What Does Paul Say on Violence? 

What Does Paul Say on Violence? 

Within the associated Pauline Literature, several scholars ponder whether Paul's adherence to the Septuagint in his writings means that his moral impulse was thus derived from the teachings and work of Jesus. This inquiry gains momentum when examining passages that seemingly advocate nonviolence, such as "turn the other cheek" from Matthew's gospel, prompting the exploration of whether Paul's moral directives align with Jesus's call to "love your enemies." Notably, Longenecker & Still's investigation reveals a historical backdrop where Paul, before his conversion, was engaged in violent activities, raising questions about the nature of his subsequent transformation. The problem of violence and moral impulse derived from the Pauline letters provides the godly undertone of a “crucified life,” a community willing to give of themselves. 

Longenecker & Still's (2014) chapter on violence opens with a passage from Matthew's gospel, "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also," (Matt 5:39). The question naturally derives: Does Paul's moral directive follow the same moral institute of "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"? Whether accurate or not, these passages are frequently applied to depict Jesus's "advocacy of nonviolence" (Longenecker & Still, p. 369). To begin a study on whether Paul's moral influence follows that of Jesus, veritable resources must be considered. Longenecker & Still (2014) write that "all the data point in one direction regarding Paul's life immediately prior to his christophany on the Damascus ... that is, Paul was engaged in violent activity" (p. 369). While the modern biblical reader cannot be certain of the form this violence and oppression assumed, one can surmise from the available literature that he imprisoned and, albeit improbably, murdered them (Longenecker & Still, p. 369). 

In Galatians 1:13, Paul talks about his previous way of life in Judaism and his intense persecution of the church of God, associated with violence. Multiple instances in Acts show Paul's previous inclination to violence, such as Acts 8:3 where he goes from house to house to drag both men and women into prison. In addition, his recognition in Acts 9:21 as the "man who raised havoc in Jerusalem" among Jesus-followers in Jerusalem, desiring to take them to prison, along with his reformed speech on imprisoning and beating Christians, giving approval to shedding Stephen's blood in Acts 22:19-20. To a further extent, interpreters have considered the social dimensions of the Christophany and, most notably, Paul's allusion to Jesus's words advocating nonviolence in a variety of his letters (Longenecker & Still, 2014, p. 370). Longenecker & Still (2014) cite Romans 12:17-21, in which it is said not to repay evil for evil, live at peace with everyone, not to take revenge, and feed the hungry enemy (p. 371). Jesus's social ethic impression is reinforced in 1 Corinthians 4:12-13 (ESV), "and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things." 1 Thessalonians 5:15 also describes how one should never pay back wrong for wrong. Evidently, these ethical sentiments echo Jesus's exhortations and the pre-christophanic Paul would not have advocated these attitudes. This Paul would certainly have never said, "Let your gentleness be evident to all," which runs contrary to his intense efforts against the Jesus movement (Phil 4:5). 

Another complex argument arises in the sphere of Pauline theology over this topic: Do these passages display a "social realignment" with a movement he previously persecuted, or do they indicate a "theological realignment" within Paul himself? Given the priori, significant evidence exists that this result is not simply Paul's association with others but rather a historical and theological transformation. Longenecker & Still (2014) remark that Jesus's advocacy of nonviolence was widespread within the early Jesus movement such that "Paul can echo Jesus's words in his letters to Jesus groups in Thessalonica, Corinth, and Rome ... these echoes were to carry some weight among Paul's audiences although not explicitly cited" (p. 371). Enough of Paul's audience would have recognized and appreciated the echoes of Jesus; thus, one can conclude that Christians who knew of Jesus's advocacy resided in Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome, and interestingly Ephesus (Longenecker & Still, p. 372). The historical implications of Paul's attitude are integral; the fact that Paul assumes the audiences in Rome will hear the echo testifies to a supposed widespread knowledge of nonviolent advocacy throughout the Jesus groups of the Mediterranean basin (Longenecker & Still, p. 372). 

