Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84Plough Quarterly • Spring 2016 41 Against this claim, we must emphatically repeat: already the Israel of the Old Testament, in its crowning texts, renounced every form of violence. The radical nonviolence of Jesus has its roots in the Old Testament, above all in the theology of the Suffering Servant found in Isaiah, chapters 40–55. The Suffering Servant stands for deported Israel in exile in Babylon. Israel, the Suffering Servant, will not cry or lift up his voice. He looks to God alone to justify him in the face of the injustice he endures. He gives his back to those who strike him. And he does not open his mouth, like a lamb that is led to the slaughter (Isa. 42:2; 49:4; 50:6; 53:7). The so-called Servant Songs in Isaiah speak of a beaten, kidnapped, enslaved Israel who looks to God alone and who – precisely through his absolute rejection of violence – becomes salvation for the Gentile nations. 6 Take note: the Book of Isaiah is also the book that introduced pure monotheism in Israel, sweeping away Israel’s earlier worldview in which the exclusive worship of YHWH coexisted with the belief that other gods existed as well. Thus, at the precise time and place at which monotheism prevails in Israel, we find emerging in the people of God the most explicit texts about radical nonviolence. Conclu- sion: Those who wish to link violence to monotheism are free to peruse the Quran. But they should keep their hands off the monotheism of the Bible, otherwise they will only prove their ignorance. In our gathering today, as we commemorate the eightieth anniversary of ­ Eberhard Arnold’s death, I think it right and fitting that the theme of nonviolence takes first place in my lecture. Eberhard Arnold not only loved the Sermon on the Mount: it gripped him. Here I must refrain from listing individually all the places in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus calls for nonviolence. 7 Instead, I will make the following three points: (1) The Sermon on the Mount is addressed to Jesus’ disciples and, through them, to all Israel as the people of God. Jesus’ summons to nonviolence is not a manifesto for the state. The state cannot give to everyone who asks. The state cannot turn the other cheek, nor can it apply to itself the sentence, “Do not resist an evildoer” (Matt. 5:39). The Sermon on the Mount is meant for a people of God that lives out, as a nation among the nations, the kingdom way of life taught by Jesus. By so doing, the people of God is to be a sign of peace for the nations. (2) In his demands for nonviolence, Jesus speaks, as he does in many other places, with the provocative exaggeration of a prophet. That doesn’t change the fact that he is addressing real-life ways of behaving  –  his words really are to be lived out and used as models to illuminate analogous situations. Jesus really does forbid his disciples to use violence, and he is convinced that anyone who accepts his word can live without defensive violence and without retaliation. 4 G. Lohfink, Jesus of Nazareth (Liturgical Press, 2012), 39–58. 5 C. W. Troll, “Quran, Gewalt, Theologie,” Christ in der Gegenwart, no. 43, (2014) 485–486. 6 G. Lohfink and L. Weimer, Maria – nicht ohne Israel (Herder, 2012), 223–229. 7 G. Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? (Herder, 1988), 42–45. Already the Old Testament, in its crowning texts, renounced every form of violence.