“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?” (Matthew 5:41-47) We are called to actively love our enemies and do good to those who hate us. Do these words of Jesus nullify the Law? No, because the Law never commanded Israel to hate its enemies—although it only commanded them to love their neighbors (Lev 19:18). Still, there are multiple examples of love shown to enemies in the OT. We are challenged to go far beyond the minimum standard of social / familial decency (kindness to friends and family). We are to love even our enemies! The early church held to this teaching for three centuries: Justin Martyr: “We used to hate and destroy one another. We would not live with men of a different race because of their peculiar customs. However, now, since the coming of Christ, we live intimately with them. We pray for our enemies and endeavor to persuade those who hate us unjustly to live conformably to the good teachings of Christ.We do this to the end that they may become partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a reward from God, the Ruler of all.” First Apology 14. Also: “We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies.” ANF 1.176. Clement of Alexandria: “It is not in war, but in peace, that we are trained.” ANF 2.234. Tertullian: “We willingly yield ourselves to the sword. So what wars would we not be both fit and eager to participate in (even against unequal forces), if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay?" ANF 3.45. He adds, “The Christian does no harm even to his enemy.” ANF 3.45. Cyprian: “Wars are scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of military camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood. And murder—which is acknowledged to be a crime in the case of an individual—is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not because they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale!” ANF 5.277. Lactantius: “The Christian considers it unlawful not only to commit slaughter himself, but also to be present with those who do it.” Divine Institutes ANF 7.153. Also: “How can a man be righteous who hates, who despoils, who puts to death? Yet, those who strive to be serviceable to their country do all these things. ...When they speak of the ‘duties’ relating to warfare, their speech pertains neither to justice nor to true virtue.” ANF 7.169 Aristides: “They comfort their oppressors and make them their friends. They do good to their enemies.” ANF 10.276. Origen: “We are taught not to avenge ourselves upon our enemies. We have therefore lived by laws of a mild and wise character. Although able, we would not make war even if we had received authority to do so. Therefore, we have obtained this reward from God: that He has always fought on our behalf. On various occasions, He has restrained those who rose up against us and desired to destroy us.” Against Celsus 8. Lactantius: “Torture and godliness are widely different. It is not possible for truth to be united with violence or justice to be united with cruelty. …Religion is to be defended—not by putting to death—but by dying. It is not defended by cruelty, but by patient endurance.” Divine Institutes (ANF 7.156-157). The Didache: “If you love those who hate you, you will not have an enemy.” Didache 3 Chrysostom: “You should feel grateful to an enemy on account of his wickedness. This is so even if he is evil to you after receiving from you ten thousand kindnesses. For if he were not exceedingly evil, your reward would not be significantly increased. You may say that the reason you do not love him is because he is evil. However, that is the very reason you should love him. Take away the contestant, and you take away the opportunity for the crowns.” Homilies on Hebrews 19.5. Paul taught the same: Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. ... Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Rom 12:14, 17-21). To illustrate, when the early Christian leader Polycarp was arrested, he first directed that food and drink be brought to the soldiers who were about to bring him to execution. Martyrdom of Polycarp 7:2 The observation of Ammianus Roman soldier and historian Ammianus Marcellinus (c.330-400 AD) noted that rival Christian parties exceeded wild beasts in their hostility toward one another! What changed in the 4th century? The state and the church become inseparably connected. From the disastrous 4th century till the present day In the fourth century, most of the Roman emperors professed to embrace Christianity. Nevertheless, they continued to kill their opponents (even family members) and to wage war—ignoring the teaching of Christ. At first, Christians refused to fight in their armies, as in earlier centuries, soldiers who became Christians refused to kill. However, in time the state church relaxed its teachings on nonresistance. Eventually, Augustine (354-430 AD) came up with a rationalization to defend both personal vengeance and war: It’s permissible to kill enemies as long as we still “love” them! As a result, fighting, killing and revenge became the norm in medieval “Christian” Europe. Professing