Was Jesus a pacifist?  There were no guns in the first century, but the sword was a prevalent weapon of self-defense.  The Gospels make no mention of Jesus having or carrying a sword.  But in His discussion with His disciples the evening of His arrest, He said, if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one (Luke 22:36).  I think it is safe to assume that if Jesus carried a sword and knew that they already had swords He would have said something else.  What did Jesus mean?  Was His statement permission for all of His disciples to feel free to arm themselves?  To understand, consider the context: earlier He had said, I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer (Luke 22:14).  Later, He added, But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table (Luke 22:21).  The context was His imminent arrest, suffering, and death.  His statements provoked the disciples to think about their reactions, with Peter asserting, Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death (Luke 22:33-34).  But Jesus answered, I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me (Luke 22:34).  Jesus was warning His disciples of the violence they would see that very night; in that context, He asked about swords.

If we stop there, we might assume that Jesus intended self-defense, at least for His disciples.  But that would be an incorrect assumption.  When the confrontation came about a little later, we can read that His disciples assumed the same: When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.  But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him (Luke 22:49-51).  Jesus’ words and actions clearly show that He did not want His disciples to fight.

So, what did Jesus intend?  Let us look back at what He said immediately after telling them to buy a sword.  It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”  The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”  “That’s enough!” he replied (Luke 22:38-39).  Jesus was ensuring that everything that took place was as prophesied.  The swords were not for defense but to allow His accusers to claim that He was among criminals.

Further evidence that the disciples did not carry swords lies in the rest of the New Testament, most notably, the book of Acts, which never mentions weapons or self-defense as an option for Jesus’ followers.

Nonetheless, this evidence does not imply that Jesus was a pacifist.  Jesus later told Pilate “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place” (John 18:36).  Under different circumstances and the age of the Kingdom of which He would reign, His servants are free to fight.  Indeed, most prophecies of Jesus’ return to reign in His Kingdom predict the use of violence against those who oppose Him.  See 2 Thessalonians 2:8 as one example. 

Did the Apostles and the early Church defend themselves with deadly force?  Again, the whole New Testament, particularly the book of Acts, gives no evidence of fighting or self-defense by Christians.  They did a lot of fleeing from violence, as we read in Acts 8:1, On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Those who persecuted them were fewer in number than the thousands of church members in Jerusalem; why didn’t they stand their ground instead of fleeing?  Paul later admitted, I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison (Acts 22:4).  Those who were unable or unwilling to flee experienced violence against them; why didn’t they fight back?  Could it be that they believed that those who threatened them might someday become their fellow believers – their brothers and sisters in Christ?  That is exactly what Paul became.  If one of the many first-Century Christians that were his victims had slashed him with a sword, there may never had been an Apostle Paul. 

Although nothing suggests that these early Christians had or used weapons against other humans, 2 Cor. 10:4 says, The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. Their weapons were spiritual.  So, literally they were not pacifists.  They knew well to fight in the realm of the Kingdom of God, as Jesus said they would.  Also, they understood that there are God-ordained authorities who are authorized to fight when necessary, and these people carried swords, as mentioned in Rom. 13:4: But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason.  Some of those people with such authority were Christians, as was Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment (Acts 10:1).  Nothing in his story, or that of the Philippian jailor (Acts 16:23-36) suggests that their responsibilities changed after they became Christians.

Introductory Thoughts… to be Fully Addressed in Future Blogs:

Increasingly, it seems to me that our society in the United States of America is crazy.  I chose that word for a good reason.  According to Miriam Webster’s Dictionary, the two top definitions of crazy are: 1) full of cracks or flaws: unsound and 2) not mentally sound: marked by thought or action that lacks reason.

Every time I learn of a mass shooting at a school or elsewhere, I find myself in a daze with a large group of people, amazed by another violent action that lacks reason.  Every time I hear the debate about guns, I am dumbfounded about the cracks and flaws in the arguments.  These reactions seem to me similar to witnessing a rabid animal, fiercely snarling at someone or something that is no threat.  Obviously, something is seriously wrong with the animal.

Would any sincere Christian agree that it is normal to be crazy?

