:///reader/full/2007).39

Christianity and violence

Documents

Transcript of Christianity and violence