I never imagined that I would be writing, for the third consecutive month, about biblical nonresistance. But I have stirred up some discussion among sincere people with my previous two e-teachings on the subject.

I love my Christian pacifist friends, but a few have recently “un-friended” me on Facebook. When I see how some of them struggle with “turning the other cheek” in regard to a minor doctrinal disagreement, I have to wonder how well they would do if they faced much more challenging situations in which they claim they would not resist. In their case, the popular proverb of Jesus’ day has application: “Physician, heal yourself!” (Luke 4:23).

One criticism leveled at me revolved around my imaginary story of a lone gunman entering a church in which all the apostles and their families were present. I was accused of inventing a far-fetched scenario that unfairly lent itself to my argument against absolute pacifism.

My imaginary story, however, was not all that far-fetched. Gunmen do sometimes enter churches (and synagogues) and start shooting worshippers. It happened last month in my city of Pittsburgh, leaving 11 people dead and 4 wounded.

Absolute pacifists would have us believe that, had any of us been present at that massacre in Pittsburgh, Jesus would have required us to make no attempt to preserve anyone’s life since He commanded us to “not resist an evildoer.” Worse, it is the lack of this kind of “holiness” that allegedly prevents the world from being won to Jesus, because they don’t see any difference between our behavior and theirs.

I do plead guilty to creating my example to show the absurdity of absolute pacifism. If one’s convictions don’t make sense when applied to all possible situations, one needs to adjust one’s convictions. If one has to violate the most basic moral rule of loving one’s neighbor as oneself in order to “obey” one of Jesus’ alleged other commandments, one’s interpretation of that other commandment needs to be adjusted. Which is why I’m advocating for biblical pacifism rather than absolute pacifism.

And I could have used other scenarios to make the same point. For example, should Christians not resist an evildoer who is attempting to abduct their child or rape their wife? Is that what Jesus had in mind with His words about nonresistance in the Sermon on the Mount? (If you read last month’s e-teaching you know that my answer is “Absolutely not!”)

In any case, I’m still stunned that some of my pacifist friends remained unshakable, claiming that the apostles would not have done anything to resist the gunman, and all out of “obedience to Christ.” I’m still scratching my head on how anyone could think that Jesus, who (1) gave His life to save us (setting an example for us), (2) who said, “No greater love has any man than this, than he lay down his life for his friends,” and (3) who commanded us to love one another, would want us to do nothing to stop someone from murdering children and fellow followers of Christ. To me, it is an example of how reading the Bible with tunnel vision can skew one’s theology. Laying down one’s life, or risking laying down one’s life, for the sake of others, is a praiseworthy act of love, not an evil act of disobedience.

Anecdotal Arguments

Some of my detractors offered arguments that were based on, what I feel, is faulty logic. For example, it was suggested that Jesus’ alleged requirement to do nothing to stop the gunman made sense because it would be better that all the apostles and their families die than the gunman, as they would have all gone to heaven, whereas if the gunman had died, he would have gone to hell. Thus, by not risking doing something that might kill the gunman, he would gain a future opportunity to repent and be saved. That way, in the end, both he and all the apostles and their families would all be saved.

But that argument works only if the gunman one day becomes saved. What if he is never saved? What good came out of trading his life for the lives of all the apostles?

Neither does that argument take into consideration the multitudes of people who would have been saved had all the apostles continued their ministries. If the validity of one’s theology of nonresistance is based on the salvation of people, and the alternatives are either the apostles dying or the gunman dying, the gunman’s death results in one person going to hell. If all the apostles die, multitudes would never hear the gospel, and thus multitudes of people might go to hell who would otherwise have gone to heaven.

In any case, in last month’s e-teaching, I attempted to take Jesus’ words about nonresistance at face value, in their entirety, and within their biblical context, to prove that they do not have unlimited application. Rather, they apply to cases of personal, relatively minor offenses, of such that one’s obedience to Jesus’ full commandment to offer evildoers the opportunity to do twice the harm intended does not result in one doing evil himself. That is biblical pacifism.

To further explore the subject of biblical pacifism, this month I’d like to briefly look at five instances where the apostle Paul did not “turn the other cheek” when he was persecuted. All five cases illustrate that Paul did not believe that Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount about nonresistance had unlimited application, or that Jesus was advocating absolute pacifism.

Damascus

The first instance of Paul not turning the other cheek occurred early in his Christian life, when he was being threatened with death in Damascus:

But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ. And when many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him, but their plot became known to Saul. And they were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death; but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a large basket (Acts 9:22-25).

It is indisputable that Saul/Paul resisted evildoers. He worked against their plan, but in a way that was passive, godly and considerate, not violent. His way reduced the risk of himself and his enemies being harmed, and he subsequently escaped their plot to murder him. He was guided by love, but he certainly did not “turn the other cheek” and “go the second mile,” giving his enemies the opportunity to do twice the harm they intended. Clearly, Paul did not believe Jesus’ words about nonresistance required him to stay in Damascus and offer his enemies another disciple to murder along with him!

In fact, Paul, as a very young believer, perhaps unwittingly obeyed Jesus’ specific instructions regarding what His followers should do when their lives are at risk because of persecution. Jesus told the Twelve: “But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next” (Matt. 10:23). The implication of Jesus’ instructions is that the persecution is life-threatening and more than just verbal abuse, as verbal abuse does not require that one flee (unless one is being verbally threatened with death).