Consider this stunning fact: In 2017, the United States had over three times the number of deaths by guns per 100,000 people than the combined total of Canada, India, Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom.  This measure is per capita, not by population.  If upon reading this statistic, your reaction is equivalent to a shrug of the shoulders, you have grown inured to our national craziness!

Let me assert that there is one who is not inured: God.  Genesis 6:11 informs us that the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence.   God saw the violence; if you do not already know, I suggest that you read the next two verses to see how God reacted.  If you consider yourself a Christian, does it matter to you what God thinks?

In 2011 as I was studying in an online seminary class, I remarked in the class online forum that it struck me as strange that one of the most popular Christmas gifts was a gun.  I was perplexed that as nationally we celebrated the Prince of Peace, we were stocking up on more guns and ammunition than ever.  One of my classmates responded, “People must be able to protect themselves.”  I agreed, but the more that I questioned, the more entangled I found myself in the strong arguments of some of my fellow students of Jesus that in the USA it is foolish to contemplate living with fewer weapons around us.

After all, the second amendment of the Constitution, guarantees the right of citizens to bear arms, and more recent laws legalize automatic pistols and rifles.  Yes, guns are constitutional and legal, but with so much bloodshed from these weapons, can we Christians justify having more guns than there are people in this nation?

In the next Blog, we will consider the subject of pacifism.

Consider: what is wrong with the following two pictures?

One. A married woman consults with her church pastor about her husband’s ongoing verbal and physical abuse.  “Pastor,” she says, “what should I do?”  He replies, “The Bible tells us to forgive those who sin against us.  To be a Christian, you have to forgive your husband’s abuse and be to him the best wife you can be, submitting to his authority.”

Two. A student goes to see the counselor at his Christian middle-school about bullying from other students.  “Counselor,” he asks, “what should I do?”  She replies, “Try to get along with them, and forgive them of their hurtful treatment.  In doing so, you will be applying Christian principles to your everyday conduct.”

Outrageous?  Absolutely!  Indeed, if the abuse and bullying were to continue, resulting in serious bodily harm or death, the pastor and counselor could face malpractice charges.  We all see through such nonsensical advice, so why is similar advice offered to Christians who suffer from racial abuse?

I have heard more than once such advice given to victims of racial injustice and bigotry.  Usually, frowning upon acts of speaking out, protests, or lawful demonstrations, the Christian teacher refers to Jesus’ teaching, quoting the Lord’s Prayer or other New Testament passages about forgiveness.  Their assertions that Christians must forgive are correct.  But their application of the advice overlooks an important point: If wrongdoing is passively forgiven, how does the wrongdoer know that the behavior is unacceptable?  How can it be an act of love toward an offender to omit any effort to bring the offence to attention?  Is that what Jesus intended in His teaching about forgiveness?

Let’s examine Jesus’ words on the subject.  In Matthew 18:21, Peter posed this question to Jesus: “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered in the next verse, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven.”  Jesus’ use of this large number illustrates that forgiveness is not limited to a certain number of infractions.

He followed this answer with a parable in Matthew 18:23-35 that elaborates, showing that our forgiveness is a response to God’s unlimited and unconditional forgiveness of all our offences.  Just as the debtor in the parable owed far more than any debt owed to him, so the sum of all our sins – forgiven by God – far exceeds the individual infractions against us.  It all aligns with Jesus’ statement in the Lord’s prayer, “And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” (Matthew 6:13). 

Definitely, we are to forgive.  However, Jesus’ instructions must be taken in full context.  Before Peter asked his question, Jesus had said in Matthew 18:15: If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you.  If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 

Luke17:3 is more blunt and concise: “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.”  Before we mistakenly conclude that Luke’s passage makes forgiveness conditional on repentance, we must realize that unless we take all of Jesus’ words and actions into consideration we could misunderstand.  Apology and repentance are not mentioned in Matthew 18.  The point that both of these accounts have in common is that the offender should be confronted about the offence.

Forgiveness and reconciliation are the goals, but confronting the offence is important too because it could result in a change in the offender.  If, however the offender refuses to acknowledge the offence, Jesus, in Matthew 18:16-17, gives those who are offended additional advice that escalates the confrontation to give reconciliation a chance.  If after these efforts there is still no reconciliation, the outcome may need to be a discontinuance of friendly interaction.  The offender is forgiven as Jesus’ later teaching asserts, but the offended does not need to be subject to ongoing offence.

