Is a Pacifist? (Part 2) by Dr. Steven Ingino

In the previous post, we asked a number of questions that raise tensions for the Christian. Does the example of Christ’s suffering and love mean that Christians should never use force or engage in war?

Does Christ’s death on the Cross for our sins and our salvation mean that Christians are forbidden from taking human life, since Christ’s sacrifice proves His love for humanity? And how do we reconcile God commanding war and He Himself destroying people in war in the Old Testament with what we see in the life of Christ in the New Testament?

How can Christians reconcile God the Warrior, as we saw in the Old Testament, with God the Suffering Servant and Sacrifice in the New Testament? How can the God who ordered to wage war and who said in Ecclesiastes 3 “there is a time for war,” be the same God who tells us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek?

Precedents Last time, we saw a case for just war from the Old Testament. And, there’s an interpretive principle which says that a biblical precedent stands until directly removed by later divine revelation, such as when Jesus annulled the kosher food laws in Mark 7.

So, we could say that nothing I shared last time is obsolete, if we can prove that nothing in the New Testament repeals it. For that, we’re going to look at most of the key passages people use to try to justify pacifism or a weak view of interventionary force. Let’s begin with Jesus’ statement about turning the other cheek and loving our enemies, in the Sermon on the Mount.

The Sermon on the Mount It’s very important to remember two things about Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. First, Jesus was not attacking the Old Testament, but the Pharisees’ legalistic interpretation of the Old Testament. Jesus not only explicitly said that He had not come to abolish the Law, but He frequently said, “You have heard,” to emphasize that He was refuting the Pharisee’s teachings on the Law (or their traditions), not “what was written” in Scripture.

What they heard versus what was written was the key issue. Jesus just quoted portions of the Old Testament which the Pharisees misused in order to explain the correct interpretation versus their traditions and faulty oral law. Second, it is very important to remember that Jesus is addressing personal ethics. That’s it. Nothing more. The sermon says nothing about whether the state can protect citizens with armed forces or execute a mass murderer.

The sermon says nothing about church discipline, as Jesus speaks about some chapters later in Matthew 18, that the church leadership can discipline those who persist in unrepentant sin and can expel or excommunicate them from the church. Jesus is not addressing the government, the church (in terms of polity and discipline), parental authority (as you’ll see), situations

1

involving crime, international relations, war, or the like. He’s only talking about personal righteousness, personal ethics, personal morality.

As Dr. Robert Morey put it, God gave certain ethical and moral responsibilities to the state that He denies to individuals. In other words, it is erroneous to assume that all the rules which govern personal ethics should also govern the state [and vice versa]. (p. 7-8)

Jesus did not intend for the Sermon on the Mount to be applied to the government or our Defense Department. Jesus is only speaking about personal relationships, and this same Jesus inspired Paul to write Romans, in which the apostle wrote that the state has the right to bear the sword (capital punishment), and to punish crime, which lines up with all that we saw in the Old Testament, like Genesis 9 and Exodus 21.

Individual and State Since Jesus absolutely never addressed the role of the government in the Sermon on the Mount, and was only talking about personal discipleship, it is completely erroneous to take anything from the Sermon on the Mount, like loving our enemies, and use it as a basis for civic or judicial matters, or national political matters.

There is no contradiction between the saint turning the other cheek and the state executing a murderer because one has to do with personal spirituality, the other has to do with government responsibility.

We don’t say that because Romans 13 says that the government can levy taxes, that now the individual can do so – let’s all tax each other. So, why do we say that because Matthew 5 says to believers to love their enemies, that the state has to do so? We are talking about two totally different spheres. The Christian is called to show mercy and grace. The state is repeatedly called to punish criminals and exercise justice, not mercy - two totally different domains, functions, and responsibilities.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:38: 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Matthew 5:38-39)

Eye for an Eye What Jesus is critiquing here is not civil justice. He’s critiquing the Pharisees’ interpretation that what applied to the courts should apply to the individual. The court can enforce retributive justice, an eye for an eye. But we don’t have the right to take the law into our own hands and take an eye. In the Old Testament, the victim never took an eye for an eye. They went to court and the court decided and enforced the just penalty. When God was speaking about this law of

2

lex talionis, or the law of retaliation in Leviticus 24, it was ultimately intended for the judges, not private citizens.

