TheDeSocios.com

For many people the use if military terminology within Christianity is paradoxical.
Recently I was speaking to a member of City Reformed who stated, that when his girl friend visited the church she was bothered by some of our songs which spoke of Christians as soldiers. Was her concern a fair one? To answer this question I want to look at three ideas: First, the origin of military imagery in the church; Second, the significance of using military imagery to speak about Christianity; and finally, how military imagery can be helpful.

First we must understand that the imagery is Biblical in origin.
Throughout both sections of the Bible, the Old and New Testament, there are numerous military references used, some are literal and others are symbolic. Sometimes they are referring to actual military units, this is no surprise when we understand that in the Old Testament God’s people were organized as one nation, with its on military power ( Judges 20:26 ).

Other times in the Old Testament military imagery is used in a more general sense. God is said to be our shield in Deuteronomy 33:29, 2Samuel 22:3 and Psalm 3:3.

Some argue that the military methods displayed in the Old Testament were done away with in the New Testament. While it is true that the military methods of the Old Testament were done away with, the military language remained.

While it is true that the military methods of the Old Testament were done away with, the military language remained

In the New Testament the God’s people are no longer one nation but instead a spiritual nation 1Peter 2:9. Even with this change we find that military language is still found through out the New Testament. The Apostle Paul describes the Christian life as being similar to a soldiers life (1 Corinthians 9:7). When speaking of other Christians he calls them fellow soldiers (Philemon 2), and he even goes as far to call christians the “soldiers of Christ” (2Timothy 2:3).

Some might argue that these references are context specific in nature, and therefore we should not use the the same language today. The argument would be that Paul used military language because the people understood it in a specific way that we would not understand.This argument would be true if the Roman military was all together different from the military that we know today, but it is not. Culturally there are many similarities between the military that Paul and Peter interacted with, and the military that we know today in America, so a contextual object is not a fair one.

In part, our concern comes from our presuppositions about Christianity. Christ’s purpose in coming was to bring forgiveness, and yet we need to remember that he makes it very clear that division will follow, as he puts it father against son (Matthew 10:34). We try to remove the controversial and catastrophic nature of Christianity. We have to remember that Christians, did and still suffers for their faith. Christianity brings conflict and upheaval. Just as it is wrong to over emphasis the promises of prosperity, and underplay the reality of suffering, in the Christian life, it is wrong to over emphasis the peace and tranquility promised by Christ, at the expense his teaching on division and and disruption.

But still we can ask what is the significance of using such imagery?
We will find our answer when we realize that for most modern western Christians we live with very little real danger in our life. If we run out of food, we go to the store, if the store doesn’t have the brand that we want, we simply drive across town to another grocery store. We are not in danger of starving. Yet, for the first century Israelite, food was hard to come by. For us Jesus’s parables about farmers and their crops is quant, and somewhat romantic, but his listeners it was a more serious thing. For crops to be plagued by weeds, for birds to eat the seeds, and to neglect a field that was ripe for harvest, meant the danger of starving. When Jesus used these parables he entered into the essential parts of his audience’s lives.

Just as food was hard to come by for the ancient world, so was safety. Military mobility meant the difference between a city’s destruction or its tranquility. Just like today’s equivalent, ancient soldiers needed to ready at moments notice. The use of military imagery is meant to convey the priority and urgency of what was being said. When Jesus speaks about bring a sword, or when Paul calls fellow Christians “solider” there is a urgency that we do not immediately understand.

Some might argue that this is another contextual reason why we should change or avoid this military terminology, but if we were to take this route we would also need to change the Bible’s agricultural imagery. After all there are more people employed in connection with the military than there are people employed in farming.

We we need to understand that God used intense, life or death imagery to communicate the urgency and importance which Christianity brings. Our problem is that we have romanticized Scripture and removed the real-world implications of the texts, and we have fallen into the trap of also seeking to remove, or avoid sections which seem culturally offensive.

A final caution.
It is important to remember that this military terminology should not be used in regard to any conflict that we might have with other people. There is never a sense where I am a solider and another person is the object of a military attack. NonChristians were not Paul’s target or military force. Some people have wrongly expanded the military image of the new testament, while others have taken on the Old Testament imagery in a way that the New Testament writers never intended.