The confrontation Jesus spoke of must stem from love, be accompanied with wisdom, and approached in humility.  For an biblical example of  effective confrontation, read my Blog series titled, A Biblical Answer to America’s Racial Divide, giving special attention to the approach Joseph took as explained in part 4 of the series titled, Resolution and Reconciliation.

Some things obviously essential to our existence as humans – air, food, water, shelter, and sleep – we understand and can explain in relatively simple terms.  But one essential we have difficulty explaining is love – both the need to love and to be loved.  Why is it difficult to explain?

The 2015 science-fiction movie, Interstellar, connected the human need for love to the need to survive.  One of the movie’s stars, scientist, Dr. Amelia Brand, while on a mission with other astrophysicists in a desperate attempt to save humanity, made this profound statement:

“Love isn’t something we invented. It’s observable, powerful, it has to mean something… something we can’t yet understand. Maybe it’s some evidence, some artifact of a higher dimension that we can’t consciously perceive. I’m drawn across the universe to someone I haven’t seen in a decade, who I know is probably dead. Love is the one thing we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space. Maybe we should trust that, even if we can’t understand it.”

We do not understand love, but we know that we need it.  What is love and how is it explained?

A woman I know, years ago a teenage friend of one of my daughters, expressed intense anger on her Facebook page about the abuse she saw poor people suffering at the hands of the rich.  This woman, a confessed atheist, raged at religion, especially Christianity, which she considered a major source of the abuse.  Explaining her belief, she wrote, “I don’t have to be religious to love people.”

After reading her comments, I called her by phone and told her that I admired her love for those who are victimized by those who are stronger.  Then I asked her where this love she has comes from?  “After all,” I went on to elaborate, “according to Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest, isn’t it natural for the strong to prevail over the weak?  If we all evolved into existence, what would be wrong if the strong annihilated the weak?”  She responded, “I got love from my parents!”  I answered, “Where did they get it?”

I asked her these questions to provoke her to deeper thought than she had garnered from her religion – Atheism.  Instead, it provoked an angry response, “You’re just trying to get me saved.”  I said, “No, I can’t do that.  But I would like you to know that the One who gave your parents love, Jesus Christ, who is unbound to any religion, including Christianity, loves you and wants you to receive His love.”

Dr. Brand’s movie character realized that there is something about love that transcends the discoveries of science.  Unless our thoughts extend beyond those limitations, we are without explanation of love.  An atheist who indignantly considers an action morally wrong is relying on human conscience to define morality.  That seems to me to be the sole prerogative of One who has authority to govern creation – God.

The Bible supplies the answer to the question about the source of love.  1 John 4:8 says, “God is love.”  It doesn’t say that God is capable of love or that God practices love.  It says God is love; that is why love is so difficult for us to explain.  Love comes from its source.  Acts 17:25 says that God “gives all people life and breath and everything else.”  That includes love.

Here’s the point.  The God that is embraced by religious people is love, even if religious people are unloving.  The God rejected by Atheism is love, even while Atheism denies Him as the source.  The God and Father of Jesus Christ loves all people (John 3:16), and through Jesus gives humans who follow Him the means to love and be one with each other (John 17:22).

You see, the problem of Atheism and any religion that does not receive the love of God through Jesus Christ is that although it can say that we ought to love it is unaware of the means to fulfill it.  That means is God.

The book, Echo of Jesus’ Prayer – through the Church explains love and how it is that God our Father, through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, gives us incentive to seriously consider Jesus’ prayer for us that we would be one, and in believing Jesus, understand how God will grant the answer to Jesus’ prayer.

A surprising outcome of the political struggle in the USA between Democrats and Republicans came when Jessica Tyson and Monica Sparks, identical twins, ran against each other for local office in Michigan, one as a Democrat and the other as a Republican.  As expected, only one won, but after the election these two unveiled their simple yet profound perspective on the political divide.  They spoke of their love for each other and jointly reflected on this insightful truth: “the right wing and the left wing belong to the same bird.”