Lex talionis just means that the punishment must fit the crime and was designed to prevent revenge, escalation, and the rise of vigilantes. Jesus was not undoing what the Law said about civil justice; He was merely telling His followers that the Pharisees’ application of that in personal matters was wrong. Only the government can punish crime, so don’t take revenge. And this is exactly what Paul wrote in Romans 12. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. (Romans 12:17)

Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. (Romans 12:19)

Don’t seek revenge, that’s what Jesus is saying in Matthew 5. He’s not saying that the government should turn the other cheek and the court should sweep every criminal act under the rug. And, remembering that the break between Romans chapter 12 and 13 is an artificial one, inserted centuries later, Paul says in Romans 13:3 that we don’t seek personal revenge because justice should be administered through the workings of the civil government1:

3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. (Romans 13:3-4)

God has given the sword to the government to punish evil, promote good, and preserve peace and that is why peace-loving nations will have to consider what they must do to stop the evil injustices perpetrated by ISIS and other terrorist groups, and how to stop them from spreading around the world.

Romans 12 says to the Christian - leave room for the wrath of God. Romans 13 says to the state – you’re a minister of God, bringing wrath on those who practice evil.

When looking at how Romans 12 and 13 relate to each other, one writer states,

“’Vigilante justice’ is outlawed in the economy of God, since personal insult and injury are part of the cost of discipleship. The believer, therefore, is exhorted not to take justice into his own hands. In the hands of the governing authorities, however, justice is required.” (Demy, 263)

1 Grudem, Politics, p. 190

3

Resist an Evil Person When Jesus said, “Do not resist an evil person,” this is for individuals, not the government, and not even the church, because in 1 Corinthians 5 and in Matthew 18 and in Titus 3 and in 2 Thessalonians 3, churches are called to confront those who persist in unrepentant sin and in some cases, to revoke their membership and fellowship at the church.

When Jesus says not to resist, He’s saying don’t retaliate – that’s actually a better translation. In fact, the Good News translates Matt. 5:39 as: “Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you.” That is the sense of “not resisting.”

Arthur Holmes writes, What then does nonresistance mean? In Jesus’ context, it refers not to government or churches but to individuals. It means that as an individual I do not take the law into my own hands. Instead of carrying out my own private scheme of retributive justice, I turn the cheek and go the second mile. It does not mean that justice no longer matters, that we have no stake or no part in law enforcement. Rather, nonresistance calls for love to replace hatred, for just and limited punishments to replace kangaroo courts…In government, God has appointed for us the means of justice. Individual vendettas are no substitute for legal punishment. (War: Four Christian Views, p. 71)

Hypothetical Situations Can you imagine a bank robber saying to a police office, “Jesus said, ‘Don’t resist an evil person,’ so you have to let me go”? Obviously, Jesus’ statement is not absolute, but applies to His listeners, His followers in interpersonal matters. It wasn’t spoken to and doesn’t apply to the government or those involved in the criminal justice system, like law enforcement and the courts.

So, then why would we think that Jesus’ statements about turning the other cheek and loving your enemies go beyond the personal realm, and prohibit nations from defending themselves in war or actively targeting terrorists? The nation-state has the right to bear the sword against criminals, foreign invaders, and terrorists who behead and burn people alive.

So, when Jesus tells the Christian, the individual, to not resist an evil person, meaning, not to take revenge, He is not commenting on police or courts or civil justice or the military. He is saying to the Christian, “Don’t take the law into your own hands, don’t retaliate, show the person grace.” And if the matter needs to be addressed by the police or the courts, Jesus says nothing against that ever. But if someone slaps you, which was not an assault in Jesus’ day, it was an insult, then bear with the insult for the sake of the gospel. If you seek revenge, you lose your witness. But if you respond with grace, they may listen to the good news of Christ.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Matthew 5:38-39)

4

Turn the Other Cheek Slapping the cheek was not a life-threatening attack. It was a personal insult, like spitting in someone’s face (Morey, 47). Jesus isn’t discussing what to do if your life is threatened, or if your wife or child’s life is in danger. He’s saying not to respond in anger to a personal insult, not to sink to their level and return insult for insult. But that says nothing about matters of self- defense (Ex. 21) or the state (1 Pet. 2:14). And in fact, Jesus is focusing more on personal dignity and insults than physical violence.

