Original Meaning
Thanksgiving for the Thessalonians (2:13)
AFTER BEGINNING WITH a thanksgiving statement, Paul (as he did in 1:2) quickly reveals why he is thankful (cf. the hoti, “because”):5 The Thessalonians have “received” and “accepted”6 the message preached by the missionaries not as a merely human message, but in accordance with its true nature, as the “word of God.” The clearest evidence of the Thessalonians’ acceptance of the gospel as the word of God was their willingness to suffer for it (2:14).7 The fact that they accepted the gospel despite the “severe suffering” (1:6) that they experienced as a result—something they presumably would not have done for a message they considered to be of merely human origin—is for Paul reliable testimony to their commitment. Paul is also confident that God’s word is currently “at work” in the Thessalonians, but he does not indicate how he knows this. In light of 1:5 the work of the “word” is probably related to the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
An immediate consequence of the Thessalonians’ acceptance of the “word of God” was that they became the focus of hostility from their “own countrymen” (to be understood in a political or local rather than an ethnic sense). Acts 17:5–9 offers a clue as to why this happened: By their acceptance of “Lord Jesus” the Thessalonians implicitly rejected the claims to sovereignty of “Lord Caesar” and the civil religion of the imperial cult, and they thus were perceived as threats to the established social order and government.
Bridging Contexts
OBSERVATIONS. THE PRIMARY topic of concern in this section of 1 Thessalonians is Paul’s statement about “the Jews.”23 Is it accurate to say that in this passage Paul holds “an unacceptable anti-Semitic position”?24 What are we to make of this text, especially in a post-Holocaust era? In the process of understanding this section, several observations may be made.
(1) To restate an earlier conclusion, Paul was not talking about “all Jews” here; his primary focus is those of his day who had not only not acknowledged Jesus as God’s Messiah, but were also actively opposing those who did.
(2) Paul wrote as a Jew (cf. Gal. 2:15; Phil. 3:4–6) at a time in history when Christianity was still not clearly differentiated from Judaism. That is, he wrote as an “insider”; his comments are those of one engaged in an intramural debate with other “insiders.”
(3) Paul wrote as a member of a minority movement fighting for its identity and survival.25
(4) Paul wrote within the context of a rhetorical culture in which hyperbole and exaggeration were recognized and accepted elements of public discourse. Moreover, his use of hyperbole must be viewed in the context not just of contemporary Greco-Roman and Jewish rhetorical culture but also of his own practice of using hyperbole, as seen elsewhere in his writings. His comments here about “the Jews” are no more (and possibly less) intense than some of the comments he makes about fellow Christians (see, e.g., 2 Cor. 11). In the same way that his hyperbolic statements about Christian opponents reflected his feelings about them at that point in time and should not be taken as considered or final reflections on their ultimate fate, so too his comments about “the Jews” here in 1 Thessalonians.26
(5) Paul’s purpose was fundamentally pastoral: He was seeking to encourage and strengthen the Thessalonians by showing them that both their experience of persecution and the activities of their persecutors were part of larger, long-term patterns of behavior. This means that his comments about “the Jews” are not primary, first-level, or fully developed expressions of his views about “the Jews,” but a secondary, ad hoc description made in the service of a specific goal, namely, encouraging the Thessalonians.
Implications. Several implications may be drawn from these observations. (1) The observation that Paul was not talking about all Jews means, if nothing else, that this passage provides for Christians today absolutely no basis for formulating attitudes or making statements about “the Jews” in general today.
(2) Paul’s comments express a theological disagreement with some Jews about the identity of God’s Messiah, not a description of or attack on an entire category of people. Paul’s comments, therefore, are not “anti-Semitic” (i.e., racially based).27
(3) The contrast between Paul’s circumstances and those of Christians today can hardly be greater. Whereas Paul and the rest of the Christian movement were being opposed by certain members of a widespread, legally and socially recognized religion (Judaism), for many centuries now it is Christianity that has been the dominant and generally recognized religion, and Judaism that has been (and in some cases, still is) the persecuted minority religion. Moreover, when Christians speak about Judaism today, they clearly do so as “outsiders.” Consequently, comments that may have been appropriate when made by Paul as an “insider” in the context of persecuted minority movement will not be applicable to a context in which Christians are both (a) “outsiders” with respect to Judaism and (b) members of a dominant social group, one that has, moreover, a long and shameful history of persecuting Judaism.28
(4) An implication of observations 4 and 5 above is that Paul’s comments here must be taken together with, and read in light of, other comments in which he expresses, in more measured and deliberate terms, his views about “the Jews.” That is, his comments here, which describe a specific subgroup within Judaism, must be read alongside of passages such as Romans 9–11, in which he discusses in more general terms the future of God’s people (laos, cf. 11:1a), that is, Israel (cf. 9:4; 11:1b).
