Preston Spinkle - Fight (11)

This is my last post on Preston Sprinkle's book called Fight He covers many other topics including Romans 13, just war theory, capital punishment, participation in the military and self defence.

Preston explains that the Book of Revelation is not a justification for war.

Revelation supports Christian nonviolence more aggressively than any other biblical book. Nowhere does Revelation encourage the church to act violently. Human violence is always condemned and suffering is exalted...

In Revelation, victory belongs to victims, and Lamb-like warriors conquer their enemies by being conquered (Fight chapter 9).

That is true and very important for Christians to understand.

Preston sprinkle has written a really important book with many powerful insights. I would urge every Christian who is interested in the relationship between politics and the gospel to read it.

Sprinkle - Fight (10) Love One Another

Preston Sprinkle explains in his book called Fight how Love one another is the heart of the Sermon on the Mount.

The Sermon, rather, is the “definitive charter for the life of the new covenant community,” 1 and through it Jesus seeks to sculpt counter-cultural masterpieces—citizens of the great King—to embody a different society and disclose a different God. We should expect these instructions to jar our thinking , challenge our desires, and contradict normality—the way we usually do things around here. If you’re “of the world,” the Sermon will seem outlandish and impractical.

For early Christians, enemy-love was the hallmark of what it meant to believe in Jesus. Oh, how things have changed.

Jesus’s life is peppered with violent attacks, yet He never responds with violence . He embraces suffering, not because He is weak, not because He can’t do anything about it, but because suffering is the God-ordained pathway to resurrection glory. For Jesus and for us.

In a world drowning in violence, Jesus never acts violently. Though evil runs rampant , Jesus never confronts it, nor does He allow His followers to confront it, with violence. Never.

When people around the globe think that American Christians are pro-war, enamored with violence, and fascinated with military might, something is terribly wrong . No one in the first century would have made the same conclusion regarding Jesus and His followers. Whether or not such behavior will lead to chaos, ruin our religious freedom, or allow enemies to rule our country is not our concern.

Our faith is in the King of all creation, who suffered, died, was raised from the dead, and now reigns from on high and seats us with Him at the right hand of the Father. Our life, future, security, freedom, suffering, and destiny —they’re all in His hands. The reign of God on earth—Jesus’s kingdom— does not need military might, thick borders, superior weapons, or economic prosperity for its advancement. What God started two thousand years ago through His crucified Son will triumph, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Fight Chapter 6).

Sprinkle - Fight (9) God's Empire

Preston Sprinkle explains in his book called Fight how Jesus came to set up God's empire.

The most daring word that Jesus throws at Pilate is the term kingdom. As I said, this was the typical Greek term used for the Roman Empire. And it’s the same word that Jewish freedom fighters would use when they tried to oust Rome and set up their own empire (as the Maccabees did). Kingdom, therefore, cannot be reduced to individual salvation, or some immaterial religious experience. If Jesus’s kingdom was restricted to individuals or the spiritual realm, He would use a different word. But He doesn’t. He uses the word kingdom. He uses the word empire. Jesus seeks to set up God’s empire on earth, and it will look different from Rome and the Maccabees in one crucial aspect: Jesus’s empire will not come about through physical fighting. It will be a demilitarized empire where enemies are loved and offenders are forgiven

Jesus’s not-of-this-world kingdom is shaped by nonviolence. This doesn’t always stand out to us, but no Jew in the first century would have missed the radical nature of Jesus’s claim. In a world where king and kingdom were synonymous with coercion, power, and violence , Jesus’s upside-down kingdom stuck out like a baseball team with no bats, or a megachurch with no sound system or comfy chairs. But that’s precisely the point. As God’s reign on earth is enacted through nonviolence, the power of God rather than the power of humans is showcased for all to see (Fight chapter 6).

Something is wrong when the kingdom of God is indistinguishable from that of the world. Christians should contribute to the good of the nation in which they live (Jer. 29: 7). But we are first and foremost citizens of Jesus’s kingdom spread throughout the world. We have more in common with Christians in other nations— nations our country may war against— than we do with neighbors who share the same passport. When nations war against other nations, this critical point gets snuffed out.

It’s sad when American Christians talk about “us” and “them” and use these identity markers solely in terms of different national identities. But “we”— the kingdom of God in America and Iraq— have suffered greatly. Citizens of God’s kingdom did not win the war. We lost (Fight chapter 6)

.