A right-handed person gave this back-handed slap across the person’s right cheek if they wanted to insult someone’s honor. And Jesus says, “Don’t retaliate” because He’s calling us as Christians to display a gracious attitude, a sacrificial love for the lost. He didn’t say the state can’t retaliate. He said Christians can’t, just as we saw in Romans 12 – don’t take revenge.

Jesus is not talking about your role in the military or on the police force, but in personal relationships. And He’s not advocating pacifism for the state as Romans 13 makes clear, or for police officers to ignore crimes, or for school teachers to overlook unruly students, or for parents to refrain from disciplining their children since they are commanded to do so in the Bible.

If your 9-year-old maliciously slaps you on the cheek, the only other cheek they need to worry about is the one they’re sitting on – not you turning yours. Why? Because you only turn the other cheek if it’s the loving thing to do. And in that case, the loving thing to do is to discipline your child (Prov. 13:24; Heb. 12:6; Rev. 3:19 [i.e. love is not antithetical to discipline]). There are appropriate times for turning the cheek, and times not to – so this passage can’t be applied to every situation, and certainly not judicial or national defense ones.

When your professor insults you for being a Christian and believing in the Bible or when a co- worker belittles you, or your relative mocks you, Jesus calls us to turn the other cheek, to absorb the insult and not retaliate because it will just escalate the issue. If you’re getting beat up for the Gospel, you do what Jesus and Paul did – take a hit, though you could get the authorities involved as Paul did for defense in Acts 16, Acts 22 and Acts 23 (or you could act in self-defense in some situations). Paul utilized the protection of the Roman army on a few occasions so it’s hard for us to imagine that he was opposed to the army.

But if you need to defend your little sister from a rapist– be ready to fight and stop the evil, harm, and injustice from taking place. You don’t turn the other cheek, because that’s not an insult, it’s an assault. And love for others never means allowing harm to come to them, just so that you can show some twisted form of grace or mercy to a perpetrator and allow criminals to hurt or kill others. That’s just substituting one evil for another – the threat for neglect.

As Demy put it, “We do not ‘turn the other cheek’ when moral atrocity occurs; to do so would be to assist in that very evil itself. In such a situation, charity indeed calls us to courage and a commitment to resist evil.” (Demy, p. 297)

5

And remember, Jesus isn’t addressing a legal issue here, but a personal one. Craig Keener writes, “‘An eye for an eye’ never meant that a person could exact vengeance directly for his or her own eye; it meant that one should take the offender to court where the sentence could be executed legally…Jesus is not so much revoking a standard of justice as calling His followers not to make use of it; they qualify justice with mercy because they do not need to avenge their honor.” (p. 196).

But in 1 Peter 2:13, as in Romans 13, we read: 13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. (1 Peter 2:13-14)

The government is not called to turn the other cheek. They’re called to punish evildoers. We are talking about two totally different domains – civil versus personal, the public sector versus the private sector, two totally different responses. The Christian must not seek revenge. The state must avenge wrongdoing as Romans 13 says.

The state must punish evildoers and criminals, and must not turn the other cheek to crime, but deter it through the use of force. As Timothy Demy wrote, “Jesus’ injunction not to resist evil (5:39), contextually, must be located in the realm of personal injury, not state policy” (War, Peace, p. 252).

Jesus’ Cheek And just as a quick case study, did Jesus apply His teaching about turning the other cheek to Himself always, in the way that many want to apply it today? No. Look at John 18:19, Jesus’ unjust trial before His crucifixion.

19 The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching. 20 Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. 21 “Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said.” 22 When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” 24 So Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. (John 18:19-24)

Jesus did not say, “You struck my cheek, here’s the other one.” Jesus did not say, “Hit me again.” Jesus Christ pointed out that what they did was unjust and unlawful (possibly because this went beyond an insult to an assault). Paul did the same thing in Acts 23 when he was standing trial before the Sanhedrin and was struck by the high priest’s attendants. Paul didn’t literally turn the other cheek but challenged the injustice of the action. John Davis, in his book Evangelical Ethics, summarizes,

6

“The actions of Jesus Christ Himself and of the great apostle clearly indicate that the sayings on turning the other cheek are meant to promote an attitude of nonrevenge, rather than the posture of a ‘doormat’ for abuse in such situations.” (p. 212)

But, again, let’s distinguish between personal and civil matters, and let’s also keep in mind that in cases of self-defense, parenting, church discipline, and matters of the state, what Jesus said about non-resistance does not typically apply. He’s talking only about interpersonal relationships.