Erratic at best would be the flight of a bird if the wings did not equally stretch outward and perform together the motions of flight.  Even worse to the bird would be the inability to fly at all with one dysfunctional wing – either right or left.  Obviously, for the bird to fly the two wings must work together in complete harmony.

If Americans on both ends of the political spectrum as well as the middle understand and embrace this fact, the nation will be strong despite differences of opinions on how it should be governed.  We are called the United States of America.  The concept of unity is built into our national name.  Nonetheless, we all know that Americans fought against each other in the Civil War, and our recent ever-deepening divisions, sparking moments of violence, raise questions about another impending internal conflict.

The strength of unity in face of diversity is a foundational characteristic of the people of God.  God is one.  The three Persons of the Trinity – Father, Son, and Spirit – though distinct, exist in absolute oneness.  Jesus Christ prayed that His followers would likewise be one (John 17:20-21).  Do we Americans who believe in Jesus agree with His prayer?  The Apostle Paul urged the followers of Jesus to “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3).  Yes, even for those who share the same Spirit, unity is hard work, and it is a non starter without joint intentions of peace.  With millions of Christians involved in the political process, we have opportunity to shed light on the way to fly as one bird.

A large part of reconciliation needs to be along racial lines.  To help, let’s return to the story of Joseph and his brothers as described above.  The Israelite family was torn by the evil act of the ten brothers against Joseph – selling him into slavery and deceiving their father.  As long as that act was unresolved, starting with the admission of guilt by the brothers, and proceeding to complete reconciliation, the family bore a huge scar, and the peace between the family members was jeopardized.

The same is true in American Christianity.  The division, rooted in dysfunctional racial relations, not initiated by the Church but contracted like an infectious disease from colonial attitudes and perpetuated by systemic racism, now fully infects American politics, preventing unity and peace.  How can this breach in the Church be healed, and what affect would such healing be upon the nation?

I propose that we look to the word of God for answers.

Confrontation

Some of this nation’s tensest times have been times of confrontation with racial issues.  Violence has been the usual outcome.  Accusations are met with denials.  Intractable positions are taken.  The Civil War erupted, nearly tearing apart the world’s first democracy.  One hundred years later, the Civil Rights movement swept the South and major metropolitan areas, again tearing at the fabric of American society.  Before these two major eruptions and between them, there were other confrontations, and it did not end in the 60s.  One reason for the repetition of confrontations is the reluctance or refusal to admit wrongdoing, and consequently, the continuance and even invention of new wrongs.

Most recently, the Black Lives Matter movement arose to counteract police brutality against African Americans.  Some answered with “All lives matter.”  Yes, indeed all lives matter, but how does that response address the issue of racially-focused brutality, repeatedly caught on camera?  Correct as it sounds, the phrase only serves to shout over the complaint, refusing to listen, thereby concocting another denial!

Jesus said, “if your brother sins against you, rebuke him.”  Confrontation is essential, but it has never been well received.  If there is to be progress, there must be admission of wrongdoing and remorse.

To the credit of the victims of oppression, the confrontations have not been the type of violent retaliations seen in other countries.  There have been no coup attempts and no organized terrorism.  The primary reason that confrontation has been vocal and non-violent is that minority victims of oppression still consider themselves citizens of the United States of America.  They do not want to destroy this nation that they love, and they do not want to see the demise of their fellow American citizens.  In that sense, the victims of oppression are a bit like Joseph, who saw himself as a son of Israel even after his rejection by his brothers.

Dr. Martin Luther King was like a prophet of confrontation to this nation, and the Civil-Rights movement that he led served as a national conscience, reminding us repeatedly of America’s failure to live up to its platitudes.  As the prophets of ancient Israel were persecuted, so was he and those who served with him.  So have prophetic voices since.

However, when we consider the lesson of Joseph, we see that he was extremely clever and discreet in his confrontation, hoping that it would produce favorable results.  As Dr. King insisted on non-violent methods, so must confronters today.  Riots, assaults, destruction of property, and violence against opposition are not effective means of confrontation.

Consider also Joseph’s patience.  He did not hurry the outcome or become frustrated that the favorable result was not early forthcoming.  He trusted in God to exercise justice and correct the wrongs, and his patience paid off.  So must confrontation patiently persist today.  Hearts are not easily or quickly reached, but God is on the side of the afflicted who trust in Him.