(5) This passage is Paul’s description of certain opponents at a particular point in time; that does not make it a prescription for how Christians in other circumstances should view their opponents or enemies.
With these implications in mind, we may turn to consider the contemporary relevance of this passage for believers today.
Contemporary Significance
IN LIGHT OF the preceding observations, it seems to me that responsible application of this text will take advantage of at least three opportunities presented by this difficult passage.29
Confronting the issue of Anti-Semitism. The passage presents us with an opportunity to confront the issue of anti-Semitism. Despite the horrors perpetuated by anti-Semitic ideologies during World War II, the late twentieth-century has witnessed a resurgence of anti-Semitic views and activity, especially in Europe and the United States. While in Europe this resurgence is often associated with neo-Nazi groups, in the United States it is the so-called “militia movements” that have received much of the attention. What is especially troubling is the explicit claims of many of these groups to be both anti-Semitic and Christian (e.g., the Christian Identity movement).30
In such circumstances, and particularly because of our long and tragic history of persecuting Jews, Christians need to be aggressively forthright in asserting that anti-Semitism, like any form of racial discrimination, is wrong. Discrimination against, hostility towards, or attacks on any group simply because they allegedly share a common set of social, cultural, religious, or genetic characteristics is not Christian; it is sin. Indeed, any allegedly Christian group that advocates anti-Semitism or other forms of racial discrimination forfeits, in my opinion, any right to be called “Christian.”
Because the present passage can so easily be misunderstood and twisted to support anti-Semitic prejudices, it is important to stress that in this passage Paul is not anti-Semitic. There is a fundamental theological difference between Christianity and Judaism—the one acknowledges Jesus as Messiah, the other does not—and this Christologically based opposition to Judaism as a religion is expressed throughout the New Testament. Scholars have labeled this “anti-Judaism.” Regrettably, this theological difference has frequently given rise to racially based discrimination (or worse) against Jews—that is, anti-Semitism. It cannot be stressed too strongly that there is in the New Testament no basis whatsoever for anti-Semitism of any sort.
Not only is Paul not anti-Semitic, his comments here apply only to a specific group of Jews of his day and therefore provide absolutely no basis for negative attitudes towards Jews today. It is in Romans 9–11, not in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16, that we see Paul’s thinking about the Jewish people as a whole. There he makes it clear that God has not rejected his people (Rom. 11:1), and he strongly warns any non-Jews who might be inclined to boast about their allegedly superior status before God that they stand in danger of God’s judgment if they do so (11:17–22).
The dangers of using “insider” and/or hyperbolic language. The ease with which Paul has been misunderstood offer us an opportunity to reflect on the inherent dangers of using “insider” and/or hyperbolic language in inappropriate circumstances. What Paul wrote as an “insider” and shared with his close friends made sense and was understandable to them in that context. But as soon as readers lost sight of that original context, Paul’s deliberately hyperbolic overstatements sounded different, and over the centuries they have been seriously misinterpreted.31
The fate suffered by Paul’s words may serve as a warning to Christians today to pay careful attention both to what they say and how they say it, especially if what they say may be repeated or passed on in other contexts. Our goal ought to be (1) to communicate clearly the gospel, our Christian convictions, and our Christian experience, and (2) to do so in a way that does not create unnecessary obstacles or roadblocks to effective communication. Both “insider” language and hyperbole can easily become, as the case of the present passage demonstrates, barriers to clear and effective communication of the gospel. Thus Christians ought to be cautious and careful in using them.
As some of the negative reactions and misperceptions encountered by the Promise Keepers movement in its early years demonstrate, words, ideas, or concepts that mean one thing to “insiders” may sound quite different to those who do not share the same suppositions or insider perspective. What some of the speakers meant by phrases like “taking charge of the home,” for example, was not at all what some reporters and outside observers thought they meant. Or, as some Christian political candidates for national office have learned, phrases and ideas that are easily understood by fellow Christians often either do not communicate at all or (perhaps worse) seriously miscommunicate to non-Christians.