Double-Standards If a police officer was trying to stop a rapist, and the rapist punched the police officer in the face, would we expect the police officer to do nothing, if the rapist said, “Hey, I punched you once, and Jesus said to turn the other cheek. So, put your gun down, and let me hit you again.”

It’s ludicrous, and yet this is how pacifists or other well-meaning people try to apply Jesus words or justify nonintervention. And actually, while a pacifist would use “turn the other cheek” to encourage the U.S. to refrain from attacking Nazi Germany or terrorists, and for America to disarm itself, these same pacifists would be quick to call the police if their lives or their loved one’s lives were in danger. They don’t want police to cease using force or to disarm someone when they’re in danger or their child or wife’s life is threatened. To me, that is an inconsistency which disproves their theory.

If you allow for the just use of force in criminal matters, especially if an armed robber breaks into your house and you and your family are in danger, then why should the state not have a right to go to war if the nation is attacked or to support another country that’s been attacked, as the U.S did in the 1st Gulf War?

So, I would say to a pacifist, “If someone breaks into your house and is threatening to kill you or your family, based on your view, you should not try to call the police. You should turn the other cheek,” but they wouldn’t do that. They would reach for the phone any chance they got. Even Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was otherwise a pacifist, concluded that Hitler should have been assassinated, though I know there is much to that debate (Geisler, Ethics, 229).

Love Your Enemies Besides turning the cheek, and misunderstanding the difference between personal and political ethics, people will often quote the next part of Matthew 5 to say that Christians must oppose war and stand by while evil triumphs. 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” (Matthew 5:43-44)

The question is – does what Jesus said about loving our enemies supersede civil justice? And of course, the answer is no. Jesus is speaking about interpersonal relationships, not governmental laws. The courts don’t love their enemies, they send criminals to jail. In fact, the Bible warns us

7

that if evil isn’t punished, it increases. Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men are given fully to do evil. (Ecclesiastes 8:11)

Third Parties And there’s something else we need to consider with regard to turning the other cheek and loving our enemies. Jesus’ statements apply between two people. The dynamics change when a third party is in the mix.

As Timothy Demy writes, “When an innocent third party enters a scenario of conflict, the moral equation changes. Jesus does not say, ‘When a person slaps your friend on the cheek, turn his other cheek to the offender.’ You may be free to turn your own other cheek; you are not free to turn that of your neighbor. There is a difference between insult and assault. (War, Peace, and p. 369, cf. p. 357)

In other words, while you are called as a Christian to turn the other cheek, you are not called to do nothing when someone is mugged, attacked, or being killed. You are called to protect that person out of love for your neighbor – and that’s what Moses did when he saw his fellow- Hebrew being mistreated, beaten by an Egyptian in Exodus 2. While Moses went too far in murdering the attacker, he did the right thing in defending and protecting someone who was being treated unjustly and whose life was in danger. And, remember what we saw in the previous post from Proverbs 24.

C. S. Lewis took the same view in his essay, “Why I Am Not A Pacifist” and reminded his readers that Jesus’ listeners during the Sermon on the Mount were Israelites living in a disarmed nation (under Rome), so Jesus was obviously not addressing the role of government or rationales for war, or protecting victims, but personal discipleship (Demy 253).

Love Neighbor or Enemy? And here’s the crux of the matter. Loving your enemy is not the highest command. There is a higher law that supersedes it. What is it? Love God and love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22). So, if loving your enemy looks like you doing nothing while your neighbor is being beaten, then guess what? You chose the wrong commandment!

The commandment of loving your neighbor as yourself, is higher than loving your enemies. Jesus said the top two commandments were love God and love your neighbor, those are the highest priorities. So, we are never called to love our enemies at the expense of our neighbor being abused or in mortal danger. At that point, love for enemies goes out the window, love for your neighbor takes its place, and you do whatever is needed to stop the enemy who is harming your neighbor.