Sprinkle - Fight (8) Jesus and Kingdom

Preston Sprinkle explains in his book called Fight how Jesus refocussed the meaning of the Kingdom of God.

Jesus’s central message was not primarily about how to get to heaven when you die, or about becoming a better person. The central message of Jesus was about the coming of God’s kingdom.

But Jesus’s kingdom talk gets Him into hot water. The term kingdom isn’t invented by Jesus or the New Testament writers. Most people in Jesus’s day understand kingdom to mean the empire (kingdom) of Rome. Jewish people, as we have seen, tried to set up their own kingdom. So when Jesus talks about the kingdom, everyone already has a category to understand what He is saying. Jesus isn’t inventing a term or concept unknown to people. Rather, He takes a well-known concept, guts it, and stuffs it with new meaning. What God does with the concept of kingship in the Old Testament (for example in Deut. 17), Jesus does with kingdom throughout the Gospels. And one central feature of Jesus’s unkingdom-like kingdom is the issue of power and violence . Whereas all other kingdoms (Roman, Jewish, or whatever) are breaking in with force and violence, Jesus will erect the kingdom of peace without using violence. Put simply: Jesus preaches a demilitarized Deuteronomy 17-like kingdom.

So what does Jesus mean by “my kingdom is not of this world”? The answer comes in Jesus’s very next words: “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting.” Nonviolence is at the heart of Jesus’s definition of kingdom (Fight chapter 5).

John uses the term world (kosmos) throughout his gospel and his letters to refer to “the systems of the world” or “social construction of reality.” 16 Put simply, world often means the way unbelievers do things. For instance, Jesus says that He has come to testify against the world that its deeds are evil (John 7: 7). Or as John will say elsewhere , “Do not love the world or the things in the world” (1 John 2: 15). This does not refer to the material stuff on earth, nor does it refer to people, whom Jesus and John say we are to love. The “world” refers to the worldly systems that run against God’s way of doing things. Unjust economic systems, dehumanizing social classification, and advancing one’s kingdom through violence. These are all “of the world” (Fight chapter 5).

Sprinkle - Fight (7) Jesus

Preston Sprinkle explains in his book called Fight how Jesus was born in a time when militarism was strong.

The Prince of Peace was born into a world drowning in violence. The years between the Old and New Testaments were anything but silent, as kingdom rose up against kingdom, nation warred against nation, and the Jewish people hacked their way to freedom with swords baptized in blood.

The Maccabees reclaimed their religious and political freedom and set up a quasi-messianic kingdom through violent force. The success of Maccabean swords would shape the way Jewish people in Jesus’s day would understand—and anticipate—the kingdom of God.

This was the world Jesus entered, a world ruled by violence. Many Jews sought freedom through bloodshed. Others kept their swords close at hand, ready for a signal to rise up and conquer. During Jesus’s lifetime on earth, several messianic figures rose up to establish God’s kingdom through violent revolution.

Despite the failure of these many revolts, the earlier success of the Maccabees ensured that messianic zeal was not easily snuffed out. Hope still burned for the establishment of God’s kingdom through force.

Despite the widespread expectation of peace envisioned by the Hebrew prophets, history had gone a different direction. The Maccabean kingdom cultivated a thirst for political independence through the sword. Yet from birth to death, Jesus preached a non-Maccabean kingdom. He would bear a plowshare, not a sword, and set up God’s kingdom without using violence. And He would tell His followers to do the same.

Sprinkle - Fight (6) Solomon

Preston Sprinkle explains in his book called Fight how Solomon took Israel further down the road of militarism.

Israel’s march toward militarism continues with King Solomon. Though he is often presented as a good king who fell away in his old age, the Bible views Solomon’s kingship much more critically. First Kings 3:3 sums it up best: “Solomon loved the LORD... only he sacrificed and made offerings at the high places.” Solomon loves God, but he also has a thing for pagan gods.