Forgiveness

Retribution is the normal response of a human who has been wronged toward the wrongdoer.  The “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” principle runs through not only many legal systems but through most human rationale.  For that reason, Joseph’s brothers expected retribution from him, as Genesis 50:15 says: When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?”   This seems to be the fear and dread of some if not many people of European descent as they see the non-European population of the United States steadily increasing toward an inevitable majority; they expect racial retaliation.

They may be surprised to find that most members of minority racial groups have no such intentions.  Joseph’s brothers asked him to forgive them, saying: “Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father” (Genesis 50:17).  His answer gave them tremendous relief as he reassured them and spoke kindly to them (Genesis 50:21).

Not only did Joseph forgive them but so did their father Jacob.  In his prophetic pronouncements of their future, although he mentioned some of their serious sins in the context of consequences, he did not mention their act against their brother and their lies to him.  This family had gone through wrenching experiences that could have destroyed their relationships, but these acts of forgiveness led to peace.

The same can apply in the Church in the United States, and if such peace settles upon the Church, “the salt of the earth” in Jesus’ words, the nation itself will be greatly helped toward racial reconciliation.

Some might object and insist on justice and retribution.  I hope these objections do not come from followers of Jesus Christ.  For them, forgiveness from the heart is required by the Lord (Matthew 18:35), who promised believers that retribution belonged to God (Romans 12:19).

Members of American minority populations who have received the Gospel of Jesus Christ have wrestled with the implications of America’s sin to their faith.  African Americans, rejecting discriminatory practices in established churches in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, formed their own churches and denominations that remain largely segregated to this day.  There is little conflict between the churches; they exist autonomously alongside each other, almost as if to each other they scarcely exist.  This separation, as well as similar involving Christians of Latino heritage, and, to a lesser extent, Asian heritage, results in divisions among Americans who otherwise share the same faith of Jesus.  Many churches lament this Sunday-morning segregation, so why does it persist?

Christianity or What?

Christianity’s roots are in the Middle East, and it spread from there to Africa, Asia, and Europe within its first 100 years.  About fourteen centuries later, it spread by colonial settlement to the New World of North, Central, and South America.

In the United States, in churches attended by members of the majority population, one of the strong features that distinguish them from those attended by minority populations is the element of intense patriotism.  Not that minority church members are less patriotic; it simply is not as aligned with their faith. This patriotic element manifests itself in high regard for the national flag (not that minorities disregard the flag), the veneration of the military and law-enforcement agencies, being enamored with guns, and the elevation of parts of the Constitution to near-Scriptural status.

This element was not part of the first-Century Church or of its progeny throughout the world.  It is unique to the United States of America, having evolved after settlement of Christians from Europe, taking on its own flavor in reflection of American culture and the innate belief in American exceptionalism.  Of course, in every nation, churches are influenced by their culture and exhibit certain national or regional features.  But I suggest that this feature of American Christianity stands out large and loud, and it negatively influences the appearance of Christianity to non-Christians both home and abroad.

Is it really Christianity with Jesus Christ at its center?  Or, would it be more accurate to call it something like Christo-Americanism, a spiritual eccentric, the mixing of nationalism and patriotism with Jesus Christ?  If so, it is a bad mixture, because Christianity is about Christ alone!

The Political Divide

In the predominant two-party system of American government, increasingly it is characterized as Left vs. Right and vice versa.  But a close examination of recent national elections exposes a strong cleavage between the majority and minority Christian communities.

A large proportion of Evangelicals voted for Donald Trump for President in 2016, but not all Christians were in this camp – especially among minorities.  Those who voted predominately Republican said that their stance against abortion, their concern about LGBTQ rights, the makeup of the Supreme Court, and political correctness lie at the heart of their political position.  But other than the nomination of a conservative Supreme-Court Justice, President Trump’s first-year agenda has largely been economic – with his “America first” policies.

Many Christians have opposed his administration’s stance on immigration, healthcare, climate change, and racial issues.  It seems that this presidency, more than those that preceded it, has highlighted, if not exacerbated, the growing gap between the two Christian camps.