8

So, are you going to love your neighbor or your enemy when you can’t do both? You love your neighbor and stop your enemy from harming your neighbor. That is the biblical priority. This is called graded absolutism, when a lower law is dethroned by a higher law, which you can read about in Geisler’s book, Christian Ethics (chapter 7 and page 241).

Family Examples And this love for our fellow-human being is why I said last time that as a nation, we have a moral obligation to stop the barbaric beheadings and the slaughter of innocent life by evil terrorists. We should look at these victims not as foreigners, but have compassion and ask, how would I feel, what would I do, if that were my son, daughter, mother, or father, sister or brother?

Or to drive the point home, the pacifist interpretation of this is not only wrong, but it doesn’t take into account what you should do if your loved one’s life was being threatened or if your child was being molested. Do you say, “Sorry son, I don’t have to turn the other cheek in this case because they’re not bothering me, but you have to turn the other cheek,” or do you stop the perpetrator?

It is not loving to allow evil to go unchecked. Love cannot continually tolerate evil and injustice – God’s love doesn’t, family love doesn’t, church love doesn’t, personal love doesn’t, such as in self-defense, and even loving civil servants don’t and shouldn’t tolerate evil. You can personally overlook an offense, but you are never called to refrain from helping those in danger, as we saw from Proverbs 24 about rescuing those who are being taken away to death and saving those who are staggering to slaughter. And Psalm 82, a passage about God’s justice and human judges, says this: Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. (Psalm 82:4)

As John Davis put it in his book on ethics, There will be a time when swords will finally be turned into plowshares, but in the interim, the demands of divine justice and love of the neighbor sometimes requires the use of force in the legitimate defense of innocent human life (p. 213).

Love and Justice In Nehemiah 4, the people rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem while holding a sword in order to protect themselves from their enemies. Nehemiah told them to fight for their families in verse 14. He didn’t say, “Let’s put down our swords, and show love to our enemies, and do so by being defenseless and then butchered by them.” That’s not love. It’s not loving to allow a person to do evil, it’s loving to stop them from harming people. It’s loving to uphold justice because justice honors the God of love who never loves at the expense of justice, not at the Cross, and not in the courtroom.

God is love, yet that doesn’t negate His justice. His justice flows out of His love, for a God who lets abuse, murderer, genocide, enslavement, sin, oppression, and injustices go unchecked, is

9

not loving. And that may be one reason why Romans 13 talks about the government’s right to justly bear the sword and then the Christian’s obligation to love his neighbor, in the same chapter. Justice and love aren’t contradictory – they can’t be since God is loving and just.2 Love seeks justice for the oppressed.

Matthew 26: Put Your Sword Back What’s another passage people try to use to show that the New Testament changes what we learned about justice and war in the Old Testament? Matthew 26. After Judas came to the Garden of Gethsemane and betrayed Jesus with a kiss on the cheek, we read: 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:51-52)

Craig Blomberg, in his excellent commentary on Matthew, writes, This statement is sometimes interpreted as a call to pacifism, but in fact it is simply an observation that violence breeds violence. Perhaps warfare is sometimes necessary to prevent greater evils done to others. (NAC, p. 399)3

David Turner, in his commentary, states, This command [put your sword back] has been used to support various stripes of the view known as Christian pacifism or nonresistance. In context, however, Jesus is only speaking realistically and proverbially about the way violence reproduces itself in a fallen world. (p. 636).

Especially in this context, where Jesus is willingly being taken away, unjustly, in order to go to the Cross, we have to remember that He’s not saying crime should go unpunished, police should never use a gun, or that the military should never fight a just war, or that we should have no national defense. He’s saying that He has no need for intervention because His mission is to die for our sins on the Cross. He’s also protecting Peter, whom John tells us cut off the man’s ear with the sword.

He doesn’t want Peter to be killed by a soldier, a soldier who could end Peter’s life if Peter continued fighting. So, Jesus stopped the violence in order to spare Peter from arrest or death. And if Peter killed that servant, Peter could’ve been executed by Rome. This also fulfilled a prophecy, according to John 18, where Jesus said, “if you seek Me, let these go their way,” to fulfill the word which He spoke, “Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.”