Verbal persecution, a minor offense, should be responded to by “blessing those who curse you.” That is a form of loving one’s enemies and turning the other cheek. One could “turn the other cheek” by kindly saying to one’s persecutor, “I certainly don’t feel that way about you. In fact, let me tell you something good that I see in you.”

It is from Jesus’ own instructions to the Twelve to flee life-threatening persecution that we have proof that His words about nonresistance in the Sermon on the Mount do not have universal application, otherwise Jesus contradicted Himself. To flee is not to “turn the other cheek.” One can’t flee from his persecutors and at the same time “turn the other cheek,” “give also one’s coat,” and “walk the second mile” with his persecutors.

Philippi

A second instance of Paul not “turning the other cheek” was when he and Silas were locked up in a prison in Philippi. They had already been beaten with rods, suffering “many blows” (Acts 16:23) for the crime of casting out a demon. But while Paul and Silas were singing praises to God at midnight, “suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were unfastened” (Acts 16:26).

The result was the salvation of the jailer and his household. Amazingly, after a good meal at the jailer’s house (where their wounds were also washed), Paul and Silas returned to the prison. Perhaps they were motivated by love for their new brother in Christ—the jailer—who would have faced dire consequences if Paul and Silas had escaped.

The next morning, when the same city magistrates who had ordered their beating and imprisonment sent orders for their release, Paul resisted, saying, “They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out” (Acts 16:38).

When the magistrates heard of Paul’s resistance, Scripture says they “were afraid when they heard that they were Romans, and they came and appealed to them, and when they had brought them out, they kept begging them to leave the city” (Acts 16:38-39).

So not only did Paul not “turn the other cheek,” giving the magistrates the welcome opportunity to do twice the harm intended, but he made them squirm in public and regret their mistreatment of him. He forced them to humble themselves and to beg that he and Silas depart from their city. So again, Paul did not “turn the other cheek” on either point.

Personally, I don’t believe Paul was being motivated by revenge or retaliation, as that would have been sin, and he certainly knew that. Rather, I believe he was motivated by love, but not what is often passed off as love in some Christian circles, a pseudo-love that always avoids confrontation and accountability under the guise of “mercy.” To acquiesce to evil is to enable it.

Paul sought what was best for the city magistrates. And the best thing for them was not that they would get away with breaking the law by denying Roman citizens their rights. Rather, the best thing for them was that they would be held accountable for their crime and learn a good lesson. That was also the best thing for all the Roman citizens of Philippi.

In any case, Paul indisputably did not “turn the other cheek” and “walk the second mile,” and the only possible reason was because he did not believe that what Jesus said about those things had application to his circumstance.

Jerusalem

Yet another instance of Paul not “turning the other cheek” was when he was detained in Jerusalem and about to be whipped by a Roman soldier. Right before the intended scourging, Paul asked the overseeing Roman centurion, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?” (Acts 22:25).

In this case, Paul certainly did not offer the offender the opportunity to do twice the harm intended. In fact, he succeeded at persuading the potential offender to do him no harm at all. (One wonders if Paul did not also unsuccessfully employ the same strategy before he and Silas were about to be beaten with rods in Philippi.)

And not long after that self-deliverance, Paul found himself on trial before the chief priests and Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. As soon as he was given the opportunity to speak, he declared before them: “Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day” (Acts 23:2).

At that comment, Ananias the high priest commanded those standing beside Paul to strike him on the mouth, as Ananias was apparently already convinced Paul was guilty of “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs” (Acts 21:21). Thus, in his thinking, Paul’s claim to a clear conscience had to have been a lie from a mouth that deserved to be struck.

Paul did not waste a second responding to Ananias, saying, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?” (Acts 23:3). It was a sharp rebuke, a warning, and an expose’ of the utter hypocrisy of Ananias who—while trying Paul for violating the Mosaic Law—publicly violated the Mosaic Law (as the Law prescribed due process; see John 7:51).

Anyone who says that Paul was “turning the other cheek” is only fooling himself. “Turning the other cheek” requires (1) non-retaliation (in any form, including verbal), and (2) giving the offender an opportunity to do twice the harm intended. And to reduce “turning the other cheek” to merely non-retaliation, thus dismissing Jesus’ requirement to give the offender the opportunity to do twice the harm intended, is to ignore 1/2 of a commandment of Christ, not to mention to make a mockery of the very phrases, “turn the other cheek” and “go the extra mile.”

On both of those counts, in this instance before the Sanhedrin, Paul did not “turn the other cheek.” He did seemingly retaliate verbally, and he did not give the high priest an invitation to order him to be struck again. In fact, his words would have had the exact opposite effect on Ananias, discouraging him from commanding Paul to be struck again.

Perhaps, as some claim, Paul “got in the flesh,” and disobeyed Christ’s command to “turn the other cheek.” He was, after all, only human.

Another possibility, however, is that Paul experienced the kind of inspired defense Jesus promised His disciples when they were brought before courts—a display of wisdom that their opponents would not be able to refute (Luke 21:15). Take note that Paul instantly nailed Ananias with words that suddenly put Ananias on trial. Everyone present knew that Paul’s accusation was 100% accurate. (I doubt if many of us, using our own brains, would have come up with a retort as quickly as Paul.)

But what about Paul’s apology? Does that not prove that Paul knew he had reacted “in the flesh”? When bystanders said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?”, Paul replied, “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest, as it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

But are we really to believe that Paul, a former Pharisee himself who previously took orders from the Sanhedrin, didn’t recognize that the man who ordered him to be struck—the man who was wearing the fancy clothes and sitting in the seat of prominence presiding over the proceedings—was the high priest? That seems highly unlikely.