In view of these circumstances—and in view of the current state of communications technology, in which words can circle the globe in literally seconds and thus be heard in contexts that we can scarcely imagine—we would do well to give careful consideration to what we say and to how we say it, especially if it involves any sort of argumentative or polemical language. Christians should never hesitate to engage in forthright discussions of issues or differences, but we ought to seek to do so in ways consistent with the gospel and the values it represents, rather than in ways that unnecessarily polarize or divide, or in ways that raise barriers to genuine understanding. Our goal must be to enlighten, not inflame.32
Response to persecutors. This passage offers an opportunity to reaffirm how Christians ought to respond to those who persecute and/or attack them. In 5:15 (“See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all” [NRSV]; cf. Rom. 12:17–19), Paul will remind the Thessalonians that doing good, not retaliation, is the proper reaction to persecution (cf. Rom. 12:20–21). As Marshall notes, “Nothing in what Paul writes suggests that the Thessalonians should hate their persecutors or react violently against them. Their task is to live the new life of the Christian in love even to their enemies and to leave vengeance to God himself.”33
In other words, nothing in the present passage in any way abrogates what Jesus taught in Matthew 5:44 (“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”) and Luke 6:27–28 (“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you”), and what Paul himself echoed in Romans 12:14 (“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse”), about how believers are to respond to persecution or attacks. Violence against enemies or in response to persecution is not the way of the gospel.
This is an important point to reaffirm in an era when some Christians are becoming increasingly violent in their reaction to social pressures or in the way in which they approach social issues. Examples of the kind of violence I have in mind include, for example, violent attacks on abortion clinics and even the killing of abortion providers, or the advocacy of robbery, bombings, and killing by allegedly Christian movements (such as the Phineas Priesthood34). Moreover, ours is a time when reports of large-scale massacres and atrocities in nominally Christian societies are not uncommon (e.g., “ethnic cleansing” in the former Yugoslavia).
For increasing numbers of Christians, in other words, it appears that the mere perception of someone or some movement as an “enemy” is viewed as sufficient grounds to justify the use of violence against them. Such an attitude overlooks not only the teaching of the gospel (noted above), but also the lessons of history. Attempts to impose, create, or maintain by force a “Christian” society generally have led to unmitigated disaster; and Christian-versus-Christian violence, whether in Europe during the Thirty Years War in the seventeenth century, or in Ireland or Rwanda today (countries in which up to 90 percent of the population are professed Christians), has caused incalculable damage to the cause of the gospel. In Romans 5:8–10, Paul points out how, even when we were all his enemies, God’s response was to demonstrate his love for us. Are believers in that God to act any differently towards their enemies?
Original Meaning
The Thessalonians and Persecution: Solidarity in Suffering (2:14–16)
THE SUFFERING THAT the Thessalonians experienced8 placed them in solidarity not only with the Lord Jesus and the missionaries (1:6), but also with other believers and congregations (2:14). Because the Greek word ekklesia (“church”) was not yet a technical term, but could indicate a wide range of Hellenistic or Jewish groups, it was necessary for Paul to define more precisely which group he had in mind: It is the “God’s churches … which are in Christ Jesus” (cf. 1:1). This phrase will remind the Thessalonians of the oneness in Christ that they share with other congregations—here, specifically those in “Judea” (i.e., Palestine, including Samaria and Galilee, not simply the restricted area of Roman Judea; cf. Luke 1:5; 23:5; Acts 10:37). We lack the information to know either why Paul chose the Judean churches as an example or what circumstances, past or present, he had in mind.9
Paul is clear, however, about the source of the persecution endured by the Judean believers: It was “the Jews” (2:14b). But who did Paul mean by “the Jews”? In light of the reference to the “churches in Judea,” “the Jews” must be Jewish inhabitants of Judea. More specifically, they are “Jewish inhabitants of Judea who killed…. That is, the comma that many translations (e.g., NIV, NRSV, NAB, NASB) place after “Jews”—which has the effect of generalizing the reference to include “all Jews”—should be removed.10 In short, it is not even all Jews in Judea whom Paul designates, but only those who in some way participated or took part in one of the specific activities mentioned in verses 15–16.11 Those activities include, in addition to persecution of the Judean congregations, (1) having killed the Messiah and the prophets, (2) having driven out “us,” (3) not pleasing God, and (4) hindering the missionary effort because of a general hostility towards humanity.12
The list of charges in 2:15–16 is an odd mix of Christian, Jewish, and pagan complaints. The charge of Jewish responsibility for the death of the Messiah (cf. John 11:45–53; 18:28–31; also Acts 2:23, 36; 3:13–15; 4:10; 7:52; 10:39; 13:28) is accurate to the extent that while the actual execution was carried out by Roman soldiers under the command of Pontius Pilate, he was instigated to do so by a small group of Jewish leaders. The charge of “killing the prophets,” found elsewhere in both the New Testament (Matt. 23:29–37//Luke 11:47–51; 13:34; Acts 7:52; cf. Matt. 5:12) and contemporary Jewish literature (Mart. Isa. 5:1–14), is rooted in the Old Testament (1 Kings 19:9–18; 2 Chron. 36:15–16; Jer. 2:30), where it was clearly not intended as a charge against all Jews, but only those not part of the “faithful remnant” (a point Paul himself makes in Rom. 11:2–5, with reference to 1 Kings 19:10, 18; cf. 1QM 13.8–9).