And Jesus also said that Peter must not use the sword so that He, Jesus, could drink the cup that the Father had given to Him in John 18. Again, Jesus is not saying anything against self-

2 In fact, one Reformer wrote that if you say that the just use of force is evil, then you’ve committed blasphemy, because God Himself restrains evil by the use of force (Calvin, in Cole, p. 46) 3 See also NIVAC, 859, “Jesus is not giving a blanket endorsement of pacifism, which would require broader scriptural support than this one saying.”

10

defense in various situations, capital punishment, or the state’s right to punish criminals. He just says that there’s no point in trying to fight back because He must die for our sins, drinking the cup of God’s wrath in our place, in order to save us by His grace.

Look what Jesus says in the very next verse, after He says to put the sword back and that those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53 “Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?” (Matthew 26:53-54)

Dr. Robert Morey wrote a book entitled, When Is It Right to Fight? He offers 14 reasons why Jesus supported the just use of force and upheld such principles from the Old Testament. When talking about Matthew 26, he writes, “God’s plan of salvation called for Christ to die. The disciples would have hindered God’s plan if they had risen up to fight for Christ and delivered Him from the Jews. When force is exercised to hinder God’s plan or revelation, it is unjustified violence… This explains why Jesus did not call upon His disciples or the angels to fight for Him. It was not because He was a pacifist, but because He had come to die for our sins.” (p. 42-43)

But let’s think about Jesus’ statement regarding the sword in Matthew 26, when He said: all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Does everyone who takes up the sword die by the sword? If He’s talking about the military, that’s certainly not true. There would be no victors in war if everyone who took up a weapon died by a weapon. Every battle would be a draw.

Is He saying that every murderer has been executed; they perished by the sword in accordance with all that the Bible says about capital punishment? No. Many murderers are never caught, and many states ban capital punishment. What Jesus is saying is that if someone murders, they should be executed for that crime. It’s a general principle, but it doesn’t mean it always happens. Jesus is simply restating Genesis 9: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.” (Genesis 9:6)

The MacArthur Study Bible puts it succinctly, Peter’s action was vigilantism. No matter how unjust the arrest of Jesus, Peter had no right to take the law into his own hands in order to stop it. Jesus’ reply was a restatement of the Genesis 9:6 principle, an affirmation that capital punishment is an appropriate penalty for murder. (p. 1414)

If you unlawfully take up the sword, you’ll likely perish by the law’s sword. Jesus did not say, “Never use the sword” or “that the government can’t bear the sword.” He simply stated proverbially that if you unlawfully use the sword, it may cost you your life.

Summary:

11

So, at the end of the day, there’s nothing in Jesus’ statement that contradicts what we saw in the Old Testament regarding war or justice, or what Romans 13 says about the government bearing the sword against criminals or evildoers. And, as a side note, Jesus didn’t say, “throw away the sword,” He said, “Put it back in its place,” indicating He wasn’t opposed to it being used in other circumstances in the future.

It was acceptable for Peter to continue carrying a sword, just not to use it to prevent Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion (Grudem, 195). And we see Jesus specifically speak to the issue of His followers’ sword in Luke 22:35:

35 And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38)

Does Jesus mean “two swords are enough,” or “that’s enough talk about this”? We don’t know. There are some translation issues here. But either way, when Jesus Christ, God in the flesh tells you to sell your coat in order to buy a sword, it seems pretty clear that He believes the use of force is acceptable in some cases.

Some think Jesus is speaking metaphorically, merely saying to be prepared (The money belt and bag were to be taken literally, so why would the sword be metaphorical?). But, it seems clear that he’s talking about buying a literal sword, and while this doesn’t create an open or closed shut case against pacifism, it certainly challenges the notion that Jesus was opposed to weapons, or self-defense.

Gospel vs. Sword Now, to be as clear as I can be, obviously Jesus is not in any way saying that the gospel will advance by the sword. The Bible never teaches that, and while has been trying to advance through violence beginning with , Christian has never taught this and any attempt to do so would be going against Christ’s teachings. Christians know that conversion is a supernatural work of God. We can’t force someone to be born again by the sword, since it’s a work of the Holy Spirit.