Christians waged war against Muslims, pagans, and fellow “Christians.” They persecuted heretics (real or imagined), tortured people, and oppressed the weak in the name of God. Not surprisingly, Catholics and Reformers alike persecuted those genuine Christians who refused to go to war and who spoke out against torture and oppression. Some practicals: Act lovingly towards enemies, strangers, and people we do not like. Take some time to compare Paul’s teaching with Jesus’s. Invest in learning some early church history, and how the church embraced the teaching of the world regarding enemies. Refuse to take credit for behaving kindly and decently to friends and family. If you’re disturbed by any of these teachings, take time to pray. originally posted from Douglas Jacoby, used with permission. https://www.douglasjacoby.com/som-19-enemies/

The American writer Mark Twain wrote the following satire in the glow of America’s imperial interventions. It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism … on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun … nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. … Sunday morning came — next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams — visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! … The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said … … Then came the “long” prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work…. An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. … he ascended to the preacher’s side and stood there waiting. … The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside — which the startled minister did — and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said: “I come from the Throne — bearing a message from Almighty God!” … “God’s servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two — one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this — keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor’s crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it. “You have heard your servant’s prayer — the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it — that part which the pastor — and also you in your hearts — fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: ‘Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!’ … When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory–must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen! “O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle — be Thou near them! With them — in spirit — we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it — for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen. (After a pause.) “Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!” It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. [1] The American Yawp Reader, Stanford University Press https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/19-american-empire/mark-twain-the-war-prayer-ca-1904-5/

I am news reporter and communications specialist by profession, I am not a theologian or a scholar. But when I think about the peace movement of Jesus, or Jesus’ stance on non-violence, it gives me pause and honestly takes me on an interesting journey in my mind and heart. One of Isaiah’s prophesies (Isa 9:6) that points to Jesus literally calls him the Prince of Peace, right? And in the Beatitudes, he calls peacemakers blessed, saying those are the folks who will be called children of God (Matt 5:9). Jesus declares that when we become active peacemakers, we have the same heavenly Father he does. But then I think of the times that Jesus got mad. He cursed the fig tree that was flowering but not bearing fruit. Then he gets so upset he starts flipping tables and driving folks out of the temple (Mark 11:12-15). In John’s gospel, he takes the time to braid a whip to clear out the temple. So I ask myself, is that “non-violent”? As a news reporter, if I were assigned to cover this story of Jesus at the temple, I’d say this was a “violent attack at the temple by a man who had recently unleashed his anger on a fig tree”. And if I were to speak to witnesses who saw this incident, they would likely call it violent too. But is Christian pacifism the same thing as being passive? The term pacifism today carries the meaning of “having an attitude or policy of nonresistance” (Merrier-Webster Dictionary). However, the “word ‘pacifism’ is derived from the [Latin] word ‘pacific,’ which means ‘peace making’”,[1] which is not the same thing as being passive. Being passive denotes “accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance” (Oxford Dictionary). Jesus was a peacemaker, but he was certainly not passive. Jesus was active in making peace. He actively made peace between people and his heavenly Father, and taught God’s image bearers to make peace with one another. It was in fact this very thing that the religious were stunned, offended, and angered with him for as he “ate with tax collectors and sinners, in hopes of getting the sick to The Doctor” (Mrk 2:17). Jesus actively removes and resists the things that destroy that peace. Here’s another