nisation, but rather
in accentuating the fact that the "non-resistant" teaching in the
Sermon on the Mount deals with the {33} line of conduct to be observed
towards foreign oppressors and violence from without. The sacerdotal
money-changers and sellers of doves in the Temple were not the
"oppressors of Israel." Israel was called on to suffer under Roman
rule, and the righteous to endure violence at the hands of the wicked,
for that was the will of God, who in his own good time would shorten
the evil days. But the manipulation of the sacrificial system as a
means of plundering the pious was a sin of Israel itself, against
which, protest and force were justified. What the heathen and the
wicked do is their concern and God's, but the sins of Israel are
Israel's own; against them the righteous in Israel may execute
judgement.

It would be an affectation to suggest that this subject does not raise
questions of the greatest practical importance for the present age; no
one is justified in evading the issues presented. The teaching of
Jesus represents a non-resistant attitude which has come to be
described as "pacifist," and the world has just passed through a crisis
which has proved that "pacifism" and "non-resistance" are impossible
policies. What does this mean for those who profess and call
themselves Christians? It cannot mean that they ought to adopt a
non-resistant policy either in personal or in national affairs, for
experience (which has, after all, some merit) seems to prove that the
policy of not resisting evil leads to its triumph rather than its
defeat. But this fact gives no justification for {34} explaining away
or watering down the plain and intelligible teaching of Jesus.[20] It
was his teaching; it may have been right and wise for his immediate
hearers; but it is not wise or right as the general basis of conduct,
whether personal or national. If Jesus intended to lay down a general
principle of conduct we have to admit that he was wrong, or adopt the
pacifist position. There is nothing in the context to suggest that he
thought of a limited application of his words, nor in the days of
persecution which followed did Christians so interpret him. If,
therefore, he was wrong it is necessary to ask how we can explain the
error.

The answer seems to lie in a comparison of the attitude adopted by the
Jews of the first century on the one hand, and by ourselves on the
other, as to the working of God in t