So, when Jesus told the disciples to buy a sword it was for another purpose. The sword could’ve been for everyday use, like cutting food, since the Greek word for the sword here, machaira, doesn’t refer to the long sword, but something like a dagger or a short sword. It was mostly used in close combat and for self-defense, and most commentators believe that Jesus allowed it so that the disciples could protect themselves against bandits and robbers.

12

So, this was Jesus telling us that a weapon for protection or self-defense is acceptable, but we can’t use the sword to kill unlawfully, taking the law into our own hands, except in self-defense or protection of others in harm, and we certainly can’t use the sword to spread the gospel by force (Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, p. 487). That’s never taught in the Bible.

Money Changers Now, obviously, we can’t take the passage about Jesus driving out the money changers and use it as a justification for war. But it’s worth bringing up, because what we can say is that when Jesus used force to drive the corrupt salespeople out of the temple precincts, it shows that He was no pacifist.

In fact, if you piece together all that’s said in the 4 gospels, we see that Jesus made a whip and used it to drive the buyers and sellers out of the temple area, and he overturned the tables of the money changers. Out of zeal for His Father’s house, He took what most would call, violent steps to confront the unjust practices of the corrupt, greedy people and leaders.

As one theologian put it, Christ did not remain passive in the face of evil. He acted forcibly to remove evil and injustice [just as He will do when He returns]. (Davis, 217)

Soldiers Briefly, let’s take a look at what God says about soldiers or those in the military. We see no condemnation of them in the Old Testament, and we see no incompatibility with a Christian being a part of the armed forces in the New Testament either. And if there is no command for Christians to stay out of the military, or to leave it, then we can hardly say that God is opposed to all wars or those who fight for justice and peace.

John the Baptist Look what John the Baptizer said to soldiers, in Luke 3: 7 So John began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance…”

John warns about judgment and then we read this in verse 10: 10 And the crowds were questioning him, saying, “Then what shall we do?” 11 And he would answer and say to them, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.” 12 And some tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” 13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to.” 14 Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, “And what about us, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:7-14)

Darrell Cole wrote,

13

Why did John fail to tell the soldiers to quit their profession? If the use of force is inherently immoral and a particular profession requires the use of force, then that profession is immoral. Can you imagine John giving advice to prostitutes about how to prostitute more justly or not charge too much? Yet he did advise soldiers on how to soldier more justly. (p. 41)

John gave no indication that entering the kingdom requires exiting the army (Davis, 216). They asked John, “what should we do?” This would’ve been the perfect opportunity for John to say, “Stop being a soldier. You cannot be a part of war. God is a pacifist,” but he didn’t. He simply told them to do their job justly.

The New Testament speaks of military officers or Roman centurions and others on a number of occasions, and all of them appear in a favorable light. And in none of the cases did Jesus or John the Baptist or the apostles Paul or Peter instruct the soldiers to leave military service. In fact, Jesus upheld a soldier’s faith as being greater than anyone’s in Israel, in Luke 7.

Peter could’ve certainly told Cornelius the centurion to leave the military in Acts 10 if soldiering was immoral or incompatible with Christianity, but he never did.4 Nowhere in the New Testament do we see a call for Israel or Rome to disarm their military forces, nor a condemnation of just war, nor a repeal of Old Testament principles regarding capital punishment or national defense, nor a call for Christians to leave the military. (Morey, 52)

Why? Because God is not opposed to those who fight to stop dictators, end genocide, destroy terrorists, hunt down serial killers, or use force to bring about peace. To remain passive in the face of repeated or deadly evil is not the way of peace because peace is never achieved by giving into the demands of evil (Morey, 7). Peace is sometimes achieved by the just use of force against evil – always with the goal of creating and maintaining peace. We are called to be peacemakers, but that says nothing about how to respond to others who are bent on murder, genocide, and destruction, nor the role of Christian police officers or soldiers.

Early Pacifists Someone might ask, but what about Christian pacifists in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Actually, most of them did not oppose war or the state’s right to bear the sword, they just didn’t feel that Christians should serve in the army because it required a sacred oath to the Emperor along with participating in pagan rituals and sacrifices (Cole, p. 6, Ency. Of Early, p. 937).

