Historical Peter and Non-Violence: Ignored Evidence

This is a guest post by a recently graduated High School senior, Ryan Money, who served as my Pastoral Intern at First Colony Christian Church for the past year. The following post originates from a writing project he completed on the historical veracity of non-violence for the Historical Jesus movement for an advanced Biblical Studies class at a private college preparatory High School. As we worked this his material, we both were interested in the work that is potentially unexplored regarding the ethical transformation of Peter from a violent Jew to a non-violent follower of Jesus after the Resurrection.

You can follow Ryan on Twitter at twitter.com/@ryan_dinero or on Facebook at facebook.com/ryan.dinero. He will be attending Baylor University to study Religion in the Fall.


 

Since John Howard Yoder’s excellent defense of Christian pacifism in his critically acclaimed Politics of Jesus, the general Christian population has received Yoder’s camp much more willingly in discourse regarding nonviolence, social theory, and ecclesiology. With this acceptance has come many great works in the areas of Paul’s rejection and redefining of Roman imperial politics, as well as the congruency of the Old Testament story with the nonviolent way of Jesus.

As I was researching for a paper, I began researching the nonviolence of Paul and Jesus, references for whom I had no problem finding.

When I began to research the nonviolence of Peter, however, I was startled and amazed that there were almost no resources. No material Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox explored the nonviolence of Peter and its relation to Jesus and Paul. It wasn’t until I came to terms with the fact that my Peter section would be lacking resources that I began to wonder why material attempting to prove the nonviolence of Peter was virtually nonexistent. I came to the conclusion that the controversial doctrines of Peter such as the place of women and circumcision have been so greatly debated and contested that we have essentially forgotten the possibility of Peter’s nonviolence.
peterandpaul1

This conclusion is not a laughable realization, but a sad fact that the Church has chosen to focus on issues that both sides agree are not necessary for salvation. For the purpose of this post, we shall set aside these arguments in favor of a new query: Did Peter conform to Jesus’ nonviolent ethic?

Considering the limited scope of resources available to someone attempting to prove Peter’s nonviolence, I think the best starting place is a brief exposition of Peter’s story, the story of a man formerly craving messianic violence for the establishment of a Kingdom, and after realizing exactly how the Kingdom was established, a man who eschewed it.

A few books that explore these topics are:
Gabrielson, Jeremy. Paul’s Non-violent Gospel: The Theological Politics of Peace in Paul’s Life and Letters. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2013.
Gormon, Michael. Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and his Letters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2004.
Nugent, John C. The Politics of Yahweh: John Howard Yoder, the Old Testament, and the People of God. Eugene, Or.: Cascade Books, 2011.

Peter is historically the disciple who always spoke too soon, and in the book of John, we see that he is also the disciple who acted too soon.

John 18:10-11

“Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) So Jesus said to Peter, ‘Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?’”

Why Peter cut off the ear seems quite clear: Peter was expecting a violent King to bring his reign, destroying his enemies and striking down evildoers. Peter’s cutting off the servants ear then becomes not an isolated incident, subject to Jesus’ harsh words simply because it was out of the ordinary, but the culmination of Israel’s desperate hope for a violent King who would free Israel from her oppressors, and Jesus’ definitive statement that this hope was in vain. Peter was not necessarily trying to anger Jesus, but the act was instead a desperate plea for Jesus to begin the war against the Romans. Just as soon as Peter fired the “first-shot” in the war against the Romans, it was the King himself who put this violence away. In the same way that the servant’s ear was cut off, so were the violent hopes of zealous Jews like Peter. His violent thoughts and wishes to carry them out against the Romans were sheathed by Jesus, as he declared them not useful to his Kingdom. Peter’s subsequent denial of Jesus and weeping was not simply Peter’s grieving for Jesus’ death, but maybe more profoundly, he was grieving his misunderstanding of the way the Kingdom was to be established, and his realization that his entire political stance was at odds with the mission of the Kingdom of God.

This obvious example of Peter’s dramatic transformation from a proponent of violence to a nonviolent follower is backed by a theme of nonviolence in his letters, to which we will now turn to prove that nonviolence was not a debatable doctrine for Peter.

 

1 Peter 1:14-16

As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he
who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy.

These short verses, given to a body of believers by Peter may not seem like much. Their implicit meaning however, is proof that Peter knew (which is no surprise) and taught his followers the Jesus Tradition. Peter here quotes the Sermon on the Mount and references Jesus’ admonition to be holy. This holiness is not a pious hope that one day good deeds will afford someone a trip to heaven, but refers to the believer’s ability to join in the Kingdom praxis, the revolutionary way of Jesus.

