You are on page 1of 14

FightingWords

Religion, Violence,and the


InterpretationofSacred Texts
Edited by
JohnRenard
Q3
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFO RNI A PRESS
Berkeley Los Angeles London
University of California Press, one of the most distinguished u ni vers it y
presses in t he United Slates, enriches lives aroLlnd the world byadvanc-
ing schola rship in the humanities, social sciences, and nat ural sciences.
Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philan-
thropic contributions from individuals and institLltions. For more infor-
mation, visit \Vww.ucpress.edu.
University of California Press
Berkeley and Los Angeles, Ca lifornia
University of Ca lifornia Press, Ltd.
London, England
2012 by The Regents of the University of California
Library of Congress Catalogi ng- in-Publicati on Data
Fighting words: religion, violence, and t he interpretati on of sacred texts
i edited by John Renard.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-520-25831-0 (cloth: alk. paper) - ISBN 978-0 -520- 27419 -8
(pbk. : alk. paper) - ISBN 978-0-520-95408-3 (ebook)
J. Violence-Religious aspects. 2. Sacred books-History and
criticism. 3. Religions Relations. I. Renard, John, '944-
BL65V55F64 2012
201'76332-dc23 2012029403
Manufactured in th e Un ited States of America
21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12
10 8 6 4
In keeping with a commitment to sllpport environmentally responsible
and sustainahle printing practices, VC Press has printed this book on
50-pound Enterpr ise, a 30% post-consumer-waste, recycled, deinked
fiber t hat is processed chlorine-free, It is acid-free and meets all A NSli
1>IISO (z 39.48) requ irement s.
G. E. Watson,
version, and
er Judaism,
enee in the
s the Bibli-
rn Age, ed.
ess, 1993),
;hauowof
nl. lta.lks
(Minne-
4
Violence in the New Testament
and the History of Interpretation
Leo D. Lefebure
Even though Jes us proclaimed a gospel of peace (Matthew 10:12-13; Luke 10:5; Joh 11
14:27; 20:19, 21, 26), Christians have repeatedly engaged in violent conflicts both
with their neighbors in other religious traditions and with other Christians. Chris-
tian warriors have worn the sign of the cross in battle and have often seen them-
selves as figh t ing on behalf of God's cause; they have cited biblical passages to
justify violent assaults, inquisitions, and persecutions. Christians have also in-
voked the Bible to place limits on violence or to end violence altogether.
TIle roots of this ambi valence lie in the ambiguities of the Christian scriptures
and the Jewish heritage from which they emerge. The earliest followers of Jesus
continued to read the Jewish scriptures in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Septua-
gint, which present both Isaiah's moving call to transform swords into plough-
shares and cease training for war (Isaiah 2=4), and the brutal divine command to
exterminate all the inhabitants of the Promised Land without exception lest they
tempt Israeli tes to idolatry (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). While Jesus commands his
followers 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 i Ilk that I
have 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 prac-
tices of the Christian community, with multiple assumptions lurking in the back-
ground of every act of interpretation. The explanation of any individual verse pre-
supposes a sense of the entire Bible, of the practice of the Ch ristian life, and of the
relation between Christianity and other religious traditions. from Origen (d. c. 254)
and Augustine (d. 430) to the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), Christian inter-
75
76 LEO O. LEFEBURE
pretershaveinsistedthatanyparticularversemustbeunderstoodinlightof the
whole corpusofbiblicaltexts andthe life oftheChurch; OrigenandAugustine
warned against literal interpretations that would violate jesus's fundamental
principleoflove.
2
The fatherofmodernhermeneutics,theProtestanttheologian
FriedrichSchleiermacher(d. 1834),stressedthetwofoldhermeneuticalmovement
from theinterpretationofaparttotheinterpretationofthewhole.Vie interpret
the partin light ofthewhole, and thenwe reinterpretthewhole inlightofOUr
newunderstandingofthepart
3
Withvaryingdegreesofself-reflection,everygenerationandeverycommu_
nityofChristiansdecideswhichbiblicalpassages toplaceintheforegroundand
which inthebackground.This principleis ofparticularimportanceconcerning
biblical passages regardingpeace and violence. Rabbi jonathanSacks expresses
thechallenge:
Everyscripturalcanon has withinittexts which,readliterally, canbe takentoen-
dorse narrow particularism,suspici onofstrangers, and intolerance toward those
who believedifferentlythanwe do. Eachalso haswithinitsourcesthatemphasize
kinshipwiththestranger,empathywiththeoutsider,thecouragethatleadspeople
toextendahandacrossboundariesofestrangementorhost ility.Thechoiceisours.
Willthegeneroustextsofourtraditionserveas interpretivekeys to therest,orwill
theabrasivepassagesdetermineourideasofwhatweareandwhatwearecalledon
to do7
4
Complicatingthetaskof biblicalinterpretersistheunresolvedquestionofwhat
books should be included in the Christian scriptures. The Book ofRevelation,
which presentstheinfluentialcombatmythofthedivinewarrior,was rejectedby
manyintheearlyChurch;andtheByzantineOrthodoxtraditiontothisdaydoes
not read this book in the liturgy.5 After centuriesofdebates over which books
wouldbe acceptedas scripture,todaymostChristiansacceptthesamecanonof
theNewTestament,butdifferencespersistconcerningwhatbooksconstitutethe
First(or Old)TestamentoftheChristianBible.
Tragically,Christianshavefrequentlyhadviolentrelationshipswiththose
to whomtheyaremostcloselyboundbyhistory,geography,and theology: jews,
Muslims,andotherChristians.Thisessaywillexaminetheinterpretationof New
Testamentpassagesthathavebeenof specialimportanceintheconflictswiththe
jewishandMuslim communitiesandwithChristiansdeemedhere tical. The dis-
cussionwillbeginbysurveyingNewTestament textsthatwouldlaterbeunder-
stood to justifyviolence, particularlythose passages regarding the confl icts of
jesusandhisfollowers withtheircontemporaries,especiallyotherjews. Because
of theextensivescholarshipontheNewTestament,thisdiscussioncanofferonly
the most cursoryoverview ofsome ofthese texts in theiroriginal setting. The
second section ofthischapterwill examinethelaterhistoryofinterpretationof
77
VIOLENCE IN TilE NEW
theNewTestamentinrelationtojews,Muslims,anddissentingChristians ,with
particularattentiontotwothemesthatfueledhistorical Christiananimosityto-
"rard jewsandMuslims:(1) thecondemnation,passion,andcrucifIxionof)esus,
which influenced Christian attitudes toward jews for centuries; and (2) sacred
combatandthefigureoftheAntichristinNewTestamentapocalyptictexts,which
shapedmanyChristianviewsofMuslimsfromtheseventhcenturytothepresent.
The final section will explore the hermeneuticalsituationofChristians reading
theNewTestamentindial oguewithjewsinthewakeof theHolocaustandinlight
ofshifts inhistorical scholarshipregardingtheoriginsofChristianityandRab-
binicJudaism.
CONF LICTS I N THE N EW TESTAMENT:
T EXTS IN THEIR O RIGI NAL CONTEXT
Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke
In thesynoptic gospels , jesus repeatedly engages in fierce polemics against the
ScribesandPharisees.Whentheychallengehimforallowinghis disciplestoeat
withoutwashingtheirhands,hecallsthem"Hypocrites!"andseverelychastises
them (Matthew1s:3-9;MarkTl-8). jesuscautionshisdisciplesagainstthe"yeast"
ofthePharisees andSadducees,thatis, their evil corruption (Matthew 16:5-
12
).
jesuswarnsthecrowdsinjerusalemagainsttheexampleof theScribesandPhari-
sees,again accusingthemofhypocrisy;theyare"blind guides" (Matthew2p6,
24). jesus angrily foretells the suffering that will come upon the Scribes and
Pharisees:
You snakes, you brood ofvipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?
