I.
Clarifying the Issue
A. As with most hotly-debated issues, it is difficult
to identify the issue because we are so easily distracted by emotional
and or inconsequential arguments. Consequently, much is said (or written) but
very little is accomplished. It is critical, then, that we identify the
non-issues, remove them from the discussion, and focus our minds on the core area
of dispute
B. The issue in this study is whether or not Christians
may intentionally use violence or deadly force towards others. The position
being defended in this article is that Christians are not authorized to harm or
kill others. The principle of non-violence,
when applied, will raise red flags in the following areas:
1. Serving
as a combat soldier in the military.
2.
Employment as a police-officer or security guard.
3.
Self-defense
C. In other words, if it is wrong to intentionally
harm or kill another human being, then we must conclude that individuals in
these three scenarios who have harmed or killed another human being have done
wrong.
D. Having clarified the issue, the issue is NOT:
1. …whether or not we love our country. One can
disagree with a Christian’s role as an active-duty soldier or police officer
and still love America.
2. …whether or not the government has the right to
“bear the sword.” The Bible is clear that the government has been appointed by
God to bear the sword and punish evildoers (Rom. 13). One can take the position
of non-violence while also recognizing the government’s right to mete
out justice. (We’ll return to this point later in the study.)
3. …whether or not we appreciate the sacrifices of
soldiers and cops. One can disagree with a Christian’s participation in either
field but still:
a.
Treat cops and soldiers with kindness.
b.
Pray for their safety.
c. Be
thankful for the sacrifices of those who protect us.
4. …whether or not we may secure protection for
ourselves and our families. As Paul called upon the protection of the Roman
guards in Acts 23:16-22, so also may we call upon the protection of the police.
We may also install security systems and use other non-violent means to protect
ourselves and our families.
5. Finally, the issue is not what I would do in
a particular situation. We have to lay aside the emotional scenarios – ALL
scenarios, in fact – and focus on what is right.
E. What is
right? How do we determine truth? As Christians seeking the approval of God,
our means of determining truth is God’s word (John 12:48; 17:17; 2 Tim.
3:16-17; 2 John 9). So as we begin, our question is, “What does the Bible say
about a Christian’s use of violence?”
II.
Making the Case for Non-Violence
A. I do believe that the scriptures forbid Christians
from using violence or lethal force. Consider the following scriptures with me.
To save space, I will not write out these
verses completely, but will only cite them, or at most, quote them in part.
B.
The first passage is Matthew 5:39-47.
1.
When someone strikes you, the command is NOT to strike back, but to “turn the
other cheek” (vs. 39, that they might strike you again).
2. How must we treat our enemies? We’re told to respond
to the abuses of our enemy by blessing them, praying for them, and doing good
to them (vs. 44).
3. Some argue that Jesus is dealing ONLY with
situations where you are lightly mistreated, bullied, or insulted, but there is
no reason to limit Jesus’ words in this manner.
4. Some want to be selective in their application of
the word “enemy,” *as if some enemies are exempt) but the word “enemy” is from
the Greek word echthros and refers to
anyone who is hostile towards you. Jesus makes this distinction in Matthew 5:44-47
when he contrasts “your enemies” with those who “love you” (vs. 46) and “greet
you” (vs. 47). So then, anyone who is hostile towards you is your enemy, and
yet how are you to treat them?
5. There is nothing
in this passage that justifies the use of violence. On the contrary, we are
commanded to have a non-violent approach to anyone who is hostile to us.
C. Next, read Romans 12:17-21.
1. The principle of verse 17 is comparable to what we
read in Matthew 5:39-47. The old “eye for an eye” paradigm is no more. Instead,
we “repay no one evil for evil” (vs. 17) and actually strive to “overcome evil
with good” (vs. 21). If someone seeks your physical harm, are they treating you
in an evil manner? If so, according to this passage, how are you to respond to
such treatment?
2. In verse 18, Paul writes, “if it is possible, as
much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.” The question is, what depends on us? We cannot control
what others do, but we can control what we
do. Regardless of how others may act, we can have a peaceable demeanor and
can engage in peaceful actions.
3. Finally – and this is the crux of the passage – we
are commanded to leave vengeance to God (vs. 19). We’re not to take matters
into our own hands. When someone mistreats or abuses us, we do not “get even”
or mete out justice on our own. We leave justice and vengeance to God, and we
trust Him to carry it out in His own way, in His own time.
D. Other scriptures could be considered, but these two
are very specific in addressing the manner in which we deal with our enemies,
and with the wicked. Suffice it to say, the message is consistent: treat all
people, even your worst enemies, with the same love and devotion that Christ
showed His enemies; meanwhile, let God mete out justice and vengeance. In fact,
we are specifically told NOT to reciprocate violence.