When Paul said, “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest,” it could very well have been a tongue-in-cheek way of saying, “I was not aware that a person who publicly violates the Law while trying someone according to the Law could possibly be God’s high priest.” It was, perhaps, another Holy Spirit-inspired barb. And Paul never did actually apologize, if we are honest with the text. (And when you read how Paul next played the Jewish factions and turned his trial into complete pandemonium, the plausibility that his claim of not recognizing Ananias as the high priest was tongue-in-cheek seems to increase even more.)

Finally, why do we assume that someone is “in the flesh” when they act just like Jesus? Jesus, who only spoke the words that the Father gave him to speak (John 12:49-50; 14:10) sometimes called the scribes and Pharisees very derogatory names, including “whitewashed tombs” (Matt. 23:27). If Jesus had said to Ananias what Paul said to Ananias, we’d have no trouble with it, as it would not have been out of the ordinary for Him. And surely, no one would accuse Jesus of “being in the flesh” when He called people snakes and wolves and dogs. (Come to think of it, it doesn’t seem as if Jesus always “turned the other cheek” either…)

If Paul was, in fact, not reacting in the flesh, but in the Spirit, then why didn’t the Spirit inspire him to “turn the other cheek”? Unless the Holy Spirit works in contradiction to Jesus’ commandments, it could only be because Jesus’ words about turning the other cheek had no application to Paul’s circumstance that day.

The Fifth Time Paul Did Not Turn the Other Cheek

Just one day after Paul’s circus-like trial in Jerusalem, more than 40 Jews formed a conspiracy, binding themselves under an oath to neither eat nor drink until they had killed him. They went to the chief priests, requesting that they notify the Roman commander who was protecting Paul to bring him to them for further investigation, with the intention of ambushing them on their way.

Thankfully, Paul’s nephew somehow learned of the plot, and he gained entrance to the Roman barracks. When he informed Paul of the plot, Paul called a centurion and instructed him to take his nephew to the commander, who subsequently organized a small army of 270 soldiers to safely escort Paul to Caesarea that same night, a journey of 75 miles.

Paul resisted the plot of the Jews. He worked to thwart their plans. That is resistance. And he certainly didn’t “turn the other cheek” or “walk the second mile”! He didn’t give those 40 murderous Jews any opportunity to do twice the harm they intended. And the reason is because Paul knew that Jesus’ words about nonresistance had no application to his situation.

Moreover, he cooperated with the resistance mustered by the Roman commander. He knew full well, as did the Roman commander, that at least 40 oath-bound Jewish men might attack the military escort, and thus soldiers and assailants might die or be wounded. Yet he fully cooperated with a plan he knew could result in violence and bloodshed, all to preserve his own life.

Had Paul adopted the logic of some Christian pacifists, he would have said, “Jesus taught us that we should not resist evildoers. So please escort me tomorrow with just a single unarmed soldier to the Sanhedrin and I will trust God, that if He wants me to live, I will live, and if He wants me to die, I will die. If I die, it is much better than risking the lives of 270 Roman soldiers and 40 Jews who likely don’t know the Lord. Because if I die, I will go to heaven. But if any of them die, they will go to hell…”

On a related note, some Christian pacifists oddly believe it’s OK for non-Christians to serve as police and in the military because they aren’t under the Law of Christ; thus they have no obligation to “not resist evildoers.” Therefore, what is morally wrong for one group of people on earth is not morally wrong for another group. (These same folks often teach that those who become Christians as police or soldiers are obligated to quit their jobs, because what was not previously morally wrong for them has become morally wrong.)

Moreover, because it is OK for non-Christians to serve as police and soldiers, it is OK for Christians to utilize the services of the police or military to resist evildoers for them, just as long as they (the Christians) don’t do any resisting themselves! So Christians can hire others to do what is wrong for them to do!

So you can see the same kind of blinding hypocrisy creeping into the lives of some Christian pacifists that can be similarly observed in the lives of some Orthodox Jews, who won’t flip on a light switch on the Sabbath, but who will hire a Gentile to do it for them! Life as a legalist can get very confusing and complicated.

But I just can’t see Paul being so confused, or him ever believing that what is morally wrong for one group is morally OK for another group. If his military entourage was attacked on the way to Caesarea, and Paul found himself standing among 270 dead Romans and 39 dead Jews, I can’t imagine him saying to the final Jew coming towards him with a sword, “Although I’ve just witnessed with a clear conscience 309 people fight to the death over me, and although I sure hoped that the Romans would repel the Jews at any cost, it would go against my personal convictions to resist you!”

Violence is Always the Last Resort of Love

I’ve asked Christian pacifists to explain why God allegedly raised His moral requirements, particularly in regard to nonresistance, from old to new covenants, and none have ever been able to provide an answer. God always does, of course, have reasons for His commandments, and His commandments are always a reflection of His own unchanging moral nature.

“ God’s commandments are always a reflection of His own unchanging moral nature. —DAVID SERVANT

Scripture tells us, for example (in the Old Testament, incidentally): “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Prov. 15:1). Although not a direct commandment, no one would argue that the wisdom being promoted in that proverb should not be practiced. It would be quite safe to say that God prefers that we answer gently rather than harshly. And why? Simply because He loves us, and He wants us to live in harmony with each other. When we answer an opponent gently rather than harshly, we are more apt to win him, whereas a harsh answer can cement an opponent’s hatred.