It is also to interesting to point out that Peter’s quotation (or paraphrase) of Jesus is the admonition ending the Sermon on the Mount. This is almost as if Peter is implying that his followers should adhere to the entirety of Jesus’ teachings, and should therefore act nonviolently. Just as quoting a line from a famous song would draw the entire song to memory, here Peter is referencing not only Jesus’ admonition to be holy, but all of the teachings that contribute to one’s “holiness.” Bearing this in mind, the “passions of former ignorance” that Peter refers to are the violent ways of the world, and the never-ending desire for power only to be attained by violent coercion. By setting these aside, believers are able to focus on the mission given by Jesus and to do good work for the Kingdom. Urging his followers to refrain from these “former
passions” (quite possibly the same passions that caused him to cut the ear of the servant), Peter calls Christians to put away their violence, and to drop their weapons at the feet of the King who conquered without swords, guns, or bombs.

 

1 Peter 3:13-17

Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.

Suffering is what happens to Christians. Peter acknowledges this and encourages his people with the hope that death has been defeated and nothing can prevail against the believers who know that their King defeated both sin and death. Suffering itself implies nonviolence, for to suffer the violence of another and to not resist is the very definition of nonviolence. Instead of Peter telling the Christians to fight the empire, or loathe it at the very least, he encourages his people to remain faithful to the call of Jesus, to serve, to love, and to be nonviolent.

The theme of nonviolence is furthered from this text when one takes into account the harsh political climate of the 1st century. The Early Christians did not possess any meaningful political standing, as their “strange” beliefs led them to be outcasted from their social circles and down to a class that was persecuted at every corner. These encouraging words meant infinitely more to a people who were persecuted and faced unspeakable violence on a regular basis, and moreover, a people who were tasked to not only bear the persecution, but respond with good.

 

From these three verses we can begin to create a narrative of a zealous Jew, excited for the coming of the Messiah, and who was paradoxically surprised when he refused to act like the Messiah they expected, but instead, taught a new way of life that did not necessitate violence. Despite the scant verses that are able to be used as proof for Peter’s nonviolence, the overall message of 1st Peter is encouragement to a people who are suffering, and calling them back to the nonviolent ways of the King. It is also interesting to note that Peter and Paul disagree on several issues, the main one being circumcision, but there are no recorded disagreements on the overall lifestyle of a believer, that is, loving and nonviolent.

This is just the beginning of what I believe could be a more complete and comprehensive study on the nonviolence of Peter. If anyone has any resources that could help me or anyone who is now curious about this topic please feel free to share them in the comments. If anyone has doubts, rebuttals, or questions please share them. I’m excited to hear y’alls thoughts on this!

The Need for A Christian Dictionary (“Freedom”)

To be a Christian is to re-learn the meaning of some of the most foundational words in our language. Words like freedom, love, justice, wisdom, power, and knowledge.

For too many people Christianity simply adds a few more ideas to a set of already assumed beliefs about themselves and the world.  In reality, the Gospel desires to crucify our previous worldview and replace it with an understanding of the world around us which is saturated in the grace and glory of the Crucified God. Our concepts of things such as justice and wisdom must be re-defined by the Cross and by the Son of God who died on it. The result is that many words than once held simple “obvious meanings” now end up “baptized by the Cross” and with new definitions that are often quite surprising and perhaps complexing.

My suggestion: a Christian dictionary would be a helpful tool for the act of discipleship. 

It’s a big project – but perhaps it can be tackled one word at a time.

Since it is the fourth of July, let’s start with the word “freedom.”

In my experience, “freedom” is often defined in terms such as “the ability to do whatever one wishes” or “the ability to choose from any of the available options.” (Side note: these are actually two completely differing notions of freedom). For Christians however, true freedom is liberation from the self-destructing forces of sin and death which keep humans trapped in a viscous cycle. Thus, freedom involves the potential and ability of acting in new ways that lead to life. These actions we know by words such as obedience. They are characterized by the distinct hints of the Holy Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. In a world dominated by the cruciform logic of the Triune God – freedom and self-control actually go hand in hand. This is why Paul can describe Christian freedom as a kind of slavery to God’s new way of life in Christ and through the Spirit.

As William Barclay says, “Christian freedom does not mean being free to do as we like; it means being free to do as we ought.”

Thus, Christians are “free” in a way much different than the “freedom” sought after in liberal democracies. Christians are free not to hold on to their rights, but to give them up. Christians are free not to treat people however they like, but to love indiscriminately and without end. Christians are free to give up their lives for the good of even their enemies.

Sound paradoxical? Sound upside-down?