Christians abstained from the military not out of a pacifist theology, but because they refused to give their ultimate allegiance to the Emperor who demanded worship, and refused to be a part of the pagan rituals. And this same principle kept them out of other government positions, not just military ones (Clouse, 4 Views, p. 13). But, after Constantine legalized Christianity and

4 The first (human) person to call Jesus “the Son of God” is a centurion, a soldier, in Mark 15.

14

removed the pagan influences in the army, by 439 A.D. there was a new law which said that only Christians were permitted to serve in the army.5

It’s easy to be a pacifist when you’re a small minority. But when you make up the majority, you can’t all be pacifists, or the nation will be destroyed. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” a statement which I believe lines up with many biblical principles and reminds us of the consequences of pacifism.

Prayers in Heaven I’d like to end with a snapshot of heaven. It’s a jarring picture for some, because they’ve never considered that heaven might be a place where some people are not experiencing perfect bliss, in fact they seem agitated. That’s a foreign idea for us, but it’s in the Bible. Look carefully at Revelation 6:9:

9 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; 10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also. (Revelation 6:9-11)

Dr. Grudem writes, “The significant point about this passage is that these ‘souls’ are now completely free from sin, and this means that there is no trace of sinful desire left in their hearts. Yet they are crying out for God to avenge their murderers, to take vengeance on those who had murdered them… Therefore such a desire cannot be seen as morally wrong.” (p. 191)

Steve, how could you call for the destruction of ISIS and other terrorists? We’re supposed to love our enemies. Well, sinless Christians in heaven, who were martyred cried out for God to avenge them. If this goes on in heaven, I’m sure we can call for justice on earth. As Christians, we should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. And as Christians, we should also pray for the state to do its job, which is to administer justice and to bear the sword against evildoers.

And like the martyrs in heaven, we have every right to ask God to move quickly to end the tyranny of those who persecute, oppress, and murder innocent people created in the image of God (they are not innocent in terms of being sinless, but they committed no crime worthy of death).

5 Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, edited by Everett Ferguson, p. 937

15

In Revelation, if you read on, God basically tells them that there will be more martyrs and that His judgment is coming. But that in no way should lead you to believe we can infer from this that we’ll just leave justice in God’s hands and do nothing. No, God’s end time judgment is never given as an excuse to short-circuit civil justice today (which is why He instructs us on the role of the state in Rom. 13). God’s promise to judge evil, and the description of Christ coming back to judge and wage war in Revelation 19, are not given to rationalize injustice, but to encourage justice. God’s promise to judge never removes the state’s responsibility to administer justice and to punish criminals.

Conclusion I’ll leave you with this quote from Timothy Demy, Commander of the U.S. Navy Chaplain Corps: “The governing authorities exist to reward the good and restrain as well as punish evil. For human beings to fail to respond to or prevent evil when they have knowledge or the power to do so is to be an accomplice in that very evil.” (p. 287)

May God use the state to bring the sword of His justice against terrorists who are the epitome of evil and injustice. And may He save those who repent of their sins, and see their need for the Cross of Christ, where God’s love and justice collided to save sinners.

Heavenly Father, we always want peace, but not peace at any price, not peace based on the terms of an evil terrorist empire, dominating the world with its oppressive, satanic ideology. So, help the government know how to stop evil, and justly punish evildoers, even terrorists who have no respect for law, justice, or people made in Your image. When governments or laws are unjust, the church can be an agent of change, as it was with the issue of slavery.

When governments are failing to act swiftly, may the church be the conscience of the nation, so that as Ecclesiastes 8 says, evil men aren’t emboldened. We pray that good governments will work together to end the rise of ISIS and other terrorist groups, for the sake of justice and peace and the spread of the gospel.

And we thank you that although we deserved your justice, we received your mercy, because Christ paid the penalty for our sins, taking Your just judgment against our sins for us. May we love your justice and grace, and be a people who stand for both, in Jesus’ name, amen.

Recommended Resources: War, Peace, and Christianity by J. Daryl Charles and Timothy Demy

When God Says War Is Right by Darrell Cole

When Is It Right to Fight by Robert Morey

Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World by Jean Elshtain

16

War: Four Christian Views edited by Robert G. Clouse

Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace by Roland Bainton

War and Christian Ethics edited by Arthur F. Holmes

Politics according to the Bible by Wayne Grudem

Evangelical Ethics by John Jefferson Davis; Biblical Ethics by Robertson McQuilkin

17