And this is the reason the New Testament teaches turning the other cheek, going the second mile, and giving also one’s coat. This is the reason the Old Testament teaches feeding your hungry enemy, giving a drink to your thirsty enemy, and assisting your enemy when his donkey has collapsed under its load. Mercy-shaming is a time-honored biblical technique to promote harmonious relationships and turn enemies into friends.

“ Mercy-shaming is a time-honored biblical technique to promote harmonious relationships and turn enemies into friends. —DAVID SERVANT

If mercy-shaming doesn’t work to mend a relationship, then there are other gentle techniques in our arsenal of love. For example, Jesus affirmed private confrontation. If that doesn’t work, then semi-private confrontation. After that, semi-public confrontation, with each step increasing the degree of persuasion, and all with the clear goal of reconciliation (Matt. 18:15-17). And even if someone sins against us 490 times, if they repent, we should forgive them every time, even as we are tempted to doubt their sincerity (Matt. 18:22).

All of these means of interaction reflect God’s desire for human beings to live harmoniously, which is, of course, best for us.

Sadly, however, there can come a time when love doesn’t win. And when that occurs, Jesus said we can, with a clear conscience, give up trying.

There is a time when we can treat those who can’t be won “as Gentiles and tax-collectors” (Matt. 18:17). There is a time to not “give what is holy to dogs” and not “cast your pearls before the swine,” because if you do, they “they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matt. 7:6). Those are all Jesus’ words.

There is a time to “shake the dust off your feet” (Mark 6:11) and “leave the dead to bury the dead” (Luke 9:60). There is a time when God says, “Don’t pray for those people anymore” (Jer. 7:16, 11:14, 14:11; I John 5:16), or when sin has become unpardonable (Matt. 12:31). There is a time when the Person who is Perfect Love, who has turned His other cheek a million times, descends in wrath.

And so you can understand at least one reason why, in none of the five cases that we looked at in the ministry of Paul, did he “turn the other cheek” and “go the extra mile.” There was, for example, no hope of winning over the Jews who were waiting at the gates of Damascus to murder him. Yet Paul still took the best path of love. He secretly fled. He saved the Jews from having his blood on their hands. He saved himself from being killed so that he could fulfill his ministry (a ministry that is still benefitting people today). He didn’t organize a militia to fight his enemies.

The same was true when 40 Jews in Jerusalem bound themselves under an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed him. There was no possibility that mercy-shaming, turning the other cheek, or private confrontation would bring about reconciliation.

So what does love do in such a situation? Paul could have requested the Roman commander to set a trap to annihilate those 40 murderous Jews. But rather, he demonstrated love for his enemies, and he cooperated with the commander who helped him escape without any violence.

However, no one can rightly say that violence was not a possible outcome, and Paul was obviously willing to face that outcome should there have been no other alternative.

Again, for God’s people, violence should always be the last resort. But tragically, sometimes we come to the last resort. And in order to protect the innocent (and to obey the second greatest commandment) violence towards evildoers is the only option. No less than John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church and Sermon-on-the-Mount lover, believed this, stating that one has the right to kill one’s enemy “in the case of absolute necessity for self-defense.”

When someone is in the act of attempting to abduct your child or rape your wife, for example, Jesus’ words about nonresistance, mercy-shaming, private confrontation and so on have no application. Neither does the proverb about a soft answer turning away wrath. The only option is the threat of physical violence or violence itself, either by police (if they are near enough), or yourself. All motivated by love.

And the motive of the evildoer makes no difference. I don’t need to first ask a rapist if he wants to rape my wife because she is a Christian to determine if I should defend her!

And when some point to ancient or modern Christians who didn’t resist murderous mobs, take note that non-Christians offer the same kind of nonresistance when they are unarmed and realize that any resistance would be utterly futile.

May I also add that acts of self-preservation don’t have to be selfish. I can protect myself from death because I know my wife and children need me and I love them.

In the case when Paul was on trial before the Sanhedrin, he surely recognized that he was in the presence of evil, hypocritical, religious leaders who were bent on his death. There was no hope of reconciliation. There was no hope that gentle words, mercy-shaming, turning the other cheek, or private confrontation would turn them around. There was only a slim hope that a quick, cutting rebuke, inspired and anointed by the Holy Spirit, that publicly exposed their hypocrisy, might help them see themselves as God saw them. And so God gave it a try (through Paul). Sadly, it had no effect.

Passivity has its place, but not in every place. Paul knew that. In fact, he once corrected the Corinthians for being overly-passive: “For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, anyone devours you, anyone takes advantage of you, anyone exalts himself, anyone hits you in the face” (2 Cor. 11:20).

In Conclusion

As I’ve said a million times it seems: The source of all erroneous doctrine is the disregard of context. Nothing is more dangerous than a zealot with one Bible verse. For example, I’ve seen photos of Christians standing in public places, holding signs that say things like, “Jesus said ‘Love your enemies’…even ISIS.” They are trying to persuade us that our country should not be bombing terrorists, but rather, we should be “loving” terrorists. They read a verse in the Bible and think they found something that all the rest of us lesser Christians are willfully ignoring!

Remember, the Bible isn’t just one verse! — David

“ The source of all erroneous doctrine is the disregard of context. —DAVID SERVANT

The post Five Times Paul Did Not “Turn the Other Cheek” appeared first on David Servant.

Image courtesy of Journeys with the Messiah Collection, https://journeyswiththemessiah.org.