thing that I find interesting, in the first chapter of Mark’s gospel, when Jesus heals the man with leprosy, in the NIV translation, verse 41 is says, “Jesus was indignant”. Other translations say “moved with anger”, while still others translate it as “moved with compassion”, or “feeling deeply sorry”. When I’m moved to want to commit an act of violence, it’s rarely because I’m moved with compassion or feeling deeply sorry. It is not to actively make peace. When I hear that a person has done something horrible to another person or animal that can’t defend themselves, I want them “to pay”. Of course, justice is Godly, but If I’m honest, what I really want most is vengeance, not peace. Or perhaps I just get frustrated in my circumstances, such as sitting in Atlanta traffic, or feel deeply offended by some insensitive and idiotic thing someone said. When this happens, I am not usually indignant, moved with compassion, or feel deeply sorry like Jesus … I simply want retribution. So as much as I’d like to justify the use of violence to “right” a “wrong”, it’s simply not the way of Jesus, who innocently died on a cross at the hands of his enemies and entrusted himself to the only one who can truly judge justly (1 Pet 2:23). Jesus, help me follow you. 1 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Pacifism”. First published Jul 6, 2006; substantive revision Sep 15, 2018, accessed March 25, 2023. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism

A home school mom's journey into peacemaking and Christian non-violence. “Of course I would grab a knife from the kitchen and stab the intruder.” That was my plan when my husband and I discussed the hypothetical situation of someone breaking in and hurting our children. We decided long ago that we would never own a gun (we were never comfortable with the idea of actually shooting someone), but the idea of my child being attacked elicited a visceral protective instinct, and I couldn’t imagine doing anything other than fighting back. Two years ago, when that conversation occurred, my thoughts about violence were a vague grab bag of fear, societal permission for self-defense, and somewhat contradictory personal logic. I’ve had the privilege of living a relatively safe life, and violence has primarily been something happening to other people, elsewhere. Although I couldn’t explain why, my gut feelings told me that I didn’t want to be in the military or shoot guns, but that if someone was aggressive towards me or my family, I would certainly have grounds for responding in kind with whatever violence was necessary. When my husband asked, “Is there any reason that would justify a Christian killing another person?”, it sounded like an extreme question. Clearly, I reasoned, Christians shouldn’t be bloodthirsty, but there must be extenuating circumstances when killing someone would be permissible, even necessary. As I thought about his extreme (but not unfathomable) query, I took stock of what I believed and found the barely-considered grab bag described above. My opinion on the matter was primarily rooted, albeit shallowly, in my emotions and personal experience (both of which have proven historically to be unstable sources of truth and conviction). So I turned next to considering various “what-if” situations such as a home invasion, school shooting, or attempted kidnapping. Emotionally and logically, I kept traveling the same path and arriving at the same destination: “I would have to fight back to protect the innocent”. “Love always protects, right”? But it is how I choose to fight that is the real question, for Jesus was not a passive peacemaker, and making peace is the opposite of doing nothing. But as I searched the Bible on this journey, I became more and more uncomfortable with my own logical conclusions. Both the words and life examples of Jesus Christ and his early followers pointed down a very different path, one that was hard to make sense of. When God looked at humanity, he saw his beloved children being attacked by an Enemy too powerful for them, and his protective instincts also kicked in. But his baffling solution was to rescue us by laying down his own life. He observed people being hurt and oppressed by their own sin, by one another, and by an occupying empire, and he neither ran away nor attacked. Rather, in the face of opposition and violence, Jesus practiced surprising, subversive ways to engage those who hated him. And then he went even farther and told his followers to love their enemies and to be kind to those who were hurting them. That doesn’t make any sense! As I wrestled with these thoughts, a passage I came back to time and again was 1 Peter 2:20-24 (emphasis mine): “How is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. ‘He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.’ When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. ‘He himself bore our sins’ in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; ‘by his wounds you have been healed.’” How did Jesus suffer? How did Jesus respond to those who attacked him and ultimately killed him? When Peter pulled a weapon to try to protect the most innocent life in history, what did Jesus do and say? How did Jesus rescue me when I was powerless, helpless, and enslaved to the Enemy? He certainly did not lash out at human aggressors. Rather, he sacrificed himself and trusted the Father to sort it out justly. And the brave, non-violent, enemy-forgiving, enemy-loving, self-giving path of Jesus isn’t solely for me to admire and appreciate. It is an example for my life, that I should follow in his steps and actually live in the same way. Jesus’ early followers did just that. When their own lives and the lives of their families and beloved brothers and sisters in the faith were threatened and taken from them, we hear no call to fight back. Both in the Bible and in early church history, we see the first Christians following Jesus’ example of non-retaliation and non-violence, and entrusting themselves to God. There is no hint in their teaching or example that would tell us, “Love your enemies, unless they are killing your children, in which case you should stab them with a kitchen knife.” “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you”. (‭‭Luke‬ ‭6‬:‭27‬-‭28‬) Return with me to the question: “Is there any reason that would justify a Christian killing another person”? We follow a Lord who told us to do good to our enemies, who did not retaliate when people hurt him, and who counter-intuitively rescued people by giving up his own life. If we believe we are supposed to be like our Lord (Luke 6:40), then killing another human being directly contradicts both Jesus’ life and teachings. Over the past two years, my beliefs about this topic have become rooted in Jesus, rather than in my own shifting feelings and opinions. As I write this I recognize that I am in a safe place, surrounded by my family, and that all of this seems easier to say and believe when nobody is hurting me or my loved ones. I wish I could say that I no longer have any fears and that I am confident that I will always react peaceably, but alas, I am a work in progress. I certainly fear that when I do face hatred or violence, my self-protective instincts will kick in and override my desire to follow Jesus. I worry that if someone else is being harmed, I won’t know how to protect them in a non-violent way. I fear suffering. I fear that when I see a threatening situation I’ll panic or strike back. If I do face violence, perhaps God will give me a brilliant, creative response that is neither fight nor flight, an amazing third option that will turn into an inspiring story. Or perhaps he won’t. If he doesn’t intervene and offer me a great idea of how to engage peaceably, I pray that I will still have the courage and conviction to not react with violence, even if it means laying down my life. I pray to not fear death (Heb 2:15), and to trust God through all my other worries so that fear will not control me. However, dramatic and extreme scenarios aside, every day, God gives me opportunities to practice peace. When I am irritated, when someone disagrees with me, when my husband is harsh or insensitive, when my children are not doing what they should, when I feel hurt or misrepresented by someone, I can choose to practice anger and retribution, or I can exercise forbearance and forgiveness. By God’s grace, being “trained by constant practice” (Heb 5:14), I pray to be free from the violence and anxiety in my own heart and be transformed more and more into the likeness of our Prince of Peace.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matthew 5:9). "If most of us are honest with ourselves, we know that there are many ways in which our hearts are not at peace. We are wounded, insecure, resentful and lonely, and this restlessness within us causes us to anxiously defend our actions and opinions, to control others and to seek after their love and praise at all costs." — Jessica A. Wrobleski, "Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Living as Children of God" (Leaven, vol. 16, no. 54, 2008, p.161). Peacemaking To make peace is to pacify… Latin: Beati pacifici: quoniam filii dei vocabuntur. Greek: Makarioi hoi eirēnopoiói, hoti autoi huioi theou klēthēsontai. It’s something active, not passive. Yes, the early church was pacifist—unanimously so, in its first three centuries. They knew that fear, anger, and greed in the human heart are the causes of war. Yet biblical pacifism is not passivism—nonchalant, aloof, uninvolved. Pacifism means caring about peace in the world. Justin Martyr told the Roman emperor, “More than all other men, we are your helpers and allies in promoting peace.” — Justin Martyr, First Apology 12 (ANF 1.166). Examples of peacemaking The wise old woman of Abel (2 Sam 20:16-22). She averts destruction and carnage. The apostles (Acts 6). They come up with a plan, but entrust its execution to those most invested. The result is demographic harmony. James the brother of Jesus, at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Each side presents its viewpoint, they listen, and they compromise. "Troublemakers" Even if we do our best to be respectful, gentle, and