Solomon commits not only religious idolatry but political idolatry as well (the two go hand in hand). Contrary to God’s law for the king (Deut. 17), Solomon has a massive standing army and stockpiled superior weapons beyond imagination—forty thousand stalls of warhorses, fourteen hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. One could say that stockpiling superior weaponry was the cause for much peace during Solomon’s reign. The same logic drove America to amass nuclear weapons during the Cold War. But the Old Testament doesn’t work like this. Solomon’s accumulation of warhorses and chariots blatantly violates Deuteronomy 17: 16, leading Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann to label Solomon’s reign “the quintessence of Canaanization in Israel.” In fact, the Bible makes clear that the peace during Solomon’s reign is not due to his military might, but to God’s covenant with David (1 Kings 11: 11– 12). Solomon’s military might serves only to condemn him Fight Chapter 5).

Sprinkle - Fight (5) David

I really liked the way that Preston Sprinkle dealt with David in his book called Fight. Many Christians assume that because he had a heart for God as a youth that he could do know wrong. Preston explains that David got a lot of things wrong.

Israel’s descent into secular militarism hits rock bottom in 1 Samuel 8. It’s here that Israel explicitly demands a king, “that we also may be like all the nations” (v. 20).

Through and through, Saul represents yet another step away from God’s qualified warfare policy toward a militaristic, king-centered blank check for violence. Samuel’s nightmare about having a king like the surrounding nations becomes a reality. David is Israel’s second king in the monarchy, and in many ways he is God’s corrective for the wayward monarchy. He doesn’t multiply horses or chariots, and he humbly submits to God. In the early stages of David’s reign, God is clearly in charge of Israel’s warfare. Early on, David seems to wage war only at God’s command, as in his early battles with the Philistines (2 Sam. 5: 17– 25).

But something changes with David, though it’s more delayed and subtle than with Saul. Power breeds violence, which breeds more violence and more power. As David continues to wage war against his enemies, he slowly— like Saul— becomes a “me-centered” warrior-king. In later battles with the Philistines, instead of God striking down David’s enemies (2 Sam. 5: 24), it’s now “David” who “defeated the Philistines and subdued them” (8: 1). In fact, 2 Samuel 8’s summary of David’s wars is “a delicate balance between human aggression and divine blessing.” God is mentioned only two times in the chapter. By now David has built a professional army, including a few chariots (vv. 4, 16), and uses excessive violence toward the Moabites in battle (v. 2) even though his own great-grandmother was a Moabite. David has become less concerned with defending the land and more concerned with extending his kingdom to make a name for himself (vv. 13– 14). And in 2 Samuel 10, another summary of David’s wars, God’s name is completely left out. The wars are no longer sanctioned by God. By 2 Samuel 11– 12, David is now waging wars just like the nations— besieging a city outside the land, boasting in his kingly might, and possibly even torturing the city’s inhabitants . The king who once affirmed that “the L ORD saves not with sword and spear” (1 Sam. 17: 47) has now turned to sword and spear, instead of to God, for his military strength. Like Saul before him, David becomes a warrior-king like the kings of the surrounding nations.

Toward the end of David’s life, God confronts him for taking a census. But it’s not just any census— it’s a military census: “Joab, the commander of the army” and “the commanders of the army went out from the presence of the king to number the people of Israel” (2 Sam. 24: 2, 4 ). And when they returned , they counted “800,000 valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were 500,000” (v. 9). With the census, David wants to “mobilize military power .” And King Yahweh punishes him for it by killing seventy thousand of his people. Once again, God is a warrior against, not for, those who are Canaanized and militaristic. Should we look approvingly on David’s militarism when God opposes it?

Using David’s military exploits to sanction modern warfare— as some Christians do— is a haphazard use of the Bible. Just because it happened (e.g., David torturing his enemies) doesn’t mean it ought to happen. Professional armies, wars unrelated to the land, and king-centered wars do not reflect God’s warfare policy for Israel. God’s critical assessment of David’s military prowess is therefore fitting: “You have shed much blood and have waged great wars. You shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me on the earth” (1 Chron. 22: 8; cf. 28: 3). To be clear, David was “a man after [God’s] own heart” (1 Sam. 13: 14). I’m not suggesting that David was wicked or that God had no purpose for him. But I am saying that David was flawed and in need of grace, just as every other character in the Bible was . And his flawed nature shows up particularly in his later approach to warfare. God used David to further His purposes, but setting David’s militarism as an example for the ages was never God’s intention. (Fight Chapter 5)

Sprinkle - Fight (4) Offensive Weapons

Preston Sprinkle explains why Israel was not allowed offensive weapons.