Welcome to the new world… the world of the Cross.
The world of the Kingdom.

Book Review | Exploring Christology & Atonement: Conversations with John McLeod Campbell, H. R. Mackintosh, and T. F. Torrance

This is a guest post from a colleague of mine at Houston Baptist University, Matt Davis.


What happens in theology when we are not asking the right question? Andrew Purves tackles this in his latest book, “Exploring Christology & Atonement: Conversations with John McLeod Campbell, H. R. Mackintosh, and T. F. Torrance.”

To address this, he opens and closes this work saying, “This book offers an account of the relations between Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Son, and the Father, the result of which is the atonement, for in the incarnate Son the relation between God and humankind is savingly established” (9, 253). Some readers will immediately notice in what he does say (as well as what he does not say) what path he hopes to take the reader on. This book is aimed to engage just this sort of reader, as well as those who are prepared to learn just what he implies in his thesis.

Okay, all well and good. So, what is the “wrong” question?

Well, for Purves, it could take a number of variations, but it is any question that too easily allows us to separate our answers on the atonement from the Incarnation (and its manifold implications). Some might ask whether a book is needed at all for this. Is it even possible to separate the atonement from involving Jesus? Is he not, you know, sort of necessary for the whole thing? Purves brings his own education and his summary of the contributions of three Scottish theologians – Campbell, Mackintosh, and Torrance – to this conversation. They respond, yes, some people have talked about the atonement in a way that displaces the central, mediating role of the incarnate Jesus.

How then should we approach the topic? It is here, in his introduction, that Purves begins. Like an experienced guide, he gives us two reminders for the path ahead: first, “We do theology because we are baptized” (17); and, second, “All theology is en route” (23). That is, we must remember the theological journey is not simply one of knowledge but, primarily, an act of worship. And because we are limited, both epistemologically and ontologically, we should tread clothed in humility as we discover and attempt to understand that which has been revealed. We should be hesitant to put too much emphasis on anything detached from these realities – whether trusting too deeply in reason or in things that have not been revealed to us.

What sort of question(s) should we ask? How should we consider the atonement? Over the course of the next three chapters, what was implicit in his introduction becomes more explicit: Purves believes these three Scottish theologians help us to keep our course by reminding us that there is no atonement without the incarnation. In chapter two, Purves argues that we begin with the incarnate Son, not a priori but a posteriori, because this is where Scripture begins. The questions in the gospels and epistles, rather than speculative, abstract philosophical questions, center us on the supremacy of this revelation, this image of the invisible God. Chapter three deepens the argument, calling us to realize the power of understanding the hypostatic union of Christ to overcome any tendency to reduce the necessity of Christ in the atonement “as only forgiveness of sins or amelioration of God’s wrath or substituted punishment” (100). Finally, in chapter four, by understanding the depth and implications of the “magnificent exchange” we realize the grace of God effects not simply our legal standing with Him, but also our ability to become like Him.

It is from this point that Purves devotes a chapter to each theologian to summarize their contributions and provides “theological engagement” (i.e., from other theologians, as well as Purves) with those contributions at the end of each chapter. (Interestingly, Campbell’s “theological engagement” section is by far the longest compared to the brevity for Mackintosh’s and Torrance’s chapters.)

Purves ties up all his exploration in the last chapter with practical theology – that is, with its import for faith, worship, and ministry.

A few closing remarks are in order on audience, readability, and recommendation.

This book is for theologians (professional or aspiring) and learned members of ministry who want to know more about the theological contributions of three Scottish theologians to the conversation of Christology and the Atonement. It is not an introductory work on every theory of the atonement, but rather to the contributions of these theologians in that conversation. It is of typical theological density and will be more readable for those already familiar with atonement language and arguments. At times, it is easy to get lost in his writing as he wades through the mountain of things he wants to say, say well, and say within the scope and word limits of this work. (This is, admittedly, a minor criticism for me, but seemed worth noting for some readers.)

All in all, this book is a labor of love and worship, and every page bears this. I am grateful to have read it.


Note: I received this book from IVP Academic in exchange for an unbiased review.

 

Karl Barth’s Ideal Church Service

“Would the sermon not be delivered and listened to quite differently if everything outwardly and visibly began with the baptism and moved towards the Lord’s Supper? Why do numerous attempts to bring church liturgy up to date prove without exception so unfruitful? Is it not because they do not fix their attention on this fundamental defect, the incompleteness of our usual service, i.e. its lack of sacraments? 
– Karl Barth

I agree with Barth – one of the largest problems with many churches is the lack of attention or effort given to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Ideal church service: baptism -> sermon -> Lord’s Supper.

Agree or disagree?