Given the historical scenario, what is the extent to which the advocacy of nonviolence plays a role in Jesus's teachings or Paul's emphasized: "Christ in me" mindset (Gal 2:20)? One solution is that the flow of Paul's autobiographical narrative in Galatians 1-2 communicates an "apocalyptic" trouncing of violence in Paul's character, which was once immersed in "the present evil age" (1:4). This claim could feasibly be divorced from Paul's earlier discussion in Galatians 1 about Christ not living in him, providing a key contrast by which the "apocalyptic revelation" of Jesus Christ works (Longenecker & Still, p. 372). Paul's case in Galatians broadens further when he outlines the Christians who seek to observe the law and enhance their status before God; these people, he writes from Galatians 4:12-15, may move from self-giving to violence. Galatians 5:20-21 demonstrates not only attitudes but the actions undergirded by those attitudes, such as "acts that induce hatred between people" and "acts of selfish envy," leading violence to be at the heart of this "complex of attitude and behaviors" (Longenecker & Still, p. 373). Paul "looks over the shoulder" of his past life of violence while addressing the Galatian situation, where identity by the Holy Spirit is contrasted with identity by human effort. The latter is characterized by the "persecution" of others, the same harsh language that characterized his previous life of violent persecution (Gal 1:13, 23). In summary, there is a scope from which Paul imagined his past to be characterized by violence and he came to understand the moral character of the Jesus-follower "to involve nonviolent self-giving induced by the Spirit" (Longenecker & Still, p. 374). 

Some articles have prominently discussed these peace-making claims in light of the classic "stoppers:" "Jesus wielding a whip in the Temple; the instruction to the disciples at the last supper to sell their mantle and to buy a sword; and the flat declaration of Jesus, 'I have not come to bring peace, but a sword'” (Senior, 1986, p. 71). 

One such article, written by Daniel Senior, traces the historical-cultural context of "problem passages" when attempting to view the biblical text through a peaceful lens. Daniel Senior establishes three categories that many Christians see violence in: The “sword sayings” of Matthew 10:34 and Luke 22:35-38, violence in the temple of Mark 12:15, and the military imagery in Paul’s letters such as Romans 13:12 and 1 Thessalonians 5:8. In short, Senior (1986) desires to answer the following question: “How, for example, are injunctions about taking up swords and Jesus’s own apparent use of violent means in his cause to be reconciled with the New Testament’s fundamental option for peace” (p. 71). Senior comes to the conclusion that the Synoptic Gospels, echoed in John and the New Testament letters, point to a refusal of violence as a method to establish God's reign, exhibiting a vigorous pursuit of peace and reconciliation (Senior, p. 72). The concept is so firmly embedded in early and, by proxy, modern Christianity that serious discussions arose about whether bearing arms could ever be compatible with the Christian vocation (Senior, p. 73). Senior (1986) especially writes about Ephesians 6:10-17 about anything that could be construed as pro-violence, agreeing with Longenecker & Still's anti-violence interpretation (p. 74). 

According to the Ephesians passage cited, the loins are to be girded up “with truth,” one must wear a "breastplate of righteousness,” feet are to be shod with “the equipment of the gospel of peace,” and one must carry a “shield of faith,” a “helmet of salvation” and a “sword of the Spirit.” However, "It is self-evident that these military terms are being used metaphorically: Paul and the author of Ephesians make that clear," and there is precedent for this language in the Old Testament. Isaiah 59:17 and, if Apocrypha is considered, Wisdom of Solomon 5:17-23 appear to be a direct inspiration for the metaphors present in Paul's writings (Senior, p. 75). The underlying theology of the New Testament texts posits the Christian life as a struggle with the power of evil, and one must be prepared to resist the malicious spiritual forces of the world (Eph 6:11-12). Diametric opposition to the ill destructiveness of human conflicts via metaphorical "weapons" is the rudiment of Christianity. The list of virtues and values listed here illustrate that God’s whole armor includes truth; justice; faith; salvation; the Spirit; the Word of God; and the Gospel of peace, undergirding Paul's nonviolent theology. 