I knew last month’s e-teaching would be controversial, because many good folks who love Jesus hold different views on the subject of nonresistance, war, and Christian participation in the military. Not everyone agreed with my teaching. (Surprise!) I received comments on both sides of the issue, and some that were in the middle. In light of those comments, I decided to write a follow-up, but first wanted to get some additional feedback. So I posed the following questions on my Facebook page, requesting response from pacifist friends:

Three questions for my pacifist friends: The original apostles are all at a church gathering along with their wives and children. A lone gunman enters and begins shooting everyone, starting with the children. What is (1) the application of Jesus’ commandment to “not resist an evil person,” (2) the application of His commandment to give the offender an opportunity to do twice the harm intended (as that IS what Jesus commanded….”turn the other cheek, go the second mile, give him your coat”), and (3) the application of His commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself?

I used the original apostles in my example because I knew everyone would see them as key people in God’s plan to redeem the world and, as such, it would have been tragic if all their ministries were cut short.

I also used the original apostles because all Christians consider them to be devoted followers of Christ who would surely do what Jesus would want them to do in such a circumstance—and, having lived with Him for three years, would likely have understood Jesus’ teaching better than any who followed.

I used a lone gunman in my hypothetical situation so readers would realize that he could potentially be overcome fairly easily by 11 or 12 men, not to mention their brave wives and older children.

My scenario had the gunman start shooting children to elicit some anger and sympathy from readers, and to allow the adults in my example more time to overcome the killer.

And then, of course, I posed my three questions regarding how the apostles would have applied three of Jesus’ very clear commandments.

I knew those commandments, however, would create an obvious tension for both pacifists and non-pacifists, as it does not appear that all three can be simultaneously obeyed in such a scenario. If one does not resist the gunman, how can it be said that he loves the potential victims? If one tries to stop the gunman, how can it be said that he did not resist an evil person? Moreover, how can (and why would) one possibly give the gunman an opportunity to do twice the harm intended?

The obvious truth is that those three commandments, as they are often interpreted, cannot be harmonized. And since God’s commandments can never contradict one another, there remains only one possibility: there must be something wrong with our interpretation of at least one of those commandments.

“ God’s commandments can never contradict one another. —DAVID SERVANT

The varied responses I received—all from sincere followers of Jesus—helped me to write what follows.

How should we respond to evildoers? I hope to answer that question in light of all three of those commandments. You can be the judge of my success or failure. (But please read all of what follows before you render judgment!)

A Look at Commandment #2

I was not surprised that just about everyone who responded to my questions ignored the #2 commandment I listed (Give the offender opportunity to do twice the harm intended by turning the other cheek, giving also your coat, going the second mile.) I’m sure they had reasons, but please allow me to focus first on that commandment, erasing any doubt of its meaning and essential relevance.

First, it is important to see that Jesus’ instructions regarding nonresistance fit into the larger theme of loving one’s enemies, something that was, as I showed in last month’s e-teaching, an old covenant ethic found in the Mosaic Law (Ex. 23:4-5; Prov. 25:21-22). God does not only expect us to passively not hate our enemies. He expects us to love them, actively. We should, according to Jesus, do good to those who hate us, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who revile us (Luke 6:27-28). All those things require action, not passivity.

Second, it is important to acknowledge that the three actions Jesus prescribes for non-resisters (turn the other cheek, give also your coat, go the second mile) do not only mean “Don’t retaliate.” Of course, they include the idea of non-retaliation. But they mean more. They convey an active returning of good for evil. They go beyond simply “not resisting.” They require action.

And third, it is also important to see that the #2 commandment (in my list of three commandments) is actually part of the #1 commandment. Or, to say it another way, commandments #1 and #2 on my list are actually two requirements found in one single commandment. Let’s read it:

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for any eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, [here comes the first requirement of the commandment] do not resist an evil person; but [here comes the second requirement of the commandment] whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two (Matt. 5:38-41).

Generally paraphrased, Jesus said, “Don’t do A, but rather, do B.” Again, it is one commandment that includes two requirements: (1) Don’t resist an evil person, but rather (2), give him an opportunity to do twice the harm intended (turn the other cheek) or help him do twice the harm intended (give also your coat; go the second mile). Stated more simply, that single commandment could be paraphrased, “Don’t resist! Rather, assist!”

One who obeys the first requirement but disobeys the second requirement does not obey the single commandment. It is akin to Jesus’ commandment to not lay up treasures on earth, but in heaven. Both requirements are integral to a single commandment. Again, “Don’t do A, but rather, do B.” (In fact, in that case, not doing A necessitates doing B, and vice versa.)

I have quite often heard Christian pacifists make the claim, “Jesus said, ‘Do not resist an evil person,'” but in light of what we’ve just read, that really isn’t true. They’ve truncated the commandment. Jesus actually said, “Do not resist an evil person, but rather, assist him.” Pacifists, however, must truncate that single commandment, because they naturally know that, when the evil intended by an evil person is greater than what Jesus illustrated in Matthew 5:38-41, it would be evil to assist such evil.

When Christian pacifists awkwardly admit that, out of “obedience to Christ,” they would do nothing to stop a rapist or murderer from raping or murdering their wife, I’ve asked them, “And once you’ve watched your wife be raped or murdered, would you then say to the rapist or murderer, “Please, let me also now give you my daughter to rape (or murder), because Jesus said I should give you the opportunity to do twice the harm you intended”? I don’t think I’ve ever received an answer to that question. But if Christian pacifists were consistent in how they interpret Jesus’ words about nonresistance, they would have to admit to our horror that they would, in fact, offer a daughter in such a circumstance.

