The bloody carnage of war and the overshadowing presence of terror and destruction have caused many to question the presence of God. Further, some Christians question whether, armed with vigilante justice, they should target and punish the enemies of God, or pray for their defeat.

There has always been a contentious and troubled history of Christians attempting to name and target "God's enemies." All too often, what are actually limited, but very significant differences between two groups are isolated as a single fundamental distinction between those groups (who may otherwise have much in common). With this distinction in hand, the groups are then placed in strict and uncompromising opposition to each other. This very narrow definition of "us" and "them" becomes described in highly charged moral terms that are used to convert real, but perhaps manageable differences into matters of ultimate significance, of life and death. It is undeniable that several differences between Christians and others do, in fact, have such ultimate significance. The problem arises when Christians are mistaken about those differences or when their own limited perspectives interpret those differences in ways that are more about their own self-interests than about God's interests. The propensity for human pride to promote only what "we" want and the admitted ambiguity of what God wants, complicate the question of defining God's enemies almost to the point of impossibly answering it with any integrity. The responsibility of thinking about what it means to be a Christian today and how we are to engage our (real and imagined) "enemies," however, remains.

Religion and Politics

In today's powder keg atmosphere where it appears many "enemies" abound, it is necessary to have a more adequate understanding of both Islam and of the current so-called "war on terror." Arguably, a Christian response to the current global situation would benefit greatly from a more careful historical perspective that examines the complexity of religion and politics in the encounter between Christians and Muslims. A Christian perspective would also probably benefit immensely from a more accurate and balanced understanding of the numerous factors involved in the current global situation, factors that are often overlooked or deliberately masked by religious and moral rhetoric on both "sides." For example, when one conflates all Muslims with terrorists or with "God's enemies," over-simplified generalizations result. Such generalizations run the risk of ignoring other factors at work in the present world order, and risk foreclosing on other possible ways of responding to the situation at hand.

Another step involves intentional reflection about how Christians are to engage their enemies, ethically. Biblical texts like the conquest stories in the book of Joshua, the war codes in the book of Deuteronomy, and the description of the eschatological battle in the book of Revelation, all seem to endorse war as an allowable, maybe even ideal, response. Other biblical texts, and arguably the example of Jesus himself, suggest other ways of acting toward those hostile to Christians.

The term "enemies" appears more than 200 times in the NRSV translation of the Old Testament, covering a range of situations and named enemies. Most texts, however, deal directly with threats to Israel's physical safety as a collective people (told from the perspective of Israelite authors, to be sure). All of these texts have important differences between them, and each of these texts needs to be read carefully in light of its immediate context. Still, one thread that is possible to trace through many of these texts on enemies is the belief that victory and defeat belong to God alone. Connected with that is the belief that obedience to God, or the lack thereof, is the most significant factor in securing Israel's safety among the nations (see Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 6:17-19, for example). Certainly, this formula has been read (and was likely written) as a way of making theological sense out of historical events, and offering larger moral interpretations for specific instances of hostility and violence between Israel and other peoples. Invoking God's support for one's own agenda is a tactic as old as it is questionable. Yet, alongside this aspect of the theology of enemies, is also the idea that God alone grants victory and defeat and declares justice between peoples. As such, human motives and desires become relative and are held in check by God's purposes.

In reading the Scriptures, some of the same texts that give detailed instructions for how Israel is to conduct war give reminders that from its origins, Israel was chosen and delivered from slavery by God (see Deuteronomy 7:7-26; 20:1-20). Thus, recognizing God's sovereignty in relation to one's enemies may modify the picture of how we are to relate to them. Many texts obviously and clearly support and condone and encourage acts of violence and war against peoples, like the Canaanites for example, described in the most absolute terms as the enemies of Israel. Yet, despite this, the Old Testament is not simply a book of war because God's sovereignty looks to and models the way of making peace with one's enemies. Isaiah the prophet says of God, "He shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples...nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" (2:4, NRSV; see also Proverbs 16:7; 24:17; 25:1).

A Stranger or an Enemy?

The term "enemy" appears 22 times in the NRSV translation of the New Testament, although this count could increase to 32 if one examines the Greek text. Clearly, one should also include other terms such as "accuser" and sometimes "stranger" and the unusual "fighting against God" (only at Acts 5:39). Surprisingly perhaps, the Book of Revelation only uses the term "enemy" explicitly at 11:5 and 11:12., though much else in the text clearly depicts the Dragon, the Beast, and their allies and associates as those who persecute the followers of the Lamb. This group, as enemies of the Lamb, is marked for destruction at the final judgment which John describes in imagery of warfare throughout the text.

The book of Revelation overturns any simplistic concept that the Old Testament is about divine wrath and vengeance while the New Testament is about love and peace. Revelation has been described as a Christian war scroll, and given its emphasis on Christian martyrdom, the text resonates with the immediate context of war. Christians themselves, however, are said to "conquer" (2:26-29; 21:7 and throughout) not by killing, but by bearing faithful witness even to the point of dying at the hands of their persecutors, their enemies. Again, how we today are to make sense of Revelation and its imagery of war and martyrdom deserves further reflection and it might be helpful to look at the work of Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge University Press, 1993).

The Final Enemy

Doubtless more can and needs to be said about how Christians are to read what the Old Testament says about enemies, especially because one cannot make adequate sense of the New Testament without understanding the Old. Interestingly, the Old Testament text most frequently quoted in the New Testament is Psalm 110:1, which mentions the enemies of Israel being made into a footstool for the Messiah and which follows with more assurances that God fights for Israel. While this passage is quoted by Jesus in an argument about whether the Messiah is the Son of David (Mark 12:36), Paul also quotes this psalm in his famous discussion of the resurrection and return of Christ at 1 Corinthians 15 (see verses 25-26). There, Paul says that Christ will hand the kingdom over to the Father after he has destroyed every power and authority which may include political powers. These enemies will be placed under his feet along with the final enemy, which for Paul is nothing less than death itself. All sin, all hostility and war, all suffering end with the return of Christ: here again is the image of divine sovereignty which makes relative all human perspectives and plans, all of human history from Adam to the present. Death is the final, and therefore, ultimate enemy of God, one that Christians can face with faith, hope, and love through the power of the resurrection of Christ, according to Paul. How the abstract notion of death as an enemy makes sense in our personal lives and to our political interests is a question worth further reflection.

A Command to Love

Jesus' followers in the early church were given a succinct definition of an enemy of God: whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God (James 4:4). Perhaps, however, the most famous New Testament text concerning treatment of one's enemies is Jesus' command to "love your enemies," given as part of the larger Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:43, 44; chapters 5-7). Unequivocally, directly, explicitly, Jesus tells his follower not to hate, but to love those who oppose them. Some theologians see this as the best starting point for how Christians are to think and act ethically with respect to their enemies, personal or political. Some even see this practice as central to Jesus' own ethics and politics. (For example, see J. H. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster [Eerdmans, 1994].) Others have seen this sentiment, and others like it in the teachings of Jesus, as politically impractical at best, naively idealistic at worst. Like all of the biblical texts on "enemies," this one, too, needs to be read in its immediate context. Here, praying for those who persecute us probably does not mean praying for their defeat. To be perfect as God is perfect implies that we are to be as radically generous to all people as God is. Making sense of this text, perhaps more than any other, is necessary for how Christians are to act toward their enemies.

By Eric Thurman
PhD Candidate, Drew University Madison, NJ