Therefore I sendyou prophets,sages, andscribes,someofwhom you will kill and
crucify,andsomeyou will flog inyoursynagoguesandpursuefrom towntotown,
so thatuponyou may comeall therighteous bloodshedonearth, from theblood
of .\belto thebloodofZechariahson ofBarachiah,whomYOLI murdered
betweenthesanctuaryandthealtar. (Matthew23:33-3
6
)
jesusalsolamentstheinfidelityoftheinhabitantsofjerusalemandforetells the
comingdestructionoftheir city (Nlatthew 23:37-
2
4:
2
; :'Jark13:
2
;Luke 13:34-35;
21:20).DonaldSeniorcommentsonthecontextof) esus'spolemiCagainstthejew-
ishleadersinMatthew23: "Matthew'sstrongcritiqueofthejewishleadersinthis
passage andels(;\.:here inthe gospel al so reflects thetension betweenhis largely
jewish ChristiancommunityandthePharisaicleadershipofformative judaism?
as bothcommunitieswereattemptingtodefine themselvesintheperiodpriorto
andcontemporarywiththecompositionofthegospel. Suchtension anddebate,
whileoftenhostileintone,remainedessentiallyanintra-Jewi shdebateandcannot
be understood as 'anti-Sem.itic'inthesensethetermisusedtoday."6
78
79
LEO D. LEFEBURE
AtamealinthehomeofaprominentPharisee,Jesustellsaparableof agreat
royalfeasttowhichmanypersonsareinvited.Afteralltheoriginalinvitedguests
declinetheinvitation, themasterofthehouseordersaservantto"bringin the
poor,thecrippled,theblind,andthelame"(Luke14:21).Theservantdoessoand
reports that therestillis room. "Then themastersaid to theslave, 'Gooutinto
the roads andlanes, and compel people to come in, so that myhouse maybe
filled'" (Luke 14:
2
3). In theoriginalcontextJesus addressesthewarningto the
Phariseesandlawyers with whomhe is dining,hopingtogaintheiracceptance
of hismessagelestthey,liketheoriginalinviteesintheparable,find themselves
excluded becauseoftheirowndecision. Joseph Fitzmyercomments on thead-
monition: "Those who areexcluded from thebanquethave onlythemselvesto
thank;Godwill notdragtheunWil lingintoitagainsttheirwill."7WhileJesus
ishere in anadversarialrelationshipwith thePharisees, it is importanttonote
thatnotall JewsrejectJesus: "LukeisatpainstoshowthatsomeofthePalestin-
ian contemporaries ofJesus did accept him. "s Ofgreatest importance for the
laterChristian traditionwas the master's command to compelpeople to enter
thefeast. Fitzmyer explains that inits original context the commandto make
peoplecometo the dinner"means merelythatthepoorandotherswill under-
standablyresistintheirmodestysuchaninvitation,untiltheyaregentlytaken
andled intothehouse."9
Thesynopticgospelswerecomposedbeforethecleardifferentiationandsepara-
tionof JewsandChristiansintotwodistinctreligions. IOManyof thefirstfollowers
ofJesuswereJewswhoacceptedJesusasLordandMessiah;theydidnotseethem-
selves as leavingthe religion ofJudaismin ordertojoinanotherreligion. Jesus's
vigorous debates overTorah with Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees reflect the
Jewishcontextof hi sday; fiercedisagreementsandsharprhetoricwerecharacter-
isticof Jewishhalakhic(legal)debatesbefore,during,andafterthetimeofJesus.])
As Amy-Jill Levine notes, "Jesus himselfwas aJew speaking to otherJews .His
teachingscomportwiththetraditionofIsrael'sprophets.Judaismhasalwayshad
aself-criticalcomponent."12InhisstudyofthehistoricalJesus,JohnMeiernotes
thatdespite theusualadversarialtone, thereareindications thatsomePharisees
wereopentoJesus'smessageandthattheirinteractionswerenotallnegative.13In
thecontextoftheminist ryofJesusandof thesynopticgospels,itisnotanti-Jewish
for Jesus todebatewithotherJewsaboutJewishpractice.
Similarly,E. P. SanderssumsuptheimageofJesusinthesynopticgospels:"There
is nogoodevidencethatJesus was ananti-Jewish Jew....TI1eevidencefrom the
Gospels,however,indicatesthatJesusacceptedtheJewishversionofancientreli-
gion, as well as the common beliefthatillness andmentalproblems were often
causedbydemonicpossession. Heprobablydid criticizeandarguewithsomeof
hiscontemporaries,butthecriticismsthatwefindintheGospelsarerathermodest
VIOLENCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
in comparison to thewordsthatsomeofthebiblicalprophets,suchas Amosand
Hosea,directedagainst theircontemporaries."14Theculmination ofJesus'sconflict
with otherJewscomesattheendof hi slife,when,thego.spelsreport, Jewishlead-
ers plottedagai nsthimandaJewish crowdin Jerusalemdemandedhisdeath. In
themostinfamoussceneofall,accordingto thegospelof Matt hewPilateisreluc-
tanttoacceptresponsibilityfortheexecutionofJesus(Matthew27:24);inresponse,
the crowd in Jerusalem demands the death ofJesus ofNazareth. When Pilate
demurs, "thepeople as a whole answered, 'His bloodbe on us and on ourchil-
drenl '" (Matthew27:25). Regardingtheinvolvementof Jews inthecondemnation
andcrucifixionof Jesus, RaymondBrowncomments:"IntheChristianpicture of
whatwasdonetoJesus ,atfirsttherewasnothinganti-Jewishindepictingtberole
oftheJewishauthorities inhis death;for Jesusand his disciples ononesideand
theJerusalem Sanhedrinauthoritiesontheother,\'ereallJews. Thedepictionof
thoseJews opposedtoJesusasplottingevilwas notdi LTerentfromtheOTdepic-
tion ofthewickedplottingagainsttheinnocent."IS
Thisdoes not mean thatthereare no tensions.Daniel Harrington notesthat
somescholarsseektominimizetheproblemposedbyMatthew2T25 byinterpret-
ingitasreferringonlytoarelativelysmallgathering00ewsinJerusalem;however,
Harringtonobserves:"ButinMatt27:25heswitchestopas ho laos ("allthepeople").
Elsewherein hisGospel, Matthewuseslaos torefertotheJewishpeopletakenas
acollectivity. Matt hew meant more thanthe small group ofJews whogathered
around Pilate'sjudgmentseat at Passover time inA.D. 30....Given Matthew's
concernforChristianidentitywithinJudaism,itseemslikelythatforhim'all the
people'representedtheJewish opponentsoftheChurch."16Thesynopt ic gospels
proclaimthatJesus is theMessiah,theChrist, thefulfillmentofthehopesofan-
cientIsrael. Initsorigi nal context,thisis notadenunciationofJudaismas areli-
gion; butit did mean avigorousdebate withotherJews who rejected theclaims
made aboutJesus byhisdiSCiples.
The Johannine Tradi tion
SomeofthefiercestcontroversiesbetweenJesus andJewishleadersoccurinthe
gospelofJohn,whereJesusrepeatedlydisputeswith"hoi iudaeoi, " which isusu-
allytranslat edas"theJews."Intheclimaxof theargument,Jesuspointedlyasserts
tothem: "You arefromyourfather thedevil, andyouchoosetodoyourfather's
deSi res.Hewas amurdererfrom thebeginninganddoesnotstandinthetruth,
because there is no truth in him....Whoeveris from God hears thewordsof
God.The reasonyoudonothearthemis thatyouarenotfromGod"(John8:44,
47-48).