When pressed on this point, some Christian pacifists redefine the phrases “turn the other cheek…give also your coat…go the extra mile” as if they were synonymous with the phrase “Do not resist an evildoer.” But words do have meanings. And Jesus did not use those phrases synonymously with “Do not resist an evil person.” Rather, He used those phrases to communicate a contrast. Again, don’t do A, but rather, do B. Thus, A and B cannot be the same thing. We should not ignore or pervert Jesus’ words as His followers.

Now, please keep all of this in mind as we continue, because this is the key to reconciling Jesus’ three commandments that appear contradictory.

The Non-Pacifist Pacifists

I also found it interesting that some of my Facebook friends who identified as pacifists said that if they found themselves in a church gathering where a gunman entered and began shooting children, they would do something. Some said they would rush the gunman and try to wrestle the gun from him without harming him, or they would call the police, or command the gunman to cease, or fervently pray.

Although I was encouraged by their intended acts of love for the potential victims (obedience to commandment #3), I pointed out to them that they would be disobeying both commandments #1 and #2.

Rushing the gunman and trying to wrestle the gun from him, or calling the police and so on, would be acts of resistance. All would be attempts to thwart the harm intended by the gunman. That is resistance. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling himself.

Additionally, all such attempts to thwart the harm intended by the gunman would be a transgression of commandment #2, as they would not assist the gunman in any way to do twice the harm intended. Rather, such attempts would be the exact opposite of giving the gunman the opportunity to do twice the harm intended.

Again, commandments #1 and #2 are a single commandment as found in Matthew 5:38-41. The #2 commandment only elaborates on the #1 commandment, revealing the degree to which Jesus does not want His disciples to resist evildoers. Jesus commanded zero resistance, to the degree that His disciples should do the opposite of resist, that is, they should assist. There is no room in Jesus’ commandment for any degree of resistance.

All of this is to say that, it became clear to me that some of my Facebook friends who consider themselves to be pacifists are not actually pacifists. They intuitively knew that love (commandment #3) demands some action to attempt to stop the murderer, but they had fooled themselves into thinking they would be obeying commandment #1 (Don’t resist!) as long as they didn’t physically harm the gunman. They also, like the true pacifists, ignored any application of commandment #2 (Assist!)

Interestingly, none of my Facebook friends said they would attempt to flee if they found themselves in such a circumstance. (Maybe no one wanted to be thought of as a coward?) Fleeing, of course, would seem to be an act of obedience to commandment #1 (Don’t resist), but it would surely be an act of disobedience to commandments #2 and #3 (assist the evildoer and love your neighbor).

Also interestingly, I noticed that the true pacifists (who would do absolutely nothing to resist the gunman) did not answer my questions by telling me what they would do. Rather, they told me what the apostles would do. Whereas everyone else told me what they would do. I sensed that the true pacifists were very uncomfortable admitting that they would do nothing as children were being murdered in front of them, even when they could likely put a stop to it, or at least make an attempt.

And one other observation that I found interesting: Only one person pointed out that attempting to stop the murderer would be an act of love towards him, curbing his sin.

The Non-Pacifists

Although I requested responses on my Facebook post from my Christian pacifist friends, many non-pacifists weighed in as well. All said that they would rush the gunman or attempt to stop him in some way. All knew that they would be risking their lives and might be killed, but at least one reminded me that “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (a verse I’m thinking must have been omitted from the Pacifist Bible). However, none of my non-pacifist friends explained how they would avoid disobeying commandments #1 and #2.

By this time, I hope, you’ve figured out the answer to my original question about obeying all three of Jesus’ commandments. In case you haven’t, let me tell you. The answer is found in plain sight in Jesus’ own words in Matthew 5:38-41.

But first, a little refresher in Bible interpretation: The most important rule in interpreting the Bible (or any book, or anyone’s spoken words) is to consider the context. For example, in the King James Version, Matthew 5:31 reads: “But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil.” If we isolated those words from their context, we could conclude that Jesus does not want us to resist any evil, and thus, He does not want us to resist temptation, sin, or the devil!

“ The most important rule in interpreting the Bible is to consider the context. —DAVID SERVANT

When we continue reading, however, gaining some context, we read: “but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” So now we learn that Jesus is talking about not resisting evil people, not evil in general. Ah, now we’re getting some insight from the helpful context! (The NASB translates Matt. 5:39: “Do not resist an evil person.”)

But what kind of evil people was Jesus speaking about? Murderers? Rapists? Thieves who break into our homes? Child abductors? Invading armies? Gang members? Perhaps if we keep reading, the context will tell us.

And behold, it does! The kind of evil people Jesus was speaking about are, first of all, people who harm you, not people who harm others. Jesus said, “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek…if anyone wants to sue you… whoever forces you to go one mile.” You, you, you.

So Jesus’ words about nonresistance do not preclude defending others. Hooray! That agrees perfectly with the rest of the Bible (that Jesus inspired)!

Deliver those who are being taken away to death, and those who are staggering to slaughter, oh hold them back (Prov. 24:11)

Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them out of the hand of the wicked (Psa. 82:4)

Moreover, the kind of evil people Jesus was speaking about are people who commit relatively minor offenses against you, like slapping you on the cheek and forcing you to carry their gear for a mile. Those minor offenses they commit against you are such that (please read slowly), if you personally assist them to do twice the harm they intended—as Jesus commanded—you do not commit any evil yourself.