diplomatic, some will still consider us Christians as troublemakers. If they rejected Jesus, they will not be happy with us, either (John 15:18). Tertullus the lawyer accuses Paul in front of governor Felix: “For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Romans 12:18). Yet peace is not the ultimate goal, since the truth divides (Matt 10:34). Application Don't actively seek a quarrel, behave insensitively, or sow seeds of dissension. Followers of Christ take no pleasure in controversy, or in proving others wrong. No triumphalist spirit. Reject ideology and groups that promote violence. Jesus as peacemaker: Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). When leaders are behaving egotistically or in ways that hurt Christian unity, speak up. Jesus intervened when his own apostles were arrogant and jockeyed for position. Paul spoke up when Peter crossed the line (Galatians 2:11). Allow for a certain level of disagreement. Sometimes good-hearted (and intelligent) Christians will disagree. 1 Cor 1:10 isn’t calling for uniformity of thought so much as unity of heart. Let's watch ourselves: Peace is ruined by insisting on our own way. Or by arrogance: “It is not bigotry to be certain we are right, but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.” – Chesterton Jesus expected us to do our best to work through disagreement—without acrimony (Matt 5:25-26; 18:15-20). Let's demonstrate the peace of Christ in our hearts! Douglas Jacoby, used with permission: https://www.douglasjacoby.com/som-08-peacemaking/

Jon Sherwood preaches through Mat 5:21-48, the "6 antitheses" of Jesus' sermon on the mount. In particular he discusses the upside down nature of God's kingdom of peace and non-violence. Originally published by Jon Sherwood, used with permission: https://www.jonsherwood.com/post/the-kingdom-of-god-a-kingdom-of-peace

In a sermon series through the book of Revelation, Jon Sherwood looks at how Revelation critiques power, especially of that between Jesus and Babylon, and what that has to do with us today in America. Originally published by Jon Sherwood, used with permission: https://www.jonsherwood.com/post/the-apocalypse-critique-of-power

In a sermon series through the book of Revelation, Jon Sherwood calls for the church to remain separate from "the beast" and applies it to modern America and its civil religion. Originally by Jon Sherwood, used with permission: https://www.jonsherwood.com/post/the-apocalypse-civil-and-uncivil-worship

We finally come to the last, and most radical, of Jesus’ six examples of his way: enemy love. For Jesus, it’s not enough to reject the flight or fight options, and look for a creative alternative to violence. He’s actually after love for our enemy. If we only love people we like, how are we any different from the world? Originally published at Bridgetown, used with permission https://bridgetown.church/teachings/gospel-of-matthew/jesus-on-his-most-radical-idea-enemy-love

Few of Jesus’ teachings are more thought-provoking and jarring to our culture than what he has to say on nonviolence and enemy love. To follow Jesus is to reject the either/or option of flight or fight, and to look for a third way, a creative, wise, intelligent, bold, and at times risky way to fight evil in a nonviolent way. The way of Jesus. Originally published at Bridgetown, used with permission https://bridgetown.church/teachings/gospel-of-matthew/jesus-on-breaking-the-chain-of-violence

John Markowski, pastor at Big Apple Church in New York, discusses the topic of violence as he looks at the "Un-Triumphal Entry" of Jesus in Luke 19, as well as the nature of violence done against the kingdom in Matthew 11:12. Original sermon by John Markowski at Big Apple Church, used with permission

In his critique of Crucifixion of the Warrior God (CWG), Paul Copan makes a concerted effort to argue that the God revealed in Jesus Christ and witnessed to throughout the NT is not altogether non-violent. One of the passages Copan cites against me is the famous account of Ananias and Sapphira falling down dead immediately after Peter exposes their lie about a donation they made to the kingdom community (Acts 5:1-11). Copan argues that this deceptive couple was “struck down by God, it appears.” As a matter of fact, the text nowhere says that God slew Ananias and Sapphira. It only “appears” this way to Copan because, like most western believers, he assumes that every supernatural feat that is associated with one of God’s people was carried out by God and therefore reflects God’s will. This is an unwarranted assumption, however. As I argue at length in CWG, the NT shares the widespread ancient conception of divine power as something that God (or a god) could cause to reside in a person, to the point that its use was subject to the person’s own will. I refer to this as the “semi-autonomous conception of divine power.” We see this illustrated, for example, when Peter encounters a lame man begging for money at the Temple. Peter says, “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you, in the name of Jesus Christ: Walk!” (Acts 3:6). Notice