From the beginning, the governing of the United States has been a well-conceived, competitive process designed to avoid the inequities of totalitarian governments.  That is a good thing!  It is not the differing viewpoints of competing political positions that I call out here; it is the division along moral, ethical, and humanitarian lines between those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ.  The divisive effect upon American Christianity flies in the face of the unity that Jesus specified for His followers.  It is not the fact of this division that I cite; it is that the division is unacceptable in God’s sight.  According to Jesus’ prayer, as explained in the book Echo of Jesus’ Prayer – in the Church and supported in the Blogs on this website, His followers are to be one with each other as He is one with the Father.  Unity not only affects personal relationships that Jesus commands to be based on love, it also affects the viewpoints of non-Christians toward Jesus Himself as well as the Church.  For details on these points, please read the book.

If as His followers we take His prayer seriously, we will sincerely consider reconciliation of these differences.

I would like here to consider Joseph’s and his brother’s stories, with their lessons, in light of the history of human oppression in the United States of America by people of European origin against non-European peoples.  This history is no secret, but it is usually seen by a majority of Americans as so far in the distant past that it is irrelevant today.  Of course, a minority of Americans, descendants of those who were oppressed, insist that it is neither irrelevant nor confined to the distant past.

Confiscation of Land and Annihilation of its Inhabitants

The Bible does not mince words.  In Genesis 49:5-6, we read “Simeon and Levi are brothers—their swords are weapons of violence.  Let me not enter their council,

let me not join their assembly.”  As written in Genesis 34:25-31, these two sons of Israel did evil when they annihilated a tribe and confiscated their possessions in response to a sexual crime against one of their women.

Even though these two men were the heirs of the land, and their violence was against those who God decreed were to be driven out, their actions were unjustifiable and excessively cruel.  God, speaking through the Patriarch Jacob, reprimanded their actions and decreed a lasting legacy upon their descendants to remind them forever that ethnic cleansing and similar crimes have no place in God’s realm.  Never should anyone think to take upon themselves such action in the name of God.

Can we see in the actions of Simeon and Levi the similarity to the treatment of Native Americans by the European settlers of America?  So, what recourse is necessary?

Involuntary Enslavement and Legalized Oppression

The Bible is direct and straightforward, calling evil exactly what it is.  In Genesis 50:17 we find the words “sins,” “wrongs,” and “treating… badly” admitted by the ten sons of Jacob against their brother Joseph in selling him into slavery.  They were so stricken with guilt and fear of the consequences that they “came and threw themselves down before him. ‘We are your slaves,’ they said.”  They seemed to think that justice would result in their enslavement.

Imagine the perpetrators of involuntary enslavement and similar crimes against humanity in our day responding with such trepidation and remorse!  Can we see in this the similarity to treatment of African Americans, not only in the involuntary enslavement by European settlers of America, but by the hateful extensions of slavery by many of their descendants for generations afterward through Jim Crow laws, lynching, police brutality, and hate-motivated discrimination?  Again, what recourse is necessary?

Discriminatory Oppression of Immigrants and Aliens

Immigrants to America from Ireland, Italy, Germany, and other European countries also experienced mistreatment and oppression.  Asians and Jews found themselves the recipients of similar mistreatment, and so did immigrants from elsewhere. However, the treatment of these immigrants, improper and illegal as it was, was not as extensive, severe, and inhumane as the acts against the original inhabitants of the land and people of African descent mentioned above.

Because the United States of America began as a country of immigrants, and its laws were written specifically to address immigration as a national reality, it naturally was susceptible to the misunderstanding, suspicion, and paranoia that accompanies the introduction of aliens into a human culture.  Throughout human history, every culture has exhibited this problem and still does.

The ancient Israelites experienced it when their population growth in Egypt transitioned them from a small immigrant tribe into a large alien community.  Exodus 1:7-10 tells of the Egyptian reaction: “Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous.”  When later they lived in their own homeland, The Statutes of God’s Law given to Moses reminded them to be careful about their treatment of aliens that they do not repeat the sins of Egypt: “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt” (Exodus 22:21).

Despite the United States Constitution that made many such actions illegal, the nation fell short of observing this ancient Biblical injunction. Should recourse be ignored?

Persistent Division

Of course, as could be cited, court decisions have addressed many of these wrongs, and over time, laws have changed to protect the rights of individuals of all races.  Indeed, it is true; much has changed!  So why is the United States divided along racial lines today?  Why have not the centuries of attempts to address such problems caused them to become only the subject of history lessons?