FrancisMoloneywarnsagainstinterpretingtheterm"hoi iudaeoi" asreferring
to the entireJewish people: "A criti cal readingoftheJohannineGospelmakes it
81
80 LEO D. l.EFEBURE
clear that 'the Jews' are those characters in the story who have made up their minds
about Jesus. They are one side of a Christological debate."!7 Moloney notes that
"the fact that the Johannine Christians were being ejected from the synagogue
indicates that many members of the Johannine community were also ethnically
Jewish, and committed to the religion ofIsrael."18 In its original context, the dispute
is a family quarrel that has become extremely heated
19
According to the passion narrative in John, Jewish officers cooperate 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 ap-
pears 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 the
Jewish character of the fourth gospel. The Jewish scholar Adele Reinhartz com-
ments: "The Fourth Gospel has an overall Jewish ' feel.' ... Jesus and most of the
other characters in the Gospel are Jews, and they participate fully in the Jewish
world of early first-century Palestine."2o Nonetheless, Reinhart z notes the prob-
lem that "the Gospel ascribes a villainous role to the Jews in its historical tale,
associates them with the negative terms through the rhetoric of bi nary opposi-
tion in its Christological tale, and undermines Jewish covenantal idenlity in its
cosmological tale."21
The First Letter ofT ohn provides the first explicit mention of the Antichrist:
Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now
many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour.. . Who is
the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the
one who denies the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:18, 22)
In this context the antichrists are those 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 teachers
who oppose the Joh annine community and who are to be shunned. The original
use of the term antichrist comes out of a Christological dispute over the identity
oEJesus and whether the Word had truly become f1esh.
22
Antichrists are adversaries
of God and of the Messiah (Christ). The term is not necessarily a title for a particu-
lar individual or a dreaded apocalyptic figure; it could simply mean "an anti-
Christ" or opponent of Christ.
23
The term comes from the dissidents' denial that
Jesus was the Anointed One or the "Christ. "24
Acts of the Apostles
The death and resurrection oEJesus did not halt the cycle of controversy, for intense
and sometimes deadly conflicts between followers oEJesus and other Jews contin-
ued afterward. Accord ing to the Acts of the Apostles, the deacon Stephen, a Greek-
speaking Jew who has accepted the gospel, engages in heated polemics with rep-
VIOI . ENCE I N Tll E N E W T E STAMENT
resentatives of the synagogue of Freedmen from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and
Asia (Acts 6:9-15). In response to the charges against him, Stephen recounts the
histOry of ancient Israel, accenting the repeated rejection of God's representatives
by Israelites and Jews. Stephen sums up their sinfulness:
You stiff-necked people, uncircu mcised in heart and ears, you are forever opposing
the Hol y Spirit, just as yo ur ancestors used to do. Which of the prophets did your
ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righ-
teOUS One, and now you have become his betrayers and murderers. You are the
ones that received the law as ordained by angels, and ye t you have not kept it. (Acts
T51-53)
The crowd then stones Stephen to death, with Saul's approval (Acts Ts8-8:1). In
its original context, this polemiC comes in a dispute among Jews. For a Jew to recall
the history ofJewish infidel ity to other Jews is not anti-Jewish; it is a recapitulation
of much of the Hebrew Bible with many points of contact with nonbiblical Jewish
literature of the time. 25 Luke Timothy Johnson notes the central purpose of the
speech: "Luke seeks to legitimate the messianic appropriation of Torah by show-
ing how Torah itself demanded such an appropriation."
26
1he speech inflames the
crowd of listeners, who proceed to stone Stephen to death as the young Saul stands
by approvingly (Acts Ts8-8: 1).
Later in the narrative, Acts reports that "the Jews" approved of Herod Agrippa's
decision to kill James, the brother oEJohn, with the sword (Acts 12:2-3) Acts also
narrates that after experiencing Ch rist on the road to Damascus, Paul proclaimed
the message of Jesus Christ and also encountered diffi culties with "the Jews." In
Thessalonica, "the Jews became jealous, and with the help of some ruffians in the
marketplaces they formed a mob and set the city in an uproar. While they were
searching for Paul and Silas to bring them out to the assembly, they attacked Jason's
house" (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
-
1
3). It
is noteworthy that Paul regularly preaches in synagogues (Acts 13:5, 14; 14:
1
; J]:1,
10), and that when he speaks at the Areopagus in Athens, he appears as a Jewish
philosopher27 Later in the narrative there are said to be "thousands of believers ...
among 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 Letters
Paul's letters include a number of statements that reflect conflicts with Jews, most
notably in Thessalonica, the same place where the Acts of the Apostles also reports
trouble:
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of Go d in Christ
Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots
83
82 LEO D. LEFEBURE
as they did {"rom the Jews, who killcd both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and
drove us out; they displease God and oppose e\'cryoue by hindering us from speak-
ing to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling
up the measure of their sins; but God's wrath has overtaken them at last. (1 'Thes-
salonians 2:14-16)
This passage, which appears in \",hat is quite possibly the oldest surviving Chris-
tian text, resembles the Johannine usage of "the Jews" and Stephen's linkage of
earlier Jewish persecution of the prophets to their involvement in the killing of
Jesus. It is very harsh in its assessment of Jewish behavior past and present. It is,
however, not characteristic ofPaul's other writings and poses many puzzles.
28
Earl
Richard contends: "The expression 'the Jews' is non-Pauline in its negative usage."29
Full discussion of the difficult exegetical issues invol ved exceeds the limits of this
essay; Richard and many other interpreters believe that this passage is an inter-
polation by a later Gentile Christian writing after the destruction of the Temple
in 70 C.E.: "The author is post-Pauline and is writing from a Gentile-Christian
perspective which one should characterize as anti -Jewish The plight of the Jews.
following the destruction ofJerusalem and later dispersal from Palestine, is seen
as the result of divine retribution finally being meted out for centuries of hostility
toward God and the whole ofhumanity."3o Gerd Ludemann, however, pointedly
disagrees, arguing that this passage "on no account derives from a subsequent
addition by an alien hand."31 Ludemann acknowledges that th is passage contradicts
Paul's hope for the salvation of all Israel in Romans 11:25-26, but he believes Paul
changed his mind in the intervening years.
While Paul assumes that the Church comprises both Jews and Gentiles, he writes
very 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 in
letters on stone tablets, came in glory so that the people of Israel could not gaze at
Moses' face because of the glory of his face. a glory now set aside, how much more
will the ministry of the Spirit come in glory' ... But their minds were hardened.
Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covemnt, that same
veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. Indeed. to this ver) day whenever
Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one turns to the Lord, the veil
is 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 a
Christian would speak in this way. It is a Jewish Christian who looks back on his
non-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 NEW TESTA M ENT
,,,ho insist on observance of the Mosaic Law. Paul urges the Galatians to follow
the example of Abraham and drive outthe slave woman and her son lest they share
in 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 Sinai
in Arabia and corresponds to the present jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her
children. But the other woman corresponds to the jerusalem above; she is free , and
she 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 persecuted
the child who waS born according to the Spirit , so it is now also. But what does the
scripture say? Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not
share the inheritance wit h the child of the free woman. So then. friends, we are
children, not of the slave but of the fre e woman. (Galatians 4:
2
4-3
1
)
While commentators have often understood the present Jerusal em to refer to
Judaism and the heavenly Jerusalem to refer to Christianity, Frank J. Matera, fol-
lowing the lead of J. L. Martyn, argues persuasively that this is not the contrast
Paul intends: "Paul talks about the children of two different apostolates: his cir-
cumcision-free apostolate and the circumcision-apostolate of the agitators. An
important aspect of this approach is Martyn's insight that Paul is not referring to
the religions ofJudaism and Christianity in the Hagar-Sarah allegory but to Jewish
Ch risti ans who insist upon the Law and Gentile Christians of a Pauline persuasion
who do not. In other words, this passage reflects a struggle between two factions
of early Christianity rat her than opposition between Christianity and Judaism."33
Paul is not calling for the expulsion of Jews or of Je\\' ish Christians as such; his
focus is specifICally on his opponents in Galatia, the agitators who insist on obser-
vance of the full Mosaic Law in opposition to the agreement in Jerusalem (Gala-
tians 2:3-10)34
Scholars disagree on whether Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians or whether it was
written by a later follower after his death
35
The letter warns of a coming "lawless
one," described as "the son of destruction" (2:3; NRSV: "the one destined for
destruction"; KJV: "son of perdition") who will play an important role in the
events of the end-time. To Christians who are concerned about claims regarding
the coming of Jesus, the letter urges "not to be quickly shaken in mind or
alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect
that the day of the Lord is already here" (2:2). This day will not happen until after
the son of destruction has come and defiled the temple: "He opposes and exalts
himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat
in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God." (2:4). In this context "the
SOn of destruction" refers to a human being, not to Satan . .l
6
The author may be
thinking of a false teacher in the threatened situation of Christ.ians of the first
century C.E. , or possibly of an historical figure such as Antiochus IV, Pompey,
85
84 LEO D. LEFEllURl'
orCaligula,whodesecratedtheTempleinJerusalem. 37 letterassumesatime
ofconflictandcrisis,as BonnieThurston notes: "Thewriterof2 Thessalonians
knowsthatthemysteryoflawlessnessis activebecauseevilhasnotyet reached
its zenith."38
Book of Revelation
TheBookofRevelationalsoreflectstensionsbetweenJews andfollowersofJesus,
butthis doesnot meanthatit isanti-Jewish. Theauthorwas most likelyJewish,
possibly from Judea
39
The work assumes that followers ofJesus are withirr the
community ofJews. Peder Borgen proposes "that John builds on traditions,
thought-categories,andoutlooksheld bysegmentsofJewishpeople,andthathe
transformsthemonthebasisof beliefinJesusChrist.Thebookreflectsasituation
inwhichChristiansunderstoodthemselvestobeadistinctgroupwithinaJewish
context,andeventhoughtthemselvestobe thetrueJews."40
TheprophetJohnseesavisionofoneliketheSonof Man(Revelation1:13) and
hears his message to the church in Smyrna: "I know your affliction and your
poverty, even thoughyouare rich. 1knowtheslanderonthe par tofthose who
saythattheyareJews andarenot, butareasynagogueof Satan"(Revelation2:9).
Therehasbeenmuchdebateoverthereferentofthephrase"synagogueofSatan."4I
Adela Yarbro Collins comment sontheoriginalcontextinSmyrna: "Theattack
on the Jews inthe same context (vs 9) is an indication that some Christiansin
SmyrnawereprobablyaccusedbeforetheRomangovernorbyJews. Accordingto
Eusebius,JewishcitizensofSmyrnaassi stedtheRomanauthoritiesinconvicting
andexecutingsomeChristiansinabout160, includingthebishop,Polycarp.Thus
thestatementthattheJews ofSmyrnaare a synagogue of Satan is aremarkborn
out ofstrife and controversy. It is not an expression ofanti-Semi.tism. The title
'Jew'is respected;infact, it is claimedfor thefollowersofChrist."42Similarly,the
churchinPhiladelphiaisaddressed:"IwillmakethoseofthesynagogueofSatan
whosaythattheyareJewsandarenot,butarelying-Iwillmakethemcomeand
bowdownbeforeyourfeet, andtheywilllearnthatIhavelovedyou" (Revelation
3:9). The messageto Philadelphiaalso impliesasi tuationinwhichJews haveop-
posedfollowers ofJesus. Collins comments: "As in themessageto Smyrna,con-
troversyis reflectedhere overwhoarethelegitimateJews. Members ofthelocal
synagogueprobablyhadexpelledtheChristianswhentheyrefusedtochangetheir
mindsaboutJesus."43
InthecontextofaJewishChristiancommunitythreatenedactuallyorpotentially
bythemightyEmpireofRome, theBookofRevelationrenewedtheancientvision
ofaholywarfought byGodandtheangelsagainsttbeforces ofevilin theworld!4
ThenI sawheaven opened, and therewas awhitehorse! Its rideriscalled Faithful
andTrue,andinrighteousnesshejudgesandmakeswar. .,.Heisclothedinarobe
VIOLENC E I N T I-I E NEW
dippedinblood,andhisnameiscalled'jhe WordofGod,Andthearmiesof heaven,
wearingfinelinen,whiteandpure,werefollowinghimonwhitehorses.(Revelation
19:11,13-14)
Attheclimaxof thebattle, theleaders oftheevilanniesarethrownaliveintothe
lakeoffirethat burnswith sulfur (RevelationW20). "All the rest were killed by
theswordoftherideronthehorse, thesword thatcamefrombismouth,andall
the birdswere gorged with theirflesh" (19:21). TI1e BookofRevelation promises
Christiansinthelatefirstcenturyc,E. thattheirenemy,amightyevilempire,will
be destroyed and justice will at last be establi shed; Christians who have been
faithful th rough their trials will exult triumphantly in heaven (Revelation
IS:J-l9: S).
VARIETIES OF EXEGESIS IN THE LATER CHRISTIAN l RADITION
GenerationaftergenerationofChristi anslookedtotheNewTestamentforguid-
anceintheirstrugglesagainstthosewithwhomtheydisagreed,boththos ewithin
the Christiancommunityandwithout, A completesurveywould require vol-
umes; thisdiscussionv, ' illbrieflyDotesomeaspectsofthehistoryofinterpreta-
tion ofthe New Testamentin rel ation to Jews, Muslims, andother Christians
viewed as heretical.
Relations with Jews
Duringthefirst centuriesoftheCommonEra, theredevelopedacomplex,over-
lapping,andtroublednetworkofrelationships betweenJews andChristians.For
centuries, manybelieversconsidered themselves to be Jewi sh followers ofJesus.
Recent studieshave documentedthatJewish- Christianpracticewas morewide-
spreadandlong-l asti ngthanhadpreviouslybeenthought
45
ForJewishChristians
orChris tianJews,therewasnocontradictionbetweenbeingJewishandfollowing
the pathofJesus:"theyinsi stedthattherewas noneed tochoosebetween being
ChristiansorJews.Indeed, forthemitwasanaltogetherfa lsechoice."46However,
thevcry existenceof theJewi shChristiancommunityposedagrave threattothe
JewishandtheChristianelites,JohnGagernotesthataccordingtotheSOCiologyof
conflict, "therul eholds thatthe closerthe relationship betweentwoparties the
greaterthepotentialforconflict ,Inotherwords,wheneverweencounterpolemical
J3 nguageortherhetoricofseparation,weshouldlookclosetobomeforitssource,"47
Jews whobelieved inJesus claimed to be thetrue Christians and the trueJews;
becauseofthisclaim,theyposeda threattoJews and Christianswhosoughtto
drawclearboundarylinesbetween thesecommunities,
were, tobe sure, numerousJews who were not in anywayfollowers of
86
87
LEO D. I.EFEBURE
Jesus; butincreasinglyJewish scholarshaverecognizedhowimportantrelations
with Christians were for the formation ofRabbinic Judaism48 There were also
Christians such as Marcion (d. c. 160) and the Gnostics who radicallyopposed
Judaism, rejected theHebrewBible, andeven denied thatthe God ofIsrael was
the Godof Jesus Christ.
49
However, mostChristiansrefusedtofollow Marcio
orthe GnosticsandcontinuedtoreadtheJewishscriptures,usuallyintheformof
n
theSeptuagint,as theFirstTestamentoftheChristianBible. Thisset up afierce,
multisideddebateovertheinterpretationoftheirJewishheritage.