that Peter didn’t pray to God for this man to be healed, as most of us would do today. Rather, Peter knew he had already been given the power to heal people in Jesus name, so he simply commanded the man to start walking. We find the disciples repeating this pattern through the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 9:32-35, etc.). In responding to infirmities this way, the early Christians were simply following Jesus’ example, for Jesus consistently healed and delivered people not by praying for the Father to heal and deliver them, but simply by speaking healing and deliverance words to them. They also were obeying Jesus’ instructions. For example, Jesus told his disciples; “if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done” (Mark 11:23). Notice that Jesus did not tell them that if they prayed with faith, God would move the mountain. He rather told them that they themselves will move mountains by speaking to them with faith. The assumption is that the divine power to move mountains resided within them and was released through faith-filled authoritative words. What is important for us to grasp is that, because this divine power was subject to the will of the person who was endowed with it, people were able to use this power in ways that did not necessarily reflect God’s will. We might think of the divine power that God gave the early disciples along the lines of the power that government gives to police officers. Government of course gives officers this power with the intent that they will use it for the common good. But as we all know, officers occasionally use this power in ways that harm innocent people and conflict with the intention of the government that trusted them with it. The Bible contains a number of examples of people misusing divine power. For example, God gave Moses the power to use his staff to make water flow from rocks (Exodus 17:6) as well as to perform other supernatural feats. But when Moses once used this divinely empowered staff in an angry way that conflicted with God’s will, the staff still worked (Numbers 20:6-12). Similarly, when the Apostle Paul instructs the Corinthians about the right way supernatural gifts of the Spirit are to be used in church, he assumes that the way these gifts are manifested is subject to the will of the people who have them. Indeed, he wrote I Corinthians 12-14 precisely because the Corinthians were misusing these supernatural gifts. So, for example, to those who had the gift of prophecy, Paul said: “The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets,” and since “God is not a God of disorder but of peace,” he instructs prophets to use this gift in an orderly way (I Cor 14:32-33). We find the semi-autonomous conception of divine power in Jesus’ ministry as well. Jesus “knew that the Father had put all things under his power “(Jn 13:3; cf. Matt 11:27), which is why Jesus had to choose to submit his will to the Father and use the divine authority he’d been given in accordance with the Father’s will (Matt 26:42Jn 4:34; 6:38). It was only because the use of divine power was subject to his own will that the devil could tempt him to use this power in ways that conflicted with the Father’s will (Matt 4:1-10). Moreover, after Peter had lopped off a guard’s ear with his sword, Jesus rebuked him and told him that he could call on “twelve legions of angels” to defend him if that is what he wanted to do, and he assumes that had he done this, the angels would have come (Matt 26:53). And yet, such a display of supernatural power would have conflicted with the Father’s will. I submit that when Ananias and Sapphira fall down dead in response to Peter’s words, we are seeing semi-autonomous divine power at work. And there is no indication in this passage that Peter’s lethal display of divine power was in accordance with God’s will. As is Luke’s custom, he simply reports what happened without commenting on whether or not this is what should have happened. As a final word on this passage, I think it’s significant that Ananias and Sapphira had allowed Satan to fill their hearts (Acts 5:3). It’s also significant that the Semitic concept of “curse” had the connotation of lifting protection off of someone to render them vulnerable to hostile agents, whether human or spiritual. In this light, we might understand Peter to be using his apostolic authority to remove whatever divine protection Ananais and Sapphira had, thereby handing them over to the “thief who comes only to kill and to steal and to destroy” (Jn 10:10) and “who holds the power of death” ( Heb 2:14). Since Jesus came to bring fullness of life, not death (Jn 10:10), and since Jesus is the full revelation of exactly what God is like (Heb 1:3), I submit that it makes better sense to understand Satan to be the agent who brought about the death of Ananais and Sapphira, with Peter’s misuse of his divine authority being the means, than it is to assume their death was an act of God. Originally published by Greg Boyd at ReKnew, used with permission https://reknew.org/2017/12/killed-ananias-sapphira-response-paul-copan-6/