The recent emergence of white supremacist groups from obscurity into open influence may hint at an underlying answer to the question about this nation’s lingering division.  When at least part of a majority believes that it is superior to a minority, what motivation is there to consider equality?  The question arises, how pervasive and deep seeded is the ideology of white superiority in 21^st-Century America?

A Civil War was fought with unprecedented and unequaled national loss of life, and a Civil Rights movement forced extensive changes in national and state laws; nonetheless, current divisions prove that these national tribulations have not changed human hearts.  In many ways, America today is still where Jacob’s sons were before they encountered Joseph as the Governor of Egypt.

When Joseph was seventeen, his ten brothers, motivated by envy and resentment, captured him, considered killing him, and ultimately sold him into slavery.  They lied to their father, Jacob, leading him to believe that Joseph had been killed by a wild animal.  In doing this, they conspired and carried out a great evil against their brother and father.

About twenty years later their sinful actions began to be uncovered when they went to Egypt to acquire food and unknowingly encountered Joseph, then Governor of the land.  Joseph recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him.  As the powerful ruler under Pharaoh, he could have dealt vengefully against them, but he did not.  Analyzing his actions and what followed, we can see a pattern that discloses how God’s justice can work among humans who submit to him, and that justice can result in reconciliation between humans who have struggled with adversity in their relationships.

Considering Man’s Justice

Before we look into Joseph’s real actions, let’s consider what Joseph could have done as a human living in a humanly-governed world.  Soon after he encountered his ten brothers, he could have confronted them for selling him into slavery, using his authority to impose a sentence on them – perhaps enslaving them, or even worse, punishing them ultimately to death.

In addition, he could have exposed their actions to their father Jacob, who could have imposed his own humanly-inspired penalty upon them for their evil against their brother and deceit of their father.

Neither of these occurred.  Instead, Joseph, not feeling vengeful toward his brothers, took a different approach.

Without Hostility, Joseph Confronted His Brothers

Joseph’s actions toward his brothers involved no hostility.  First, he kept his identity secret.  He deliberately chose to act as if he did not know them, speaking to them through a translator, concealing his knowledge of their language.  To put them on the defense so that he could wisely work with them, he accused them of being spies, although he knew that they weren’t.  This went on for a while.

In the meantime, the brothers found that their efforts to acquire food resulted in some unforeseen outcomes; they received the food but were frustrated in the requirements imposed upon them, requirements that worked to remind them of their evil deeds in the past.  Joseph’s careful and somewhat cagey method of confrontation worked with other conditions – notably Jacob’s demands – to force them to reconsider the guilt that increasingly haunted them.

Joseph Deferred Justice to God

He refrained from imposing judgment on them, and by doing so, left judgment to God.  The narrative in Genesis does not say that Joseph was leaving vengeance to God for repayment, but in effect, that is what he did.  Of course, God was fully aware of the evil actions of the ten brothers but seemed, at this point, to have withheld doing anything about them until that dreaded moment when the brothers became convinced that their sins had found them out.

Joseph Forgave His Brothers

At the moment that they were at his mercy, Joseph’s behavior showed no intent to repay his brothers for their actions, and he did not speak about them until they humbly brought them to his attention.  His actions and words convey an attitude of forgiveness from his heart.

The Outcome

As a result of Joseph’s non-hostile, wisely-confrontational, non-judgmental, non-vengeful, and forgiving actions, as well as the circumstances explained in the story – circumstances that seem to be Providential – the ten brothers were convicted in their hearts of their evil actions and showed genuine remorse.  When Joseph made plain his forgiveness, the family started a process that became full reconciliation.

Joseph, the 11^th son of Jacob and first son of Jacob’s chosen wife Rachel, served God’s purpose in the history of His covenant-people Israel by living as Jacob’s favorite son, being the oppressed son (by his brothers), becoming the son of his father’s sorrows, having the help of God through it all, and inheriting the birthright.

In his life story, and the related stories of his brothers, recorded in Genesis 37, 39-48, 34, 49 and 50, I summarize here several noted lessons that address the racial divide in the United States.