Other nations will therefore see that Israel marches to the beat of a different military drum. They have a God in the heavens who guides and protects, who defends and delivers. They don’t need to supplement God with a human army. And when they do actually fight, God wants them to remain a ragtag group of weekend warriors. This way, when they win (if they have faith in God) it will be clear to them and everyone else that victory belongs to Israel’s God, not to Israel’s military. This is why in several instances Israel was commanded to hamstring their enemies’ horses and burn their chariots.

Horses and chariots were the ancient version of tanks. They were superior weapons. The army with the most horses and chariots was bound to win the war. So when Joshua (and others) hamstrings horses and burns chariots , he destroys their potential usefulness to Israel in further battles. It’s like killing an enemy with a knife and not taking his gun. And the reason is clear: “Superior weaponry was rejected, in order to demonstrate trust in Yahweh as warrior.”

When chariots are mentioned in a positive light, they are God’s chariots, not Israel’s. God rides on the chariots of the clouds (Hab. 3: 8; Deut. 32: 13), surrounds His people with angelic chariots (2 Kings 7: 6), and takes His prophet home in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2: 11). Who needs earthly chariots when God fights with heavenly ones? The prophets themselves are even called “the chariots of Israel and its horsemen” (2 Kings 13: 14; cf. 2: 12)— they are bearers of the word of God, who alone secures Israel’s existence.

In contrast to Israel’s comical military policy, the surrounding nations stockpiled horses, chariots, and other superior weapons. Such military strength was essential for their survival and domination. The Assyrians boasted about their enemies being “afraid in the face of my terrible weapons” (Fight, chapter 3).

Preston has some strong words for American Christians, who have more faith in military power than in God.

America’s excessive militarism is inconceivable apart from “the support offered by several tens of millions of evangelicals.” This is unbelievable. Most of all—as we’ve seen in this chapter— it’s unbiblical.

What the Old Testament does do is critique the massive wave of Christian support for America’s unbridled militarism. Such allegiance is misplaced; such support is unbiblical. The nations— like Assyria— were ruled by militarism, but God’s people should never celebrate military power, and we certainly shouldn’t find our hope and security in it. If God warned Israel against having a strong military— and it was God’s nation— how much more should God’s people today not put stock in the military prowess of a secular country?

Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against God’s kingdom, and no band of terrorists, fascist government, oppressive dictator, or disarmament program will trump Jesus’s promise. Seeing America’s military strength as the hope of the world is an affront to God’s rule over the world. It’s idolatry (Fight, chapter 3).

Sprinkle - Fight (3) Laws of War

The laws for war are set out in Deuteronomy 20: 1– 14, 19– 20. Preston Sprinkle explains the main points of this passage.

• First, God— not military might— determines the victory (v. 4).
• Second, Israel’s army is made up of volunteers at the time of battle. In other words, there isn’t to be a professional standing army. 10 If anyone has recently built a house, planted a vineyard, betrothed a wife, or is simply “fearful and fainthearted,” he doesn’t have to go to war (vv. 5– 9).
• Third, if the Israelites do go to war, they are to first offer peace to the city (vv. 10– 11) before they fight against it.
• Fourth, only if the city rejects peace is Israel sanctioned to go to war (v. 12).
• Fifth, noncombatants are not to be killed during war (vv. 13– 15).
• Lastly, even fruit trees aren’t to be destroyed (vv. 19– 20).

Talk about limited objectives!... For now it’s important to underscore the point: Israel’s “army” is deliberately weak so that God will be shown to be unquestionably strong. The intentional weakness of Israel’s army is put on bold display in Deuteronomy 17. God is Israel’s King. However , God will allow Israel to have a human king under certain conditions, and Deuteronomy 17 spells out those conditions—one of which is stripping the king of all military might. Namely, the king is not allowed to build a professional army (“ he must not acquire many horses for himself”) nor can he make military alliances with other nations (Deut. 17: 16– 17). God will shed the king of all military strength so that his faith will be in God, not in military power (Fight, chapter 3).

Sprinkle - Fight (2) - Part-time Army

In Chapter 3 of Fight, Preston Sprinkle explains that God deliberately limited Israel to a part-time, non-professional, peace-time army. This was different from the nations that controlled Canaan, and every other nation since.This is not well understood, so the chapter is really important.

Canaan was ruled by a set of warrior kings.

