By Dr. Johan Tredoux
I grew up in the church as a pastor’s kid with many bible stories embedded in my childhood faith. One of these bible stories was the story of David and Goliath. As a young boy, I was completely taken in by young David whose courage was unmatchable as he faced down a giant human being with only a slingshot and five smooth stones in hand. The mockery from Goliath reminded me of the school bullies I encountered in high school growing up.
Later in life, as a pastor, some of the applications of the David and Goliath story expanded, as I started to ponder what smooth stones every pastor should have in their bag to be a great leader. I also preached with gusto on not fighting with someone else’s armor but using our own God-given gifts and talents as we face giants in our lives.
A few weeks ago, I listened to a denominational leader’s sermon as he tackled the David and Goliath story with yet another angle on motivating the people to overcome the giants in their lives. This leader was a gifted speaker and taught homiletics as a discipline. As I listened, I felt checked in my spirit. The speaker covered the whole story, including the climax of David striking the giant’s forehead with a stone propelled by his skilled use of a leather slingshot, and the final beheading of the giant by David using the giant’s own sword. Whereas before, I never felt checked, this time there was an uneasiness that I couldn’t put to rest.
It finally dawned on me why I was feeling agitated: This denominational leader chose to preach on the story of David and Goliath a few days after the October 7th terrorist attack on innocent Israeli civilians by Hamas, an attack which took a 1,200 innocent people’s lives, including women and children and 200 hostages taken as human shields. The atrocities committed by these terrorists included beheading soldiers. This attack has escalated into a full blown war against Hamas with thousands of innocent Palestinians killed and getting in harm’s way.
I have since felt that Israel should get out of Gaza, as their overreach in the war against Hamas has escalated into a humanitarian crisis with thousands of innocent men, women, and children dying, being dislocated, and starving in the indiscriminate bombing, and lack of water, medicine, and food.
How could this be happening? How could a denominational leader miss the violence in modern-day Israel and Gaza as he talked about a story with so much violence in ancient Israel? My unease grew as I heard the congregation’s enthusiastic endorsement (e.g., “amen,” “preach it brother.”) Wait, how could Christians, who I assumed were interested in peace, be unable to see how this biblical story was anything less than peaceful?
Sitting in my agitation, I began to realize that something like this is only possible within communities that have—to borrow a phrase from Walter Wink—bought into “the myth of redemptive violence.” What the myth of redemptive violence blinds us to is the absolute incompatibility of those two words, “redemption” and “violence.”
If I was a homiletics professor (someone who teaches preaching) and this speaker was my student, I wouldn’t have given him a passing grade. The reason is that this speaker ignored the most basic rules of evangelical preaching. I was taught in Seminary by Dr. Oscar Reed, that if you preach from an OT text, you always have to end with what Jesus would have thought about it. Dr. Reed compared it to throwing dirt through a sift to get topsoil. According to Reed, OT texts must be thrown through the sift of Christ. Had this speaker done so, he would have had to conclude that even though the David and Goliath story sounded great for the Jewish people at that time, it wouldn’t have passed the Jesus test. The Jesus test was these simple, yet profound words… “You heard it said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you… love your enemies.” What was clear to me as I listened to this sermon, was this sifting through the Christ sift didn’t happen. This meant that this speaker did not complete the arc of development from the OT to the NT. Had he done so, I wonder if his message would have been received.
This leaves me to wonder how Jesus would have ended his sermon if he had to preach the story of David and Goliath today. I wonder if Jesus would have endorsed the killing of Goliath. Would Jesus have celebrated or condemned David’s slingshot? I know a nation has the right to defend itself and war raises many complex theological and ethical questions. However, I wonder if Jesus would have taken the opportunity to talk to the congregation about the importance of nonviolent negotiating tactics? Would he have pointed out that “those who live by the sword, usually die by the sword?” Would Jesus have preached this sermon in alignment with the myth of redemptive violence? Or would he have challenged such a petty, vindictive, and unevolved mindset? Despite all our advancements, it appears we aren’t all that interested in hearing what the “Prince of Peace” has to say.
Today, I am convinced that Jesus would have done all he could to negotiate for peace and for Israel to get out of Gaza. The need for a regional commitment to a two-state solution is another complex subject.
My mind goes to where Peter asks Jesus how many times he must forgive, wondering if 7 times should do it. And Jesus responded… “no, seventy-seven times.” What is remarkable is that Jesus playfully reversed the escalating vengeance declaration found in Genesis 4:23-24. This text proclaims, “If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.”
I am realizing that this preacher ignored the arc of development regarding the use of violence in the bible. The progression from seventy-seven times vengeance in Genesis, to an “eye for an eye” in Exodus, to a shift from corporate responsibility to individual responsibility in Ezekiel, and then to Jesus own words, “You heard it said… but I say, pray for your enemy” cannot be ignored, and where it is ignored, we demonstrate our continued commitment to live by the myth of redemptive violence.
“You heard it said… but I say, pray for your enemy”
Jesus – The Prince of Peace
I am saddened by such a commitment to violence, and aware of how easy it is to fall into the trap myself. It is in times like these that we need a “watchman on the wall” – someone who can alert us to the dangerous times we find ourselves in. I think the watchman is asleep at the wall. The Christian voice has lost credibility because she has forgotten her primary voice of love.
She has forgotten that she is to be a bridge to a broken world and pray for her enemy. She is marching forward as if the general has commanded her to take up the sword instead of a cross. In doing so, she has forgotten that Jesus who comes riding on a white horse in the final battle has the sword in his mouth, not on his side. She has forgotten or possibly never understood that Jesus fights with His word, not with a physical sword. The only blood spilled was his own blood. Spilled by the Romans nevertheless.