Within the church, it is widely uncontested that peace and patience should be practiced among Christians; however, something that many Christians attempt to sweep under the rug is their attitude toward violence throughout the historic years, especially during the Crusades. This is perhaps one of the most pressing topics for which the modern Christian is derided. Many authors contest that through most of the twentieth century, "the early church was pacifist, that during the second and third centuries, a growing accommodation of military service occurred, and by the time of Constantine, a just war ethic had arisen" (Sider, 2012, p. 134). This accession after Constantine marked how a Christian reconciles a seemingly bloody history with the early idea of a "just" war ethic and the contrasting nonviolent position taken today. The idea of a just war ethic, "holding that a conflict can and ought to meet the criteria of philosophical, religious or political justice, provided it follows certain conditions," is itself antithetical to the Christian ideals of holiness (Wells, 1996, p. 29). Furthermore, how do we acknowledge the writings of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo in worthy causes for war and reconcile them with the war-torn state of modern society? Wells (1996) states that Augustine, as a defense for war in extreme circumstances, "named preservation of the well-being of the state, punishment of neighbor nations that had refused to make amends for wrongs committed by their subjects, to restore what had been taken unjustly, and even to expand an empire if one was taking land away from a tyrant" (p. 31). Christian participation in third-century Roman wars is relatively unknown, and Christians opposed it mostly out of a refusal to practice the Roman religion, a refusal to perform the rituals of the Roman army, and, in certain cases, a refusal to kill (Kreider, 2003, p. 426). Surely, the well-read Christian cannot simply deny the history of their religion, especially one as torn as this. 

Therefore, in the face of holy wars, genocidal conflicts, the Inquisition, and Christian terrorism, the Jesus-follower has a torn history of justified warfare in the name of religion (Helgeland, 1979, p. 13).

In recognition of these facts, it is difficult to assume God was directly beside and governing over His people during these times, guiding them in battle as He did in the Old Testament (Allman, 2008, p. 74). The modern believer needs to be willing to have these difficult conversations, even if they are likely to lead to insults or assumptions. In an age where the Bible is quoted to "overflow with texts of terror," how can a Christian reconcile violence commanded by God with violence "in the name" of God (Latourette, 1953, p. 242)? While Jesus's teachings, particularly those on love; forgiveness; and nonviolence, are seen as central to Christian ethics, the Yahweh of the Old Testament is just as much God as Jesus. The Christian cannot be afraid of being viewed as countercultural; in fact, the use of force was seen as antithetical to Jesus' teachings, and service in the Roman military required worship of the emperor as a god which was a form of idolatry" (Allman, p. 104). There are similarly many instances of church fathers rallying against any form of violence. In the 3rd century, Origen wrote, "Christians could not slay their enemies." Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins" (Nicholson, 2004, p. 24). Tertullian argued forcefully against all forms of violence, considering abortion, warfare, and even judicial death penalties to be forms of murder (Osborn, 2003, p. 230). Thus, it remains key for the Christian reader to take the Bible critically and literally, wrestling with problem passages instead of dismissing them as allegorical or unhistorical. Further, one must understand the Bible as a record of God's progressive revelation to humanity. In much the same way today, God's understanding of morality and the nature of God's relationship with humanity has and will continuously evolve. As written by Paul, a life ascribed to the flesh is hostile to God, while a life ascribed to the Spirit breathes peace (Rom 8:4–6). 

For the modern Jesus-follower, Pauline literature should serve as a roadmap for what the inherent veritable life of Christ reveals to those metaphorically "blinded" by the flesh. Paul's transformative journey, marked by a background involving violence before his conversion, displays the importance of "turning the other cheek" and demonstrating the Fruits of the Spirit. The dimensions of the New Testament bring profound questions to the discussion of violence, even missional, executed “in the name of God.” The renewing of one's mind through faith and practice exists as a means by which Christians "may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2).

References:

Allman, M. J. (2008). Who Would Jesus Kill? War, Peace, and the Christian Tradition. Saint Mary's Press. Helgeland, J. (1979). H. Temporini and W. Haase (Eds.). Christians and the Roman Army: From Marcus Aurelius to Constantine (Vol. 23). Berlin: De Gruyter. 

Kreider, A. (2003). "Military Service in the Church Orders." The Journal of Religious Ethics, 31(3), 415-442. Latourette, K. S. (1953). A History of Christianity: Beginnings to 1500 (Vol. 1). Harper San Francisco. Longenecker, B. W., & Still, T. D. (2014). Thinking Through Paul: A Survey of His Life, Letters, and Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 

Nicholson, H. J. (2004). Medieval Warfare: Theory and Practice of War in Europe, 300–1500. Palgrave Macmillan. 

Osborn, E. (2003). Tertullian, First Theologian of the West. Cambridge University Press. Senior, D. (1986). "The New Testament And Peacemaking: Some Problem Passages.” Faith and Mission, 4(1), 71-76. 

Sider, R. J. (2012). The Early Church on Killing. Baker Publishing Group. 

Wells, D. (1996). An Encyclopedia of War and Ethics. Greenwood Press.

Thank you Garrett Fish for writing this article!