This is clearly an “insider’s charge,” one typically made by Jews against fellow Jews. In charging some Judean Jews with having “driven out” (the basic, and here quite appropriate, meaning of ekdioko) “us,” Paul apparently includes himself among the Judean Christians affected (see Acts 8:1, 4; 8:23–25, 29–30). While it is possible that “us” refers only to Paul and his companions, it seems much more likely, in view of the following specific reference to the Pauline missionary effort, that this is a more general reference. In describing the rejection of the prophets (who foretold the Messiah), the Messiah himself, and the Christian missionaries (who proclaim the Messiah), Paul implies “a continuity in the pattern of Jewish rejection of God’s agents from OT times to his own.”13
“They displease God” (2:15; cf. 2:4) is essentially a conclusion based on the other activities mentioned; Paul takes it for granted that those who oppose God’s Messiah and his designated missionaries are not pleasing to God.14 The “hostility toward humanity” (NIV “hostile”) echoes a widespread anti-Jewish feeling in the Greco-Roman world, which interpreted Jewish ethnic and religious exclusivism (which to the Jews was a matter of faithfulness to God) as evidence of their lack of concern for or hatred of others.15 Paul sees this hostility on the part of some Jews as the motivation for the last item on the list of charges, namely, an effort to prevent or hinder (for the verb, cf. Acts 16:6; Rom. 1:13; 1 Cor. 14:39) his mission to the Gentiles, which had as its goal their salvation.16
These activities involve “filling up the measure of their sins” (2:16, NRSV). This phrase echoes Gen. 15:16 (cf. Dan. 8:23; 2 Macc. 6:14–15; Matt. 23:32) and expresses an idea not uncommon in Jewish and Christian writings of that era.17 The grammatical construction used here (eis to + infinitive) customarily indicates purpose in Paul.18 But it can also indicate result (cf. NASB, “with the result that”), which in light of the “always” makes good sense here. In other words, there seem to have nearly always been some people in Israel, whether Judeans of Paul’s generation or their ancestors in earlier times, who by their disobedience were “not pleasing to God” and thereby brought judgment on themselves.19
Judgment is in fact the subject of Paul’s last statement in this section: “But God’s wrath has overtaken them at last” (2:16, NRSV).20 Whereas Jesus will rescue believers from that “wrath” (1:10), those who are opposed to God will be unable to escape it (cf. 5:3)—indeed, Paul says, it “has come upon them” already. I interpret this last phrase along the lines of the idea expressed in John 3:18, “Whoever believes in [the Son of God] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”21 That is, rejection of God’s Messiah is in and of itself judgment, in that it means the rejection of the one through whom God has made salvation available to all.22
Bridging Contexts
OBSERVATIONS. THE PRIMARY topic of concern in this section of 1 Thessalonians is Paul’s statement about “the Jews.”23 Is it accurate to say that in this passage Paul holds “an unacceptable anti-Semitic position”?24 What are we to make of this text, especially in a post-Holocaust era? In the process of understanding this section, several observations may be made.
(1) To restate an earlier conclusion, Paul was not talking about “all Jews” here; his primary focus is those of his day who had not only not acknowledged Jesus as God’s Messiah, but were also actively opposing those who did.
(2) Paul wrote as a Jew (cf. Gal. 2:15; Phil. 3:4–6) at a time in history when Christianity was still not clearly differentiated from Judaism. That is, he wrote as an “insider”; his comments are those of one engaged in an intramural debate with other “insiders.”
