A chapter from the book, Fighting Words: Religion, Violence, and the Interpretation of Sacred Texts; edited by John Renard.
In this chapter, the historical context of violent passages in the New Testament are reviewed. Then a history of Christian exegesis of these passages are outlined.
A chapter from the book, Fighting Words: Religion, Violence, and the Interpretation of Sacred Texts; edited by John Renard.
In this chapter, the historical context of violent passages in the New Testament are reviewed. Then a history of Christian exegesis of these passages are outlined.
A chapter from the book, Fighting Words: Religion, Violence, and the Interpretation of Sacred Texts; edited by John Renard.
In this chapter, the historical context of violent passages in the New Testament are reviewed. Then a history of Christian exegesis of these passages are outlined.
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