Canaan was a collection of city-states— mini empires spread throughout the land. Both Egypt and Canaan were structured along the same hierarchical paradigm. The king and his posse owned it all…

In Canaan, the kings and nobles were able to maintain control over the land through a professional army— a highly trained group of warriors who stockpiled many weapons: swords, spears, chariots, and horses. They were paid a good salary through taxation and were honored with land that the peasants cultivated for them. Such an army would cost a lot of money, but a professional army was essential for the king and nobles to maintain power and secure their space in the land. The stronger the military, the better the “homeland security.” External attacks were halted by a strong military; internal revolts were kept at bay by the same force.

The very existence of the king-centered feudal system depended upon the strength of the army. Without it, the king would not maintain ownership over the land for very long. Having a king meant having a warrior who wielded absolute power through his military (Fight, chapter 3.

Israel was organized in a totally different way.

Israel, quite shockingly, was an egalitarian (think “equal”) society, meaning that all families were entitled to own land. Everyone had equal access to gain wealth. It was not a monarchy (originally ), where the king owned it all. And it was not a feudal system, where a few elite nobles controlled the land while the rest lived as peasants. This is shocking, because no other society in the ancient world operated this way. Every other society was hierarchical. They were ruled by kings and nobles who pretty much did whatever they wanted.

But Israel is different. Yahweh is their King who owns all the land (Lev. 25: 23), and He will be their army. God doesn’t need a human army to protect His land. He is quite capable of defending the land Himself, as He demonstrates time and time again. Later on, in fact, Israel is condemned for wanting a militaristic king who will fight its battles, as the other nations have (1 Sam. 8: 20). Such misplaced trust befits pagans, not God’s people. To ensure Israel’s trust in Him rather than in a human king, God gives Israel an economic system that can’t support a professional army. After all, somebody has to fund the army. But not in Israel. No taxes are supposed to be collected to support a military— God wants excess money to be given to the poor, not to fund a military (e.g., Deut. 14: 29).

And when Israel does end up choosing a king, God does not allow him to have the financial means to support an army (Deut. 17). Israel’s economic system, therefore, is set up so that the nation can’t sustain a standing army without violating the system itself. Israel’s “army”— if we can even call it an army— is a group of weekend warriors whose skills, or lack thereof, testify to the power of God, who alone ensures victory.

Israel’s egalitarian society, then, is different from and critical of the Canaanite society it is to drive out. The Canaanite hierarchical system, held together by the power of the king and his military might, is to be abolished. While the other nations place much faith in their king and the power of his army, Israel is called to have faith in its King and His power. All other forms of “homeland security”—professional army, superior weapons, alliances with other nations—are considered idolatry.

Israel’s lack of, and inability to sustain, a professional army is one of the most bizarre aspects of its society. None of this would make sense to modern or ancient military tactics. Against all human logic, intuition, and desire to secure oneself by military might, Israel flaunts its weak and outdated military regime (Fight, chapter 3)

The challenge is to explain how this would work in a kingdom culture.

Preston Sprinkle - Fight (1)

I have just read Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence by Preston Sprinkle. It is a really good book, except that it does not go far enough for me. However, it is not written for people like me who are already persuaded. The book is written for Americans who are locked in a military culture. Most American Christians will think that he has gone too far. So I guess that he has got it about right.

Chapter 2 looks at the book of Genesis. He shows that influence for peace was there right from the beginning. For example, he shows how Abraham chose to suffer loss, rather than fight to protect his rights.

Preston Sprinkle takes a narrative approach to Old Testament law. He says that God allowed violence because the culture of the time was violent. That narrative approach does not work. We live in a culture that feeds on TV violence. Does that mean that we can ignore Jesus teaching on violence in our time?

There are two things that he misses.

1. Prior to the cross, the children of Israel had no spiritual protection. The commands of Leviticus were designed to separate them from the surrounding culture, so they would not be overwhelmed by the spiritual forces that dominated that culture. Some of the laws were given to provide spiritual protection. They have been made redundant by the cross.

2. The Israelites misunderstood the law and never applied it. Preston says there is not evidence of this. I think there is plenty. The book of Joshua is a record of how Joshua undertook terrible wars, because he misunderstood what Moses had said. I explain this at http://kingwatch.co.nz/Law_Government/violenz.htm.

Preston argues that Joshua is hyperbole. I don’t think that works. I prefer my approach in God and Violence.