(3) Paul wrote as a member of a minority movement fighting for its identity and survival.25
(4) Paul wrote within the context of a rhetorical culture in which hyperbole and exaggeration were recognized and accepted elements of public discourse. Moreover, his use of hyperbole must be viewed in the context not just of contemporary Greco-Roman and Jewish rhetorical culture but also of his own practice of using hyperbole, as seen elsewhere in his writings. His comments here about “the Jews” are no more (and possibly less) intense than some of the comments he makes about fellow Christians (see, e.g., 2 Cor. 11). In the same way that his hyperbolic statements about Christian opponents reflected his feelings about them at that point in time and should not be taken as considered or final reflections on their ultimate fate, so too his comments about “the Jews” here in 1 Thessalonians.26
(5) Paul’s purpose was fundamentally pastoral: He was seeking to encourage and strengthen the Thessalonians by showing them that both their experience of persecution and the activities of their persecutors were part of larger, long-term patterns of behavior. This means that his comments about “the Jews” are not primary, first-level, or fully developed expressions of his views about “the Jews,” but a secondary, ad hoc description made in the service of a specific goal, namely, encouraging the Thessalonians.
Implications. Several implications may be drawn from these observations. (1) The observation that Paul was not talking about all Jews means, if nothing else, that this passage provides for Christians today absolutely no basis for formulating attitudes or making statements about “the Jews” in general today.
(2) Paul’s comments express a theological disagreement with some Jews about the identity of God’s Messiah, not a description of or attack on an entire category of people. Paul’s comments, therefore, are not “anti-Semitic” (i.e., racially based).27
(3) The contrast between Paul’s circumstances and those of Christians today can hardly be greater. Whereas Paul and the rest of the Christian movement were being opposed by certain members of a widespread, legally and socially recognized religion (Judaism), for many centuries now it is Christianity that has been the dominant and generally recognized religion, and Judaism that has been (and in some cases, still is) the persecuted minority religion. Moreover, when Christians speak about Judaism today, they clearly do so as “outsiders.” Consequently, comments that may have been appropriate when made by Paul as an “insider” in the context of persecuted minority movement will not be applicable to a context in which Christians are both (a) “outsiders” with respect to Judaism and (b) members of a dominant social group, one that has, moreover, a long and shameful history of persecuting Judaism.28
(4) An implication of observations 4 and 5 above is that Paul’s comments here must be taken together with, and read in light of, other comments in which he expresses, in more measured and deliberate terms, his views about “the Jews.” That is, his comments here, which describe a specific subgroup within Judaism, must be read alongside of passages such as Romans 9–11, in which he discusses in more general terms the future of God’s people (laos, cf. 11:1a), that is, Israel (cf. 9:4; 11:1b).
(5) This passage is Paul’s description of certain opponents at a particular point in time; that does not make it a prescription for how Christians in other circumstances should view their opponents or enemies.
With these implications in mind, we may turn to consider the contemporary relevance of this passage for believers today.
Contemporary Significance
IN LIGHT OF the preceding observations, it seems to me that responsible application of this text will take advantage of at least three opportunities presented by this difficult passage.29
Confronting the issue of Anti-Semitism. The passage presents us with an opportunity to confront the issue of anti-Semitism. Despite the horrors perpetuated by anti-Semitic ideologies during World War II, the late twentieth-century has witnessed a resurgence of anti-Semitic views and activity, especially in Europe and the United States. While in Europe this resurgence is often associated with neo-Nazi groups, in the United States it is the so-called “militia movements” that have received much of the attention. What is especially troubling is the explicit claims of many of these groups to be both anti-Semitic and Christian (e.g., the Christian Identity movement).30
In such circumstances, and particularly because of our long and tragic history of persecuting Jews, Christians need to be aggressively forthright in asserting that anti-Semitism, like any form of racial discrimination, is wrong. Discrimination against, hostility towards, or attacks on any group simply because they allegedly share a common set of social, cultural, religious, or genetic characteristics is not Christian; it is sin. Indeed, any allegedly Christian group that advocates anti-Semitism or other forms of racial discrimination forfeits, in my opinion, any right to be called “Christian.”
Because the present passage can so easily be misunderstood and twisted to support anti-Semitic prejudices, it is important to stress that in this passage Paul is not anti-Semitic. There is a fundamental theological difference between Christianity and Judaism—the one acknowledges Jesus as Messiah, the other does not—and this Christologically based opposition to Judaism as a religion is expressed throughout the New Testament. Scholars have labeled this “anti-Judaism.” Regrettably, this theological difference has frequently given rise to racially based discrimination (or worse) against Jews—that is, anti-Semitism. It cannot be stressed too strongly that there is in the New Testament no basis whatsoever for anti-Semitism of any sort.
