Chapter 10: Is Old Testament morality still good enough? Are the moral principles of the New Testament actually different from those of the Old? John Calvin, the 16th-century church reformer and theologian, taught very emphatically that they were not.
In one of his treatises against the Anabaptists, he wrote, "The only subterfuge left to these enemies of all order is to claim that our Lord requires a greater perfection in the Christian church than He did of the Jewish people." Now, that is true with respect to the ceremonies, but that there exists a different rule of life with respect to the moral law, as it is called, than the people of old had, is a false opinion.
Therefore, let us hold this position: with regard to a faithful man walking in good conscience and being whole before God in both his vocation and in all his works, there exists a plain and complete guideline for it in the law of Moses, to which we need simply cling if we want to follow the right path. Thus, whoever adds to or takes anything from it exceeds the limits.
Therefore, our position is sure and infallible." Although most of us would perhaps not be as dogmatic as Calvin, evangelicals today generally hold to his view that, with the exception of dietary and ceremonial distinctions, there is little or no difference between the moral precepts of the Old Testament and the New. In fact, we frequently cite the Old Testament in support of our views on principles for Christian living.
However, the understanding of the early Christians was that the moral teachings of Christ surpassed the moral teachings of the Old Testament. The church didn't believe that God Himself had changed, only that the teachings of Christ went to the core of the law and tapped its true spiritual meaning. Furthermore, they believed that the commandments of the Old Testament were for an earthly kingdom, but the teachings of the New Testament are for citizens of a heavenly kingdom.
As a result, they applied Jesus' moral teachings quite literally, which led to some attitudes and practices that are quite different from that of the church today. Previous chapters have shown how they carefully followed New Testament teachings on such topics as divorce, wealth, and lawsuits. Here are some additional examples. Our first heading: What did Jesus mean when He said, "Do not swear"?
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught, "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oath to the Lord.' But I say to you, do not swear at all." James wrote similarly, "Above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath, but let your yes be yes and your no no, lest you fall into judgment." Now, before reading the early Christian writings, I was aware that a few Christian denominations took Jesus' words literally and
refused to take oaths.
I'd always viewed such Christians as taking Jesus' words too literally, and I expected to find support for my interpretation in the early Christian writings. But instead, I found that the early Christians uniformly refused to take oaths. As Clement remarked, "How can he who is faithful show himself to be unfaithful so as to require an oath?
But the Christian does not even swear, preferring to affirm by saying yes or to deny by saying no." Tertullian explained to the Romans, "I need say nothing about false swearing, since even swearing is not lawful." Origen, Cyprian, and Eusebius also verify that this was the standard position of the early Christians as to swearing. Our next heading is War Morally Wrong.
Before I began studying the early Christian writings, I had read in church history books that the early Christians generally refused military service. Those books said that the early Christians weren't opposed to bloodshed; rather, they rejected military service in order to avoid participating in idolatrous practices. But that's simply not true. In their writings, the early Christians clearly stated they opposed war because they literally followed Jesus' commandment to love your enemies and to turn the other cheek.
They viewed war as morally wrong. Justin Martyr wrote in his apology to the Romans, "We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war upon our enemies." Tertullian raised the following question about war, "Can it be lawful to make an occupation of the sword when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the Son of Peace take part in battle when it does not become him even to sue at law?
Shall he apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment when he is not the avenger of his own wrongs?" When pagans began circulating a rumor that Christianity was a sect that had broken away from Judaism by armed revolt, Origen answered this false charge with these words, "Nowhere does Jesus teach that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to anyone, however wicked, for He deemed the killing of any individual to be against His laws, which were divine in origin.
If Christians had owed their origins to a rebellion, they would have not adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character. These laws do not even allow them on any occasion to resist their persecutors, even when they are called to be slaughtered as sheep." Cyprian made the following observation about war, "The whole world is wet with mutual blood. Murder, which is admitted to be a crime when it is committed by an individual, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale.
Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds of war, not because they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale." Arnobius, an apologist living in the 3rd century, explained the Christian position to the Romans in this manner, "We have learned from his teaching and his laws that evil should not be repaid with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, and that our own blood should be shed rather than to stain our hands and our conscience with that of another.
As a result, an ungrateful world has now for a long period been enjoying a benefit from Christ. For by his means, the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and the world has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow creature." At a time when military valor was considered to be the greatest of virtues, the early Christians stood alone in declaring that war was simply murder on a grand scale.
How ironic, therefore, that evangelical Christians in the United States not only condone war, but are generally more militaristic than other segments of society. Evangelicals are often labeled as warmongers by the world. In fact, I know of no war in the entire history of the United States that evangelical Christians opposed in any significant numbers. When the Iranian crisis of 1980 erupted, I was a law student at Baylor University, a Southern Baptist College. The day after Americans at the U.S.
Embassy in Tehran were taken hostage, I saw several students from the Middle East in the school cafeteria. I didn't know the nationality of the students. More than likely, they weren't even Iranians. Nevertheless, as various American students walked past their table, the Americans purposely bumped into their table as a threatening gesture.
In the cafeteria and corridors, I overheard vehement discussions of how the United States ought to send our armies to Iran and "stomp those sand niggers in the ground." How sad that when the chips were down, Christians reacted with the same anger and hate as the world. But shouldn't a Christian help to defend his country, you may ask? The early Christians would have answered yes, but in a very different way than the world.