E. The question now is this: does God state anywhere
in the New Testament that there are exceptions to these rules? I don’t believe
so, but there are many who would say that yes, there are exceptions. So let’s
turn our attention to the arguments used to justify the use of violence in certain situations.
III.
Arguments Used to Justify the Use of Violence
A. Love and violence are not
inherently contradictory:
1. This is a true statement. After all, God is both
loving and just (Ps. 89:14). We know
that “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8) and yet He is a “consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29).
God’s judgment is seen throughout the scriptures, and these acts of judgment
are consistent with His love. Are we
being called to a higher standard of love than God? Not at all!
2. My point is NOT that violence inherently
contradicts love, but that we are not authorized to use violence against
others. Romans 12:9 is clear that we leave all matters of physical judgment and
vengeance to God!
3. Consider this illustration: parents do not want their
children administering justice amongst themselves or seeking personal revenge. Parents
generally insist on administering the punishment (justice). Are we calling our
children to a higher standard of love with such an approach? No. It’s simply a
matter of authority.
4. Likewise, as we noticed in Matthew 5:39-47 and
Romans 12:17-21, God commands us to treat our enemies and abusers in a
non-violent manner. He (God) tells us that we need to leave the justice and/or
vengeance to Him.
5. Even though it is inappropriate for Christians to
mete out justice/vengeance, it is appropriate for Christians to desire
justice/vengeance (2 Tim. 4:14; Rev. 6:10).
B. Romans 13 justifies a Christian’s use of violence on behalf of the
government:
1. In Romans 13:1-4, we’re told that God has
“appointed” the civil government to “bear the sword” and punish those who do
evil. Many argue, based on this passage, that a Christian may harm or kill as an agent of the government (i.e. an
active-duty soldier or police officer). After all, if it’s right for the
government to administer justice, then the Christian who becomes an agent of
the government may carry out that work.
2. The problem with this
interpretation of Romans 13 is threefold:
a. In Romans 13:1-4, Paul is simply defining the ROLE
of government and Christians are commanded to “be subject” (vs. 1) to the
government.
I. This is the principle of role distinction; a common
principle in the scriptures that we understand and accept in other places.
A.
Husbands and wives have distinct roles (Eph. 5:22-25).
B.
Men and women have distinct roles in the church (1 Cor. 14:34).
C.
Elders and deacons have distinct roles (1 Tim. 3:1-13).
D.
Children and parents have distinct roles (Eph. 6:1-4).
E.
Slaves and masters have distinct roles (Eph. 6:5-9).
F.
Jesus and the Father have distinct roles (1 Cor. 11:3).
II. Would it be
right for a wife to assume the role of her husband, for a child to assume the role
of his parent, or for a deacon to assume the role of the elder? A function
may be RIGHT for one person, but wrong for someone else.
III. In Romans 13, the government’s role is being
described. The function of bearing the sword is certainly right for the
government, but that doesn’t make it right for Christians.
IV. Someone may object on the basis that I’m
restricting the “sword-bearing” members of government to sinners. See Rom. 9:17-18.
b. The second problem with this interpretation of
Romans 13:1-4 is that it is injurious to the context. In Romans 12:19, the
Christians who were being mistreated and abused were told “do not avenge
yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is
Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” In Romans 13, Paul explains how the
government is “God’s minister for you (for Christians) for good…for he (the
government) is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who
practices evil” (13:4).
I. It is incorrect to separate Romans 13:1-4 from
Romans 12:17-21. It is a continuous message and we must interpret it in that
light.
II. We are not to return evil for evil, but must leave
vengeance to God. How does God administer
justice/vengeance? The civil government has been appointed to fulfill that
task!
c. The third problem with the common interpretation of
Romans 13:1-4 is that it not only ignores the context, it ignores the setting.
I. The Roman epistle was not written to
Christians who were citizens of a country like America – “one nation, under
God.” The empire of that day was Rome, and Rome was a pagan nation that not
only was immoral, but was actively engaged in the persecution of Christians.
II. If Paul is justifying a Christian’s
participation in the government, he is justifying participation in any government, “good” or “evil.” Not
many countries, after all, are as wicked as Rome was then.
III. In other words, we cannot apply this
passage only to countries like America. We must apply it to ALL citizens in ALL
countries. There are many obvious problems with such a view:
A.
It was right for Christians to serve as soldiers under Hitler.
B. It is right for Christians to serve as
soldiers of the most wicked and vile nations of the modern world.
C. The result may be Christians shooting at each other. Such was the case during
the American Civil War.
IV. While some argue that we can
distinguish between good and bad governments, there is no way for us to make
such a distinction:
A. Paul penned these words during the days
of the Roman empire, a wicked and vile nation.