Intheoftenangryargumentsofthesedebates,earlyChristianwritersproduced
anti-Jewish works, known collectively as contra Judaeos or adversus Judaeos,
"AgainsttheJews."ThistraditionengagedinfuriousverbalpolemicsagainstJews,
longbeforetherewasphysicalviolence. As we haveseen, thewritingsintheNew
Testamentare originallyJewish textsandreflecttheintensedebatesamongJews
inthefirstcenturyC.E. Duringthesucceedingcenturies,Christiansincreasingly
interpretedthesetextsinways thatimpugnedJudaismitself andallJews whodid
notacceptJesus as LordandMessiah. AlanSegalcomments:"AfterChristianity
separatedfromJudaism,thepolemicalpassagesintheNewTestamentwereread
in an unhistorical way, as testimonyofhatred between two separate religions,
whentheyshouldhavebeenreadasstrifebetweentwosectsofthesamereligion."5o
Anentirewebof anti-Jewishpresuppositionscameincreasinglyto formtheback-
dropfor traditionalChristiantheologyandpractice.InterpretingtheNewTesta-
mentconflictsofJesusandthePhariseesinlightof theirownsituationscenturies
later, ChristiansoftenviewedallJewsas hypocriteswhofundamentallymisinter-
preted the Law ofMoses. In the second centuryC.E., Justin Martyr (d. c. 5)
16
debatedwithaJewnamedTrypho. Continuingthestyleofargumentof2Corin-
thians3,Justin cited passages from the Hebrew Bible, taunting, "Aren't you ac-
quainted with them, Trypho? You should be, for they are contained in your
Scriptures,orrathernotyours, butOurs. Forwe believeandobeythem, whereas
you, thoughyou readthem,donotgrasptheirspirit."51
At the center ofeady Christian reproaches ofJews was the dramaofJesus's
condemnationand death. Inthe late secondcentury, MelitoofSardis (d. c. 190)
composed thefirst Christian meditation On Pascha that has come down to us.
Inspiredbythegospels,especiallyMatthewandJohn,Melitoponderstheguiltof
theJewishpeoplefor thedeathof Jesusinmovingrhetoricalphrases:
Butyou castthevoteofoppositionagainstyourLord,
Whomthegentilesworshipped,
Atwhom the uncircumcisedmarveled,
Whomtheforeignersglorified,
Overwhom even Pilatewashedhishands;
Foryou killedhim atthegreatfeast.
Thereforethe feast of unl eavenedbread is bitterfor you..
VIOL ENC E IN THE NEW TESTAMEN T
You ki1led theLordinthemiddleofJerusalem..
'lb erefore, Israel,
You did notshudderat thepresence ofthi.: Lord;
Soyou have trembled,embattled byfoes:;2
Later generations ofChristians often saw virtuallyall Jews throughout the
aaes as rejectingGodand God'smessengersandas misunderstandingthecov-
o
enantgiven through Moses. Forcentur ies Christiansinterpretedthe words of
thecrowdinMatthew2T25 astesti fyingtothecollectiveguiltofJewsforkilling
ChristandattemptingtokillGodY NotlongafterMelito, Origencommented:
"Tllereforethey[the Jews)notonlybecameguiltyofthebloodoftheprophets ,
butalso filled up themeasureoftheirfathersand becameguiltyofthe blood
ofChrist. ...Thereforetheblood ofJesus camenot onl yuponthosewholived
formerl y butalso upon all subsequent generations ofJews to the consumma-
tion. "HTheonlywayfor Jews toescapegUiltwastoacceptbaptismandbecome
Christian.
Eusebius ofCaesarea(d. c. 340) interpreted thesufferingsoftheJews during
the Jewishrevoltof66-73C.E. as"thepenaltylaidupontheJews bydi vinejustice
for theircrimesagainstChrist."55Similarly, Augustine interpreted the Jews'loss
ofan,indep(:ndentkingdomanddispersalamongthenationsasapunishmentfor
killingChrist: "Andiftheyhadnotsi nnedagainstHim,seducedby impiouscu-
riosity asifbymagicarts,fallingawayintotheworshipofstrangegodsandidols,
and atlast puttingto death the Christ, t hey would have remained in the same
kingdomwhich,evenif itdid notgrowinextent,wouldhavegrowninhappiness."56
Laterinthefourth century,probablybetween366 and384, theunknownauthor
referred to as Ambrosiaster linkedtheSonofPerditionof2Thessaloni ans 2:3 to
theJews.AsKevinHughesnotes ,Ambrosiasterinterpretsthetextof2Thessalo-
nianstomeanthattheSonofPerditionwill"eitherbebornoftheJews orbecome
aJew, sothattheJewsmaybelieveinhim."s7 Inthisreading,theSonofPerdition
becomes amenacingJewish figure whowilllead astraysomeChristiansand all
Jewsduringtheapocalypticstrugglesoftheend-time.
FollOWingPaul'smodelin2Corinthians3, Augustinebelievedthatanobscur-
ingveil covers the mindsofJewswhentheyreadthescriptures (Against Faustus
[2.11); JesusChristunveilsthemysteriesfor Christiansthroughhisdeath,butthe
Jews who killed Christ receive no benef1t from this because they fail to believe
(City of God 18-46)58ConcerningpolicytowardJews,AugustinecitedPsalm59:11:
"Thou shaltnotslaythem,lest theyshould atlastforget ThyLaw; dispersethem
inThymight."' AugustineinsistedthatJews beallowedtolive as unwillingwit-
nesses to Christ: "it is for the sake ofsuch testimony, with which, even against
theirwlll, they[the Jews) furnish us byhaVing and preservingthosebooks,that
theythemselvesarescatteredthroughoutall thenations."6oBy viewingtheJews
88
89
LEO D. LEFEBURE
as unwilling witnesses who must survive, Augustine's doctrine effectively pro-
tected them for centuries, albeit in subordinate positions in Christian societies.
John Chrysostom (d. 407) bitterly attacked Christians in fourth-century An-
tioch who attended synagogues and practiced Jewish rituals. Chrysostom under-
stood the statement of the crowd in Matthew 27:25 to apply to the Jews of his own
day, excl aiming pointedly to Christians who worshipped with Jews: "Is it not tolly
for those who worship the crucified to celebrate festivals with those who crucified
him? This is not only stupid-it is sheer madness."61 Chrysostom drew the conclu-
sion that Jews could not share in salvation and that their sufferings were God's
punishment : "You Jews did crucify him. But after he died on the cross, he then
destroyed your city; it was then that he dispersed your people; it was then that he
scattered your nation over the face of the earth."62 Chrysostom cited Stephen's
reproach to the Jews in Acts 7:51 as applying to the Jews of his day as wel1.
63
Robert
Wilken comments on the rhetorical style of Chrysostom:
John will cite a text from the New Testament to make his polemical point; then,
acknowledging that Jews do not accept the authority of the New' Testament, he im-
mediately cites a passage from the Jewish prophets, ostensibly making a similar
point .... The technique, however, is the same-exaggeration, insinuat ion, gUilt by
association. Chance phrases in the Bibl e are singled out because they merge easily
with the rhetoricallanguage
6 4
During the first millennium of Christianity, the violence directed against Jews
was for the most part rhetorical. Jews were generally in inferior positions in
Christian-ruled societies, but there were no Widespread physical attacks against
them. This situation changed in the eleventh century, after Europeans learned that
in 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 Fatimid
caliph AI-Hakim bi-Amr Allah to destroy the sacred shrine of Christ's tomb. As
a result, Rodolphus Glaber reports, in 1010 C.E. many Jews were expelled from
their homes or killed, and some took their own lives
65
Conditions for European Jews worsened aft er Pope Urban II proclaimed the
First Crusade against the Muslims who controlled the Holy Land. In the spring
of 1096 some crusaders launched attacks on Jews in France and Germany, killing
thousands of them, especially in the Rhineland. While the Jewi sh scholar Robert
Chazan 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 of
Christendom could readily suggest that, of all the enemies of Christendom, none
was more heinous and hence more properly an object of Christian wrath than the
Jews.... To eleventh century Christians, the Muslims merely denied Jesus, while
the Jews were responsible for his death."66 Christians generally believed that God
had abandoned the Jews; this was thought to be demonstrated by their weakness
VIO LEN CE IN TlIE NEW TEST A)IEN T
in the face of attacks. When crusaders attacked the defenseless Jews in 1096, this
was taken as further proof of God's judgment. Even Christians who tri ed to protect
the Jews from the crusaders interpreted t he violence against Jews as God's aban-
donment of them.