In light of those facts, Jesus’ words about nonresistance and turning the other cheek obviously have no application to the imaginary scenario I described in my Facebook post, otherwise we’d have to conclude that Jesus would want us to help the murderer kill even more people than he intended. While the killer was shooting with the obvious intention of ultimately killing everyone, and while I was still alive, I would be allegedly expected by Jesus to slip outside and corral a group of outsiders into the church so that the murderer could kill twice as many people. That, of course, would be very evil.

In contrast, when one responds to a personal, relatively minor offense by “turning the other cheek,” “giving also his coat,” and “going the extra mile,” one commits no evil, even as he assists the evildoer in doing twice the harm intended. The idea is to shame the evildoer through mercy, to “overcome evil with good,” and thus turn an enemy into a friend. In such cases, the non-resister makes a decision to personally suffer a little; he is not making a decision that causes others to suffer greatly or die.

So we see that the deathblow to Christian pacifism is found right within Jesus’ very words about nonresistance, words that Christian pacifists must ignore or pervert. Just as it would be a grave error to read Jesus’ words, “Resist not evil” (as they are recorded in the King James Version) apart from the context that follows—revealing that Jesus was referring to evil people and not to evil in general—so it is also a grave error to read Jesus’ words, “Do not resist an evil person” apart from the context that follows—revealing precisely what kinds of offenses and evil people Jesus had in mind.

And the correct answer to the three questions that I posted on Facebook? Commandments #1 and #2 are completely irrelevant in the scenario I created. They have no application whatsoever because the evildoer was not a “cheek-slapping evildoer,” nor was the offense that was about to be committed singularly personal. And contrary to Christians pacifists’ idea that rushing the gunman would be a sin, the truth is, not rushing at him, if one has a chance of success at stopping him, could be considered a sin.

And this is why everyone—including Jesus, who said “no greater love has any man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends”—considers people who risk their lives to stop evildoers to be heroes and great lovers of their neighbors. Meanwhile, Christian pacifists unwittingly denigrate such folks, certain that they (Christian pacifists) are much more devoted to Christ.

All of this is to say that Jesus’ words regarding nonresistance do not preclude Christians from rescuing others from harm (loving them!) or from resisting evildoers whose offenses are significantly more evil than the cheek-slapping offenses Jesus described. And neither do His words preclude Christians from serving honorably and morally in the military or as police.

The Earliest Church Father Weighs In

All of this is why church father Clement, a bishop in Rome at the close of the 1^st century and the earliest of the early church writers—one who likely enjoyed some direct or indirect influence by at least a few of the original apostles—could write an entire book on the theme of love and unity, repeatedly admonishing his readers to humility and submissiveness, but also include praise for a person who carried out a military assassination of an evildoer.

That person’s name was Judith, and she is the central figure in the Book of Judith that we find in every Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible, in the Protestant Apocrypha, and in the Septuagint. Within the context of Clement’s lengthy letters to the Corinthians, he cites some inspiring examples of great lovers from the past, and then he focuses on one of them, Judith:

We know that many among ourselves have delivered themselves to bondage, that they might ransom others. Many have sold themselves to slavery, and receiving the price paid for themselves have fed others. Many women being strengthened through the grace of God have performed many manly deeds.

The blessed Judith, when the city was beleaguered, asked of the elders that she might be suffered to go forth into the camp of the aliens. So she exposed herself to peril and went forth for love of her country and of her people which were beleaguered; and the Lord delivered Holophernes into the hand of a woman (1 Clement 55:2-5).

All of Clement’s contemporary readers knew Judith’s story in much more detail. Judith unselfishly risked her life on behalf of her countrymen whom she loved, going out of her besieged city to win the trust of the enemy Assyrian general, Holophemes, whom she personally decapitated while he was drunk. She then took his head back to her fearful countrymen; and the Assyrians, having lost their leader, dispersed. Israel was saved.

Church father Clement, who so lauded Judith, added no apology or disclaimer to remind his readers that, had she done the same act under the new covenant, she would have been sinning for her resistance. And one reason is simply because Holophemes was no cheek-slapping evildoer.

The reason I included this bit of information from the earliest church father is because my pacifist friends are apt to produce quotes from various church fathers that, quite understandably, express disapproval of Christian involvement with the military that would require that they sin.

More Context

Within the greater context of the entire Bible, the view I’m advocating finds perfect harmony as well. I suppose a small book could be written on the subject. But, as one example of harmonious biblical context, note that the same Jesus who spoke about not personally resisting cheek-slapping people in the Sermon on the Mount said through His prophet Moses more than a thousand years earlier:

If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account (Ex. 22:2).

The person who struck the thief who was breaking into his house [obviously, resisting an evildoer, but not a cheek-slapping one] has not committed murder and is guilty of no sin. Rather, he has protected his family as an act of love. That is what Jesus said in the Mosaic Law.

Take note that we have just considered, from the Mosaic Law, some more biblical context. During His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus spoke His words about nonresistance to people who were under the Law of Moses. Had Jesus contradicted the Law, it would have proved to His audience that He was not the Messiah and was not God. It would have also proved Him to be a liar, as just minutes before He spoke His words about nonresistance, He explicitly declared that He had not come to abolish the Law or Prophets (Matt. 5:17).

If anyone had asked Jesus right after He spoke His words about not personally resisting cheek-slapping evildoers, “Jesus, what about resisting thieves who are breaking into our houses?”, Jesus would have said something like, “I, of course, agree 100% with the Mosaic Law on that topic. I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.”

Even More Context

It is also important to note that Jesus’ words about nonresistance in His Sermon on the Mount were a counterpoint to something His audience had previously heard. Let’s look at the context:

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” 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 (Matt. 5:38-39).

