NET Bible on Matthew 22:16
“The Herodians [mentioned only
here] were Jewish supporters of the Herodian dynasty (or of Herod Antipas in
particular)….This probably reflects agreement regarding political objectives (nationalism
as opposed to submission to the yoke of
Roman oppression…”
|
Romans 12:14-21
|
Romans 13:1-6
|
|
Do not
curse but bless.
|
|
|
Do not
live in disharmony.
|
Do keep
peace with the sword.
|
|
Do not
repay evil for evil.
|
Do scare
your enemies.
|
|
Do not
wage war.
|
Do punish
your enemies.
|
|
Do not take
revenge.
|
Do take
revenge with the sword.
|
|
Do not
neglect your enemy.
|
Do punish
your enemies
|
|
Do not
let evil conquer you instead, conquer evil with good.
|
|
Greg
Boyd, Jesus and Nationalistic Violence.
Jesus’ rebuke of Peter for
trying to use the sword to defend him as well as his refusal to call on warring
angels to fight on his behalf are clear repudiations of the violence-prone
nationalism of the OT.
The Messiah was supposed to
rise up in the strength of God and with the support of the people and vanquish
Israel’s opponents, not get crucified by them!
This becomes all the more
clear when Jesus cites the non-violence of his followers to Pilate to prove
that his kingdom is not of this world (Jn 18:36).
The fact that there wasn’t
bloodshed (except for Jesus’ own) proves his kingdom is not of this world, nor
of any violence-prone nationalism.
Violence: Reflections from a
Christian Perspective,
Jacques Ellul, 1969.
Violence seems to be the great
temptation in the church and among Christians today. Thirty years ago it was
nonviolence, conscientious objection, that constituted the "problem"
in the church, and it was this prophetic position that needed to be clarified.
Today it is Christians' acceptance of violence, and the theologies thereby
engendered, which appear to be the central problem.
Very
often, it is only after others have brought it into the open that Christians
become aware of a problem, and then they climb on the bandwagon of parties or
doctrines. (p 27)
Plunged
into a situation of social injustice, exploitation, and alienation, Christians
soon discovered movements led by others
and enthusiastically joined them.
The same thing happened a century ago, when Christians fought in wars for the defense of their country. If I
wanted to be mischievous, I would say that a
century ago nationalism was the ideological fashion, and Christians went along
with it, adducing every imaginable Christian motif to justify their stand.
Today social revolution, etc., are the fashion. To say so may seem wicked, for
I am told, in scandalized accents, that this is not a question of fashion, that
all the truth of Jesus is at stake in this social conflict. But I answer that the Christian nationalists of the 19th
century also killed each other in the conviction that Jesus had established
nations and that love of country was part of love of God. We find that
stupid nowadays. But can we be sure that, 50 years hence, today's
prorevolutionary position will not also seem stupid?
What
troubles me is not that the opinions of Christians change, nor that their
opinions are shaped by the problems of the times; on the contrary, that is good.
What troubles me is that Christians
conform to the trend of the moment without introducing into it anything
specifically Christian. Their convictions are determined by their social milieu, not by faith in the revelation;
they lack the uniqueness which ought to
be the expression of that faith. Thus theologies become mechanical
exercises that justify the positions adopted, and justify them on grounds that are absolutely not Christian. (p 28)
The spirit of nationalism
cannot be expressed save by violence.
(p 102)
Others
declare that nationalism is a fine thing when
it leads to the liberation of peoples; it is only Europe's old-fashioned
nationalism that they condemn. But this is to close one's eyes to the fact that
the characteristics of nationalism are
always the same, that a young, liberating nationalism has exactly the same sociological structure as German
or French nationalism, and that the transition from “young" to “old”
nationalism is tragically swift. China and Algeria are examples of how, in the
course of a few years, a young
nationalism turns into an old, sclerotic nationalism. (p 110)