6
;
According to a Jewish recollection, one of the crusaders attacking Jews in Mainz
reportedl y exclaimed: "All this the Crucifi ed has done for us, so that we might
avenge his blood on the Jews."68 Christopher Tyerman sees the popular, apocalyptic
visionary preacher Peter the Hermit as most likely responsible for inciting the vio-
lence against Jews: "Part of the motive for the massacres of the Rhineland Jews
identifi ed in Jewish sou rces was a crude, vi ndictive and ,' iolent assertion of Chris-
tian supremacy and lust for vengeance for Chri st Crucified; many ofthese pogroms
were the work of contingents associated with Peter. That there was little or no such
barbaric persecution of Jews by the armies recruited by Urban and hi s agents may
point 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 Week
led to attacks on the Jews.'o Even in the twentieth century, children in Asturias in
the northern part of Spain would chant: "Marrano Jews: you killed God, now we
kill you, Thievi ng Jews: fir st you kill Christ and now you come to rob Christians."?l
Ritual attacks often led to physical attacks on Jews , but did not intend to destroy
the Jews completely. David Nirenberg comments: "By alluding to and containing
the original act of vengeance at the foundation of Christian- Jewish relations in the
diaspora, Holy Week attacks flirted with but ultimately avoided the repetition of
that violence in contemporary society."72 Nonetheless, ritual accusations of Jews
repeatedly led to physi cal attacks on them.
Relations with \ juslims: Sacred Combat and Crusade
From the beginning, the rel ations of Christians and Muslims involved military
combat. In the seventh century C.E., Christians in the Middle East exper ienced
the onslaught of Arab Muslim armies on the warpath. Patriarch Sophronius (d.
638) of Jerusalem interpreted the Muslims' initial victories in the Holy Land as
God's punishment of Christians for their sins?3
By the end of the seventh century, an anonymous wr iter known as Pseudo-
Methodius had produced an apocalyptic interpretation of Muslims that would
shape Christian attitudes for centuries.'4 Pseudo- Methodius wrote in Syriac in the
late sevent h cent ury C. E. under the pseudonym of the revered fourth-century
mart yr who was bishop of Olympus in Lycia and \\h0 was killed in the Roman
persecutions in 312 C. E. The Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius interprets the Arab
Muslim triumphs as part of the ongoing drama of the four kingdoms described
by Daniel, giving hope to Christians that in the end they will share in Christ's final
triumph over their enemies. Pseudo-Methodius sees the "Ishmaelites" (i.e., the
Arab Muslims) as preparing the way for the Son of Perdition. Their victories are
91
90 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 God loves them
that he allowed them to enter the kingdom of the Christians, but because of the
wickedness and sin which is performed at the hands of the Christians, the like of
which has not been performed in any of the former generations."75
Much of Pseudo-Methodius'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 of
Destruction, be revealed.' "76 Pseudo-Methodius understands Jesus's parable of
the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30) to explain that the sufferings of Chris-
tians must increase so that the faithful may be tested and known?? But after this
suffering, "the king of the Greeks shall go out against them in great wrath," bring-
ing destruction to the Ishmaelites and peace to Christians, a peace unprecedented
in the history of the world.
78
There will , however, be more suffering when the king
of the Greeks dies and the Son of Perdition appears and works the signs of decep-
tion foretold by Jesus (Matthew 24:24). The Son of Perdition will then take his seat
in Jerusalem. "But at the Advent of our Lord from heaven he wi II be delivered over
to 'the Gehenna of Fire' (Matthew 5:22) and to 'outer darkness,' where he will be
amidst 'weeping and gnashing of teeth'" (Matthew 8:12). 79
For Pseudo-Methodius, Muhammad is a forerunner of the Antichrist and
the Son of Perdition; but the king of the Greeks, the Last Emperor (i.e., the Byzan-
tine Emperor), brings hope for faithful Christians. Since the ultimate victory of
Christ is assured, Pseudo-Methodius urgently encourages Christians to resist the
Muslims and continue the struggle against them through all hardships. Pseudo-
Methodius opposes any form of collaboration or acceptance of Muslim rule.so
Bernard McGinn comments on the role of apocalyptic interpretations of difficult
historical events:
One of the characteristics of apocalyptic eschatology is its drive to find meaning in
current events by seeing them in light of the scenario of the end. Such a posteriori,
or after-the-fact, uses of apocalypticism are often reactions to major historical
changes (like the conversion of the Empire or the rise of Islam) that do not fit into
the received view of providential history. By making a place for such events in the
story of the end, the final point that gives all history meaning, apocalyptic eschatol-
ogy incorporates the unexpected into the divinely foreorda ined and gives it penna-
nent significanceS!
The Apocalypse ojPseudo-Methodius was translated into Greek and circulated
widely for centuries, becoming the third most important apocalyptic text for
medieval Christians, after the biblical books of Daniel and Revelation8 2 It was
still being reprinted and distributed a millennium later in 1683, when the Ottoman
army was besieging Vienna83
VlO!. ENC E IN THE NEW T ESTAMENT
Medieval Christians repeatedly interpreted Muham mad either as the Antichrist
or as a forerunner of the A long tradition in Latin Christianity
reflected on the meaning of the Antichrist in relation to the Son of Perdition of 2
Thessalonians.85 In calling for a new Crusade in 1213, Pope Innocent III condemned
;VIuhammad as the Son of Perdition (2 Thessalonians 2:3); Innocent expected him
to have a reign of 666 almost all of which had already passed
86
Medieval
Christians applied the term from the Book of Revelation "synagogues of Satan"
to Musli Apocalyptic imagery inspired Christians to fight against their Mus-
lim adversaries for centuries, offering hope of eschatological vindication even in
the most hopeless of earthly situations.
In the long struggle against Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula, James the
Apostle, the son of Zebedee, became the heavenly patron in battle. Jesus had nick-
named James the "son of thunder" (Mark 3:q), apparently because he and his
brother John wanted Je sus to call down thunder on those who rejected him (Luke
9:54). Even though Jesus sharply rebuked his fiery disciple for his temper (Luke
9:55), medieval Christians honored James for his ferocity, and he became the patron
of Spain. According to legend, he miraculously intervened in the battle of Clavijo
in 844, when Ramiro I ofAsturias was leading Christians in battle against Muslims
led by the Emir of Cordoba. James's heavenly assistance in battle earned him the
new sobriquet "Matamoros," the Moor-slayer who kills the enemies of Christ. The
church built in his honor at Compostela, where his remains were allegedly dis-
covered, was one of the most important pilgrimage places ofEurope
8s
.
Decontextualized quotations from the Bible played an important role in the
theology of holy war throughout the Middle Ages. Christopher T),erman notes
the usual practice of biblical interpretation at the time of the First Crusade: "As it
had developed by the beginni ng ofits second millennium in western Christendom,
Christianitywas only indirectly a scriptural faith. The foundation texts of the Old
and New Testaments were mediated even to the educated through the prism of
commentaries by the so-called Church Fathers."89 Individual sayings were often
taken out of their original context and applied to situations undreamed of by the
biblical authors.