B. God used the wicked Assyrians to
destroy His own people, the nation of Israel (Isaiah 10:5-12). Who would you have sided with?
C. The point is, appearances can be
deceiving. While one nation may appear good and another bad, God may be using
the “bad” to destroy the “good,” as in Isaiah 10.
3. When Paul penned Romans 13, the concept of
Christians using that text to justify becoming agents of the government was the
furthest thing from his mind. Again, the command to Christians was “be subject”
to the government and that God would use the government to mete out vengeance
and justice.
C. The
Philippian Jailor and Cornelius (a Roman centurion) were both Christians whose
occupations required the use of violence:
1. Cornelius was a Roman centurion, or soldier (Ac.
10:1). The Philippian jailor of Acts 16:27 was in a similar position. Both of
these men became Christians. The assumption is that they resumed their
soldiering after conversion, and
therefore, Christians can kill for the government today.
2. This argument, however, is both inconclusive and
presumptuous as it cannot be proven that they resumed their soldiering after
they were converted. Even if they remained in their occupations, it cannot be
proven that they ever harmed or killed anyone again. And even if they did harm or kill others in the future, it cannot be
proven that their actions were sanctioned by God.
D. John’s comments in Luke 3:14:
1. Many often point to Luke 3:14 as evidence that Christians may join the
military and kill for the government. Here, soldiers asked John the Baptist,
“And what shall we do?” So John replied, “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse
falsely, and be content with your wages.” If it is wrong to be an active
soldier, then why didn’t John tell these soldiers to stop being soldiers? This
is the argument.
2. First of all, it’s not
wrong in and of itself to be a soldier; it’s wrong to harm or kill another
person.
3. Furthermore, the phrase
“do not intimidate” is translated in the KJV as “do no violence.” Generally,
commentators apply this to extortion, but I don’t see where the phrase is
limited to extortion. Even if it was limited, does it make sense that a soldier
could kill a person, as long as they weren’t intimidated? John was not saying,
“Go ahead and kill anyone you want, but don’t lie about them or take their
stuff, and make sure they aren’t intimidated.”
4. Finally, these words were
spoken during the Old Testament dispensation and do not apply to Christians
now. Jesus Himself issued many commands to individuals that expired at
the cross (Mt. 8:4; 23:3)
E. Jesus’ comments in Luke 22:36-37:
1. Jesus told the disciples in Luke 22:36-37, “But now, he who has a money
bag, let him take it and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him
sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is
written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the
transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” The disciples
confessed to having two swords to which Jesus replied, “it is enough” (vs. 38).
2. It is argued that Jesus
wanted the disciples to have swords for the purpose of self-defense; therefore,
Christians may use lethal means to defend themselves also. But the reason that
the disciples were to buy swords is stated in verse 37: it was to fulfill the
prophecy that Jesus would be numbered with the transgressors.
3. Interestingly enough,
when the mob came to arrest Jesus in the garden, Peter drew his sword and cut
off Malchus’ ear. Jesus rebuked him by saying, “Put your sword in its place, for
all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Mt. 26:52). The prophecy was
fulfilled and Jesus had a wonderful opportunity to impart yet another spiritual
lesson.
F. I must protect my family:
1. I admit that this is the most difficult and
emotional aspect of this debate. As a husband and father of five, it would be
hard to restrain myself if my family were threatened. But that doesn’t make it right. Again, “what does the Bible teach?”
2. Some
point to 1 Timothy 5:8 as evidence
that it is actually a father’s duty to protect his family. The text says, “But
if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his
household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
3. However, the end doesn’t justify the means. If
it is wrong to hurt or kill, then it is always wrong. To illustrate my point,
let me present to you another scenario: if a family is strapped for cash, may
the mother become a stripper, or the father a bartender? Does the command to
“provide” for the family justify such actions? Of course not.
4. In the end, we may
protect our family using appropriate means: home security systems, calling the
police, prayer, self-sacrifice, etc. But let us not resort to situation ethics.
IV.
Conclusion
A. The arguments that are often used to justify a
Christian’s use of violence and lethal force (as a soldier, police-officer,
security guard, or in matters of self-defense) all fall short. We are left,
then, with passages such as Matthew 5:39-47 and Romans 12:17-21, both of which
admonish us to react to our enemies and abusers in a non-violent manner.
B. The reason that this issue is so hotly debated in America is because we are easily
swayed by patriotism and a love for our “Christian nation” (there is no such
thing in the physical sense). It is true that we live in a blessed country, but
let us not forget that “the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one”
(1 Jn. 5:19). That includes America!
C. I know that this is an emotionally-charged issue
and that many Christians get quite upset when this issue is raised. However,
this issue is worth our time and attention. If you disagree with this material,
or if you need clarification on a point, please contact me.