The Romans made the same charge to the early Christians, "Why don't you help your country?" And this was the reply that the Christians gave, "We are urged to help the king with all our might, to work with him in the preservation of justice, to fight for him, and if he requires it, to fight under him or to lead an army along with him." Our answer is that we do, when occasion requires, give help to kings, but in a divine way, putting on the whole armor of God.
We do this in obedience to the injunction of the apostle, "I urge, therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made for all men, for kings, and for all those in authority." The more anyone excels in holiness, the more effective is his help to kings, even more than is given by soldiers who go out to fight and slay as many of the enemy as they can.
Continuing the quote, "To those enemies of our faith who would require us to bear arms for the empire and to slay men, we reply, 'Do not the priests who attend your gods keep their hands free from blood so that they may offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods with hands unstained and free from human blood? Even when war is upon you, you never enlist the priests in the army.
If then that is a praiseworthy custom, how much more so that while others are engaged in battle, Christians too should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their hands pure. By our prayers, we vanquish all demons who stir up war. In this way, we are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them, and none fight better for the king than we do. Indeed, we refuse to fight under him even if he demands it.
But we do fight on his behalf, forming a special army, an army of righteousness, by offering our prayers to God." That was from a passage written by Origen in response to a Roman critic. Now, we may be inclined to call their view unrealistic, but the early Christians called it trust. Who is right? History would indicate that perhaps those Christians weren't as naive as they might seem to many people today.
During the period from the birth of Christ to around the beginning of the 3rd century, the Roman Empire didn't experience even one successful invasion of its frontiers. Historians call this the Pax Romana or Roman Peace and view it as a rather extraordinary period in the history of Western civilization. For 200 years, the ancient Mediterranean world enjoyed peace, something it did not have before the Pax Romana and something it has never had since.
Of course, no secular historian would credit this peace to the presence and prayers of the Christians, but the early Christians firmly believed that it was the result of divine intervention.
For example, Origen asked the Romans, "How then was it possible for the gospel doctrine of peace, which does not permit men to take vengeance even upon their enemies, to prevail throughout the world unless at the coming of Jesus a milder spirit had been introduced everywhere into the conduct of things?" In contrast, after the time of Constantine, when Christian teachers such as Augustine began teaching the doctrine of holy war and Christians supported Rome with the sword, well, the entire Western Roman Empire
collapsed within just a few decades.
Did the Roman Empire fall because the church changed its position on war? Well, I don't think any human can answer that question with certainty, but at the very least, it's certainly a remarkable coincidence that Rome prospered and was safe from its enemies so long as the Christians served as a special army of righteousness, as Origen put it, trusting only in God for the empire's protection, and that once Christians began to wage physical war on behalf of Rome, the empire collapsed.
Our next subheading, can a Christian be in the military? Consistent with its position of not legislating righteousness in other areas of life, the early church made no law that Christians could not serve in the army. The scriptures only commanded a Christian to love his enemies and not to return evil for evil. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever strictly forbade Christians to serve in the military.
Since the Roman Empire was at peace during this early period of Christianity, it was quite possible for a Christian to spend his entire life in the army and never be required to shed blood. In fact, during this period, soldiers primarily served in a capacity similar to American police officers. Now, generally speaking, the church did not permit a Christian to join the army after his conversion. However, if a man was already a soldier when he became a Christian, the church did not require him to resign.
The only requirement they made was that he would agree to never use the sword against anyone, whether in battle or enforcing civil authority. One reason for this flexibility was that the Romans did not normally allow a soldier to leave the army until the time of his service was completed. So until your term of enlistment was up, the only way out was death. Next subheading, how should a Christian view capital punishment? God ordained capital punishment in the laws he gave to the Israelites.
For that reason, I've always been a strong supporter of capital punishment, and I expected to find that the early Christians were too. So I was rather surprised to find that the early Christians viewed capital punishment much the same way as they viewed war. Although only a few writers discussed the subject, every one of them expressed the same view.
A Christian should not execute a criminal, watch public executions in the arena, something the Romans delighted in, or even bring a capital charge against a fellow human being. In short, the early Christians utterly abhorred the taking of human life, whether by war, by execution, or by abortion. For instance, Lactantius wrote, "When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but he also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men.
Thus, it is not lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself. Nor is it lawful to accuse anyone of a capital offense. It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God, there should be no exception at all.
Rather, it is always unlawful to put to death a man whom God willed to be a sacred creature." However, Christians did not purport to tell the secular government what it could do or could not do in punishing criminals. The early Christians recognized that God allowed secular governments to use the sword as his avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Nevertheless, the early Christians believed that they could not in any way personally participate in the execution of criminals.
Our last subheading, so who are the real heretics? Once again, the early Christians showed themselves to be citizens of a heavenly kingdom and a people of a different culture. And once more, we find that today's evangelical Christianity is far removed from early Christianity. As I mentioned previously, the teachings discussed in this chapter and the four preceding ones are merely examples of early Christian beliefs that differ radically from our evangelical teachings.
There are many, many more examples that could be given. We label as heresy many of the doctrines they taught. They label as heresy many of the doctrines that we teach. Who are the real heretics?