I n particular, the challenge of applying the paCific teachings of Jesus to practical
situat ions in a warlike world was acute. Even though medieval Christians honored
the irenic 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 Book
of Revelation for guidance in their public affairs
9 C1
Medieval Chri stians frequently
imagined Jesus as a warrior in conflict with his adversaries and interpreted his
harsh words as justification for their own attacks on opponents. The Christian
imagination transformed the Prince of Peace into tlie Heroic Warrior of Sacred
Combat. Wars were, after all, waged in order to establish a just peace. An early
English poem, The Dream ojthe Rood, calls Jesus "the Warrior ... the Mighty King,
93
9
2 LEO D. LEFEBURE
Lord of Heavens" and "the Wielder ofTriumphs."91 Charlemagne appeared as the
ideal Christian warrior, who asked the pope to pray that he might defeat his en-
emies by "the arms ofFaith."92 Ideals of chivalry combined monastic-style devotion
to Christ with the warrior's courage in fighting for justiceY'
At the center of the imagery of the First Crusade was Jesus's com mand to take
up one's cross and follow him (Matthew 16:24). "The holy war [against Muslims] was
perceived and possibly designed to revolve around Matthew For centuries
the crusades took shape as a concrete way to accept this challenge. "This was the
text referred to in the deal between the south-east German abbey of Gbttweig and
Wolfker of Kuffern, who had decided to join the march to Jerusalem in lO96 be-
cause 'he wanted to fulfill the Gospel command, who wishes to follow me.' "95
The sacred combat of the Book of Revelation was of particular importance in
this process. Earthly enemies were repeatedly seen as the Son of Perdition, the
Antichrist, or their accomplices . The bloody images of battle ofthe Book of Revela-
tion shape the accounts of the sack of Jerusalem by the First Crusade in 1099.
Raymond of Aguilers described the scene on the Temple Mount after the crusad-
ers' victory: "it is sufficient to relate that in the Temple of Solomon and the portico
crusaders 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 without
the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles.' It is
hard to exaggerate the dependence of Raymond 's contemporaries on the Scripture
for imagery and language."97
Relations with Christian Heretics
Jesus's parable of the great dinner (Luke 14:16-24) played a major role in the treat-
ment of Christian heretics. In the original tale, the host respects the free decision
of the original guests; since they declined the invitation, they will not share in the
feast. However, the later group that is to be found in the highways and byways is
to be compelled to come to the feast. In one of the most influenti al interpretations
in all of Christian history, Augustine cited the command of the master in Jesus's
parable of the great dinner (Luke 14:23) to justify forcing heretics into unity, or at
least conformity, with the Catholic Church
98
Where the host in the parable re-
spects the freedom of his original invitees, the later Christian tradition would draw
the exact opposite conclusion and attempt to force dissenters to embrace orthodox
Christian teaching and practice. During the controversy with the Donatists, Au-
gustine interpreted the third invit ation in the parable to go into the highways and
hedges as. applying to heretics and schismatics
99
For Augustine, after the church
became established as a power in society, it had the responsibility and duty to
repress heresy and compel heretics to conform to Catholic belief and practice. This
interpretation ,,,ou ld later serve as the charter for the Catholic Inquisition.
LOo
Du ring the first millenni um of Christian ity, there was relatively little persec u-
VIOLENCE I N T HE NEW T E STAMENT
tion of heresy. This too changed in the second millennium. In 1208, faced with the
most widespread movement of Christian dissent in centuries, Pope Innocent [II
requested the king and nobi lit y of France to attack the Cathars in the south of
france.I UI Wh ile the king decl ined, many nobles accepted the challenge and
slaughtered the inhabitants of Beziefs, regardless ofilheir religiOUS conviction, in
1209. 'TIle Papal Inquisition was later established in 1233 to find the surviving
Cathars. Crusades were called not only against external enemies but also against
those who claimed to be within the Christian community.
In consideTing whether or not unbelievers should be compelled to believe,
Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) first notes that John Chrysostom interpi'eted Jesus's
parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 2}:38) as teaching that heretics should
not be slai n; but Thomas counterbalances this ("sed contra") with Jesus's command
in Luke 14:23 to "compel them to come in." Aquinas argues that those who never
received the faith, such as "heathen and Jews," shou ld not be compelled to the
faith. However, he follows the precedent of Augustine on heretics and apostates
and argues that "heretics and all apostates . .. should be submitted even to bodily
compulsion, that tbey may fulfill what they have promised, and hold what they,
at one time, received."I02 Later, Aquinas specifies that if the heretic is obstinate,
"the Church no longer hoping for his conversion looks to the salvation of others,
by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, a nd furthermore
delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by
death."JU3 The combined authority of Augustine and Aquinas in interpreting Luke
14:
2
3 provided a theological justification for the Inquisition and persecution of
heret ics for cent uries.
Medieval Popes applied the imagery of the Antichrist to their enemies, most
notably to the Emperor Frederick II Hohenstaufen. Gregory IX (d. 124
1
) queried:
"What other Antichrist 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 an
opponent an "Antichrist" was established, applications multiplied, iricluding to
the pope himself. 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 Anti-
christ , his followers developed a dual doctr ine of both pope and Turk as Anti-
christsWS Such applications fueled repeated battles among Christ ians.
R ES ULTS OF EXEGESIS THROUGH HISTORICAL EXAMPLE: JEWS
AND CHRISTl A NS READI l\ G THE N EW TESTAMENT TOGETHER
The hermeneutical situation rega rd ing the New Testament ch anged dramatically
during the second half of the twentieth century. One factor lay in the atrocities of
the Sboah (Holocaust). While the 1\azi ideology and crimes were profoundly anti-
Christian, many Christians and Jews recognized that centuries of Christian
95
94 LEO D. l.EFEIlURE
vilificationoftheJews hadtragicallypreparedthe way for Nazipropagandaand
atrociti
es
I06 Another major factor has been the awareness that the Jewish and
Christian communities did notneatlydivide into two religionsduringthe first
centuryC.E.,as hadoftenearlierbeenassumed. Inthischangedexegeticalsitua-
tion,descriptiveandnormativeinvestigationsintert wine.JewsandChristiansin
dialoguewitheachotherhavesoughttounderstandNewTestamenttext s.
Perhaps the most problematic passage ofall is Matthew 27:25:"His blood be
uponusandon ourchildren."The JewishscholarSteven1. Jacobs stronglycriti-
cizes thi sstatement:
Fromanhistoricalperspective,Jewssimplycannotaffirm theaccuracyofMatthew
27:25 A reli gioustraditionthatcontinuesto assertthesanctityofthefamil yas the
basicunitandbUildingblockofsociety,andprimacyofchildrentomakethatfamily
whole, cannot abideaverseand scenario that not only degrades those Jewswho
werequest ionablypresent,butputsintotheirmouthsacurseupontheirownchil-
dren,theirchildren'schildren,andallgenerationstocome.Evengrantingthatthere
were those Jewspossibly in leaguewith theRomans and those duplicitousJewish
leaders int erested in cozying up totheir Roman oppressors, the announcement is
itself so horrendousas to defycredibility, and must, therefore,berejectedasatrue
depictionof events.
107
JacobsdemandsthatChristiansrecognizethecomplicityoft hispassageinprepar-
ingfortheShoahanddropthestatementfromthelectionarythatisusedinworship
services. lOS
Anumberof Chri sti antheologianshaverefl ectedonthischallenge.Rosemary
RadfordRuethermakesaveryharshjudgmentontheJewishChristiancommunity
thatproducedMatthew27:25: "Bytheseconddecade ofitsmissionit hadcometo
believe that Judaism, represented by its dominantreligious consciousness, was
hopelesslyapostateandrepresentedaheritageof apostasywhichmeriteditsrejec-
tion."109 David Tracy acknowledges the problem, proposing that "anti-Judaic
statementsoftheNewTestamentbearno authoritativestatusfor Christianity....
