The Fifth Commandment: The Easy Command

Twelve Questions about Non-Violence, 2017

In an age when peace is fragile and religious violence is rampant, those who turn to the Bible to find a way to peace may be shocked by what they find. It is an inescapable fact that the Bible is replete with violence and has been used to justify the use of violence. Acts of atrocity and barbarity can be located within many of its pages without great difficulty: murder, rape, war, execution, even genocide. Ancient Israel, the “chosen people of God,” were both on the giving and the receiving ends of violence; they were beneficiaries of war as well as its victims. Within Israel’s prophetic literature, God himself is depicted as a vengeful warrior who will fight Israel’s battles; the eschatological judgement of God is described as a “great winepress of wrath,” from which the blood of the slain wicked will gush forth––a horrific and visceral image of violence. How can the Bible, which contains so much violence, be a guide to peace? What are normative, biblical views on violence, non-violence, and peace? Is there a theology of war and peace to be found? The following essay is an attempt to explore these concepts in light of the relevant biblical data to see whether there is biblical support for advocating non-violence as an ethical principle to uphold in the face of contemporary challenges. [Originally published in Chinese]

2017

This essay examines the various scholarly positions on Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus’ instructions on non-retaliation. It attempts to evaluate three critical issues about the four illustrations in the passage to determine the scope of its practicality. First, whether they are literal or allegoric; second, are they meant for personal or communal practice; and third, whether or not they imply total pacifism. The paper contends that Jesus’ illustrations might be applicable literally in some instances. However, we cannot always interpret them literally because they are not thorough instructions but pointers to the imitation of Father’s perfect love for enemies. Second, although the passage seems to instruct only about a disciple’s response to those who insult and abuse them personally, one cannot negate its communal nature regarding the disciple community’s handling of a general persecution. Finally, the passage does not seem to endorse “total pacifism.”

2005

Jesus' interpretation of the lex talionis has often been reduced to<br> pious exhortations: "evil actions are not to be resisted" or "not to<br> testify against an evildoer" or "an attitude of overabundant right­-<br> eousness toward evil people." Such views present Jesus as some­<br> one uninterested in the course of human history and make Jesus'<br> teaching socially and politically irrelevant. On the other hand, the<br> author asserts, the Gospel narratives in general present Jesus'<br> actions as revolutionary, but without recourse to violence. Moreo-­<br> ver, the teachings in Matt 5:38-42 in particular explicitly address<br> those who are insulted, oppressed and exploited ("if anyone strikes<br> y o u . . . "). So the author attempts a different reading of the text<br> employing the experience of the oppressed and marginalized, in­-<br> cluding women, in ...

The XVIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament , 1998

The second commandment "You may not make yourself an idol, i.e. any image of which is in the heaven above, or which is on the earth below, or which is in the water below the earth. You may not bow down to them or worship them" in Ex. 20:4-6 is motivated by the words: "for I the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments". It sounds rather unfair that God punishes the descendants of a person for his/her sins or that He shows mercy to the descendants of a person who loves Him. It is also contradictory to Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18, which stress personal responsibility: "Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death." (Deut. 24:16, NRSV.) "It is only the person who sins, that shall die. If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right .... such a one is righteous; he shall surely live .... If he has a son who is violent .... shall he then live? He shall not .... But if this man has a son who sees all the sins that his father has done, considers, and does not do likewise .... he shall not die for his father’s iniquity .... A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own." (Ezek. 18:4-20, NRSV.) This paper proposes a solution for this apparent contradiction by proposing a different translation for the motivation in the second commandment. The translation of the Hebrew text of Ex. 20:4-6 is quite complicated, and there are more possibilities than the stereotype of those who hate me and of those who love me. Although the preposition :l could indeed be used to construct a genitive periphrastically (Gesenius, 1976: 419-420, §129), it can also be interpreted as a :l of regard, (dis)advantage, object or apposition (Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: 205-212). Therefore, the motivation could also be translated as follows: * For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, punishing the sin of the parents on the children, on the third and fourth generation, with regard to those who hate me, and showing loyalty to thousands, with regard to those who love Me and keep my commandments. (The reference could be to the parents or the descendants.) * For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, punishing the sin of the parents on the children, on the third and fourth generation, to the disadvantage of those who hate me, and showing loyalty to thousands, to the advantage of those who love Me and keep my commandments. (The reference could again be to the parents or the descendants). * For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, punishing the sin of the parents on the children, on the third and fourth generation, (punishing) those who hate me (direct object?), and showing loyalty to thousands, those who love Me and keep my commandments (direct object?). * For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, punishing the sin of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generation, i.e. on those who hate me (apposition), and showing loyalty to thousands, i.e. those who love Me and keep my commandments (apposition). If the last possibilitiy is followed, these phrases almost get a conditional character, meaning that God will punish the descendants if they continue to hate Him, and He will show mercy to the descendants if they continue to love Him. This is parallel to the meaning of Ezek. 18. (Cf. also Hos. 4.) Another text which supports this view very strongly is Dan. 9:4 where it is said that God keeps his covenant and loyalty towards those who love Him and keep his commands, without even mentioning the generations! When other parallel formulations of the second command are compared, it becomes clear that the whole idea of compensation or requital of the descendants is often qualified. The text of Deut. 5:9 is almost identical to Ex. 4:5-6 except for the waw before ‘l- šlšym. In Ex. 34:6-7 and Num. 14:18 the words "of those who hate Me" / "of those who love Me" are omitted (cf. also Lev. 19:4, Deut. 4:15-20, Ex. 34:14). This could be an abbreviated form which could have led to the misunderstanding of the second commandment, interpreting it as cold and rigid and apparently unfair, although Num. 14:18 is followed by vs. 20-25 where the descendants are excluded from the Lord’s punishment (cf. Num. 27:12-23). See also Jer. 32:18-19: - where the commandment is qualified by the words "rewarding all according to their ways and according to the fruit of their doings". An interesting text is Deut. 7:10: God maintains his covenant loyalty ... to a thousand generations, but He punishes individually and personally! "Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who maintains covenant loyalty with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, and who repays in their own person those who reject him. He does not delay but repays in their own person those who reject Him." (NRSV). In 1 Kings 21:29 we have an example of punishment on the second generation: "Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the disaster in his days; but in his son’s days I will bring the disaster on his house." (NRSV.) (Cf. 2 Kings 9:24.) However, it must be noted that Joram, son of Ahab, also did what was evil in the sight of the Lord (2 Kings 3:1-3). This supports the hypothesis that God punishes the descendants if they continue in the evil ways of their ancestors. In Deut. 4:24-27 three generations sinning together are punished together.

Religion Compass, 2013

This article explores the tensions between Jesus's command to "turn the other cheek" and the historical reality that many Christians have participated in acts of violence and have sometimes justified their actions as the will of God. Many considerations of the relationship between Christianity and violence have focused on historical instances such as the Crusades of Middle Ages and the violent persecution of heretics during the Inquisition. However, it is evident that Christian-inspired holy wars and persecutions continue in various forms up to the present. This article offers a brief historical survey of the debates over just war theory and pacifism, but it primarily illuminates the cultural sources of violence in the Christian tradition that lead to actual violence in society. Finally, consideration is given to Christian thinkers who articulate a nonviolent theology of Christianity.

Psychological Science, 2007

Violent people often claim that God sanctions their actions. In two studies, participants read a violent passage said to come from either the Bible or an ancient scroll. For half the participants, the passage said that God sanctioned the violence. Next, participants competed with an ostensible partner on a task in which the winner could blast the loser with loud noise through headphones (the aggression measure). Study 1 involved Brigham Young University students; 99% believed in God and in the Bible.