Not only is Paul not anti-Semitic, his comments here apply only to a specific group of Jews of his day and therefore provide absolutely no basis for negative attitudes towards Jews today. It is in Romans 9–11, not in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16, that we see Paul’s thinking about the Jewish people as a whole. There he makes it clear that God has not rejected his people (Rom. 11:1), and he strongly warns any non-Jews who might be inclined to boast about their allegedly superior status before God that they stand in danger of God’s judgment if they do so (11:17–22).
The dangers of using “insider” and/or hyperbolic language. The ease with which Paul has been misunderstood offer us an opportunity to reflect on the inherent dangers of using “insider” and/or hyperbolic language in inappropriate circumstances. What Paul wrote as an “insider” and shared with his close friends made sense and was understandable to them in that context. But as soon as readers lost sight of that original context, Paul’s deliberately hyperbolic overstatements sounded different, and over the centuries they have been seriously misinterpreted.31
The fate suffered by Paul’s words may serve as a warning to Christians today to pay careful attention both to what they say and how they say it, especially if what they say may be repeated or passed on in other contexts. Our goal ought to be (1) to communicate clearly the gospel, our Christian convictions, and our Christian experience, and (2) to do so in a way that does not create unnecessary obstacles or roadblocks to effective communication. Both “insider” language and hyperbole can easily become, as the case of the present passage demonstrates, barriers to clear and effective communication of the gospel. Thus Christians ought to be cautious and careful in using them.
As some of the negative reactions and misperceptions encountered by the Promise Keepers movement in its early years demonstrate, words, ideas, or concepts that mean one thing to “insiders” may sound quite different to those who do not share the same suppositions or insider perspective. What some of the speakers meant by phrases like “taking charge of the home,” for example, was not at all what some reporters and outside observers thought they meant. Or, as some Christian political candidates for national office have learned, phrases and ideas that are easily understood by fellow Christians often either do not communicate at all or (perhaps worse) seriously miscommunicate to non-Christians.
In view of these circumstances—and in view of the current state of communications technology, in which words can circle the globe in literally seconds and thus be heard in contexts that we can scarcely imagine—we would do well to give careful consideration to what we say and to how we say it, especially if it involves any sort of argumentative or polemical language. Christians should never hesitate to engage in forthright discussions of issues or differences, but we ought to seek to do so in ways consistent with the gospel and the values it represents, rather than in ways that unnecessarily polarize or divide, or in ways that raise barriers to genuine understanding. Our goal must be to enlighten, not inflame.32
Response to persecutors. This passage offers an opportunity to reaffirm how Christians ought to respond to those who persecute and/or attack them. In 5:15 (“See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all” [NRSV]; cf. Rom. 12:17–19), Paul will remind the Thessalonians that doing good, not retaliation, is the proper reaction to persecution (cf. Rom. 12:20–21). As Marshall notes, “Nothing in what Paul writes suggests that the Thessalonians should hate their persecutors or react violently against them. Their task is to live the new life of the Christian in love even to their enemies and to leave vengeance to God himself.”33
In other words, nothing in the present passage in any way abrogates what Jesus taught in Matthew 5:44 (“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”) and Luke 6:27–28 (“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you”), and what Paul himself echoed in Romans 12:14 (“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse”), about how believers are to respond to persecution or attacks. Violence against enemies or in response to persecution is not the way of the gospel.
This is an important point to reaffirm in an era when some Christians are becoming increasingly violent in their reaction to social pressures or in the way in which they approach social issues. Examples of the kind of violence I have in mind include, for example, violent attacks on abortion clinics and even the killing of abortion providers, or the advocacy of robbery, bombings, and killing by allegedly Christian movements (such as the Phineas Priesthood34). Moreover, ours is a time when reports of large-scale massacres and atrocities in nominally Christian societies are not uncommon (e.g., “ethnic cleansing” in the former Yugoslavia).
For increasing numbers of Christians, in other words, it appears that the mere perception of someone or some movement as an “enemy” is viewed as sufficient grounds to justify the use of violence against them. Such an attitude overlooks not only the teaching of the gospel (noted above), but also the lessons of history. Attempts to impose, create, or maintain by force a “Christian” society generally have led to unmitigated disaster; and Christian-versus-Christian violence, whether in Europe during the Thirty Years War in the seventeenth century, or in Ireland or Rwanda today (countries in which up to 90 percent of the population are professed Christians), has caused incalculable damage to the cause of the gospel. In Romans 5:8–10, Paul points out how, even when we were all his enemies, God’s response was to demonstrate his love for us. Are believers in that God to act any differently towards their enemies?