The heartofthe:few Testamentmessage- the lovewho is God-shouldrelease
thedemythologizingpowerofits ownpropheticmeaningto rid the NewTesta-
mentand Christianityonceandfor all ofthesestatements. "IlO
ClarkWilli amson,followingLukeTimothyJohnson,int erpretsthestatement
astypicalof therhetoricof thatage: "Realizingthatthiskindof slanderwascom-
monparlance, that every body did it, relativizes ourversion ofslander. ...The
problemwiththeNewTestamentisthatitis toomuch like otherliteraturefrom
its timeand place....Without denyingthe intensity ofthe slanderagainst the
Jews thatisfoundinpartsoftheNewTestament,we shouldregard thiscalumny
astypicalof whatpassedfor' interreli giOUS'discourseatthet imeandasreflecting
animosities thatoccurredinthelatefirstcentury."lll
VI Ol. ENCE I N THE NE W TESTAMENT
Daniel Harrington also recommends contextual interpretation: "Matthew
27:11- 16 (andespecially27:25) is a majortextin the historyandpresentrealit yof
Christian-Jewish relations. Teachers and preachers have a serious obligation to
work throughthistextwith care andobjectivity. ...Above all it isnecessaryto
read Matt 2J:25 CHisbloodbe uponusand upon ourchildren' ) in its Matthean
setting,notasapplyingto all Jews at all times ortojustthesmallpercentage of
jews in jerusalem who themselves in Jesus' trial before Pilate. The
Mattheansettinginvolves boththe timeofjesusandthetimeafterA.D. 70, and
it isroot ed in aninner-jewish quarrel."ll2
RaymondBrownnotesaprobleminthetext, butdoubt sthatcontextualization
reallysolvesthedifficulty: "Onecan benevolentlyreflectthattheMattheanstate-
ment [2J:25J wasnotapplicabletothewhole JewishpeopleofJesus'time, forrela-
tivelyfe wstoodbeforePilate,andal sothatitwasanaffirmationof presentwilling-
nesstoacceptresponsibility,not aninvocationoffuturepunishmenlorvengeance....
OnthewholeMatthew'sattitudeisgenerali zingandhostile,andwecannotdisguise
it."1l3 Brownconsiderstheproposaltodropthi sstatementfromthelectionary,but
rej ects it ,reflecting onthe underlyinghermeneutical problem: "Sooner orlater
Christianbelieversmustwrestlewiththelimitationsimposed onthe Scriptures
bythecircumstancesinwhichtheywereWr itten.Theymustbebroughttoseethat
someattitudesfoundin theScriptures,howeverexpl icable inthetimesinwhi ch
they originated,maybe wrongattitudesifrepeat edtoday."1l4
Robert Dalynotes thatintraditional Christiansettings it can be difficult to
reject thedoctrineofsupersessionism, and he suggests thatit is relatively easier
toproclaim"thatJews arenotthemurderersofjesus,howevermuchsomeChris-
tians ofthe past mayhave thoughtso. To claim that jews are 'Chri st-killers' or
'God-murderers'isitselfamurderouslie."115 Dalynotesboththeimportanceand
thelimitationsof explainingthehistoricalcontext.Intheend,hesuggeststhatonly
when Christianinterpretershave gonethroughan innerconversionfromsuper-
sessionismand"havelearnedtolovethejews"willChristianbiblicalinterpretation
beinnocent.
In consideri ng the problem posed by Matthew 2J: 25, the Pontifical Biblical
Commissionof theCatholicChurchclaimsthattheoriginalcontextin Matthew
notonly expressescontinuitywiththeOldTestament,impl yingthepossibilit yof
"fraternalbonds"bet weenJewsandChristians,butalso"reflectsasituationof ten-
sionandeven oppositionbetween thet wo communities....Sincethatsituation
[of has radically changed, Matthew's polemic need nolonger int erfere
With relationsbet weenChristiansandJews, andtheaspectofcontinuitycanand
oughttoprevail. "116
johnDominic Crossancommentson Matthew 27:25 byway ofjesus's saying
in Luke 23:34: "Father,forgive them;for theydonot knowwhattheyare dOing."
Crossannotes thateachsayingis uniqueto itspropergospel andcomments: "If

, . .E FEBUR
" .
I."'>
9
6
" Christians take evervthina 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 acceptance
responsibility in Matthew, it must surely have annulled it. Unless, of course, GOd
refused Jesus ' prayer. Tor Christians, like myself, who think that Matthew all4
Luke each created those specific verses out of their own theological
there 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 7
JU ge accor lUg Y.
Finally, as Jonathan Sacks insisted, the interpretive community chooses which
texts to place in the foreground. In most of the recent Christian hermeneutical
proposals, there is a stark recognition ofhow deeply harmful traditional Christian
exegesiS of Matthew 2J:25 has been. Historical contextualization is important but
by itself insufficient The horizon of interpretation, including the entire network
of interpretive presuppositions, must shift; to a Significant degree this has begun
to 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 in
the texts of the New Testament.
NOTES
L Unless otherwi se noted. all scriptural quotati ons are taken from the New Revised Standard
Version. Used by permission. For a r ange of i nterpret ations of the teaching of)esus on peace and vio-
lence. see Willard M. Swartl ey, ed .. The Love of Enemy and Nonretalint ion in the New TestameHI
(Louisvill e: Westminster John Knox. 1992); Michel Desj ardin s, Peace, Viol ence. and the New Testa-
ment (Sheffield : Sheffield Academ ic. 1997).
2. Or igen, On First PrinCiples, trans. G. W. Butter worth (Gloucester: Peter Smith . 1973), 269-8r.
Augustine. Teaching Chri stianity [De Doctrina Christi ana]. trans. Edmund Hill. ed. John E. Rotelle.
Works of Saint Augustine (Hyde Park: New City. 1996) . 175- 80; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Con-
sti tu tion on Divine Revelation. Dei Verb um. in Vatican CouncilIl: The Concili ar and Postconciliar
Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, rev. ed. (Northport: Cos tell o. 2004) . 756-58.
3. Fri edrich Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics: The Handwritten lvl anuscripts. ed . H einz Kimmerle.
t ran s. James Duke and Jack Forstman (Missoula: Scholar s. 1977). 115-17.
4 Jonatha n Sacks. The Dignity of DiJlerel1ce: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations, r ev. ed.
(Lon don : ContinUL1m. 2003), 207- 8.
5. William C. Wienri ch, ed . Revelation. voL 12 of Ancient Christian Commenta ry on Scripture
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity. 2005). xx.
6. Donald Senior, The Gospel ofMatthew (Nashville: Abingd on, 1997) . 159
7 Joseph A. Fitzmye r. The Gospel according to Luke (X-XXIV). voL 28a of The Anch or Bible (NeW
York: Doubleday. 1985) , 1053
8. I bid
9 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: Universit),
of Pennsylva ni a Press. 2004); Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed . eds.. The Ways 7h ut
\[,,,,:r pa
r.,rUcss.
11. Lu
:\ncicnt P
12. }\.T
.:!lris/io n
AJdl Rei!
'3. Jot

14. E
Cllri 5ti"n
AJele Re il
15. Ra'
(1997; Ne\\
16. Da
2007).39 2.
17. Fra
18. Jbi
19 Joh
20. A('
dnd Reinh
2 1. lbil
22. Brl
23. Ke
:VI!: Eerd IT
24. Ihi
25. Lu
114- 20; Jos
(998).364
26. 101
27. Fit
28. Ea
Press, 200
29. IV
30 Ih
\lelv Te sta
31. Ge
(Louisvi\!
the passa
242- 53. Rc
Correspo
32. In
33 fr
34 S
35 Ib
shall, / l!/
Fo r
2 TI,ess,"
36. G

You might also like