By His counterpoint, Jesus could not have been contradicting or correcting the Mosaic Law, of which He was the divine author. Moreover, as the Mosaic Law’s author, Jesus was well aware that the “eye for an eye” passages were addressed to court judges who were required to mete out commensurate justice to lawbreakers. He also knew that the Law forbade personal revenge (which is one reason God established a court system in the Mosaic Law). That being so, Jesus could not have meant, “You know that, under the Law of Moses, God wanted you to always take commensurate personal revenge by getting ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but starting today, obeying that commandment will be a sin.”

Considering His counterpoint in which He prescribes “personal nonresistance and assistance,” it is only safe to conclude that Jesus was correcting false teaching of the scribes and Pharisees (as He so often did throughout the Sermon on the Mount). They apparently had perverted God’s instructions given to Israel’s judges about “an eye for an eye,” and in so doing gave all Israelites a license to take personal revenge whenever they suffered some small offense, something forbidden under the Mosaic Law.

What About Persecution?

Should our reaction to evildoers depend on the motives of the evildoers? Do the rules regarding nonresistance change if we are being persecuted for our faith rather than being harmed for some other reason?

Those are questions I’ll try to tackle in next month’s e-teaching. It should be interesting, as we’ll look at least five instances when Paul did not “turn the other cheek” when facing persecution. — David

The post Don’t Resist! Assist! (The Truncated Commandment) appeared first on David Servant.

I’ve hesitated for some time to write about a Christian viewpoint of military service, war and pacifism, due to the fact that the subject is so controversial. God-seeking Christians don’t all agree on the issue. I decided, however, that this might be a good time to broach the subject since, after my previous two e-teachings, I succeeded in persuading some readers to see the contextual errors of the Anabaptist interpretation of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.

Christian pacifists are apt to cite Jesus’ words about loving our neighbors and enemies—both found in His most famous sermon—to support their convictions against military service and war. “How can one claim to love his neighbor or enemy and shoot bullets at him on a battlefield?” they ask. That straightforward reasoning has convinced many Christians that the military is no place for followers of Christ. Some groups and denominations even go so far as to teach that no one in military service can possibly be an authentic Christian because he so blatantly disregards Jesus’ most fundamental teaching.

So let’s begin by considering, within the context of all Scripture, the two commandments upon which Christian pacifism rests.

1.) Love Your Neighbor as Yourself

Most Christians know that this very familiar commandment is first found in the Law of Moses (Lev. 19:18). Yet they may not realize that no ancient Israelite, obligated to obey the Mosaic Law, would ever have thought that the commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself was an all-encompassing prohibition against engaging in warfare. The reason is simply because God told the Israelites to annihilate, via war, certain very perverse groups of people, and to defend themselves at times through warfare.

This indicates that God did not consider those perverse groups and invading armies to be Israel’s “neighbors,” otherwise He would have contradicted Himself in telling them to (1) love their neighbors and (2) annihilate certain perverse groups and defend themselves through warfare. (Killing people is generally not considered to be an act of loving them.)

That being so, all Israelites knew that God’s commandment to love one’s neighbor was not a commandment to love everyone. If God wanted them to love everyone, He would have said something like, “Love everyone.” But He specified that they were to love their neighbors, a word that does have meaning.

This delineation becomes even more clear when we read God’s repeated instructions to Israel regarding how they should treat “strangers” and “aliens” who sojourned among them, who thus became their neighbors (see, for example, Ex. 22:21; 23:9; Lev. 19:10, 33-34; 23:22; 25:35; Deut. 10:17-19; 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:14, 17, 19-21; 26:11-13; 27:19; Jer. 7:5-7; 22:3; Ezek. 22:29; Zech. 7:10; Mal. 3:5). Even if such folks were originally from faraway places, now they were living in Israel’s midst, and they should be loved just as much as any other neighbors. Leviticus 19:34 makes this quite clear:

The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God (Lev. 19:34).

Note that God used the identical language in setting the standard for loving a resident stranger as He did for loving a neighbor, namely, “you shall love him as yourself.” Obviously, God considered resident strangers to be in the category of “neighbors.” His commandment to love resident strangers could be considered a sub-commandment of the commandment to love one’s neighbors.

By loving foreigners in their midst, the Israelites would be imitating God:

For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God…. He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing. So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt (Deut. 10:17-19).

Jesus Defines Who is One’s Neighbor

You may recall that the definition of the word “neighbor” once was a topic of discussion between Jesus and a lawyer, that is, a man who spent most of his time studying and teaching the Mosaic Law. He asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” Luke reveals to us that the motive behind the man’s question was “to justify himself” (Luke 10:29). He apparently had adopted a rather narrow definition of the word “neighbor” that allowed him some bigotry.

So Jesus told him a story that illustrated that one’s neighbors are not limited to one’s next-door neighbors, circle of friends, or ethnic group. My neighbors are those with whom I come in contact in daily life, regardless of who they are or where I am. As I’m writing these words, I happen to be flying to Denver, and I just had a nice chat with one of my neighbors on this plane, my seatmate. When I land at the Denver airport, I’ll have a brand-new set of neighbors whom God expects me to treat as I want to be treated.

Let’s look a little more closely at Jesus’ story of the Good Samaritan.

Scripture tells us that in Jesus’ time, “Jews had no dealings with Samaritans” (John 4:9). Jews would go miles out of their way to avoid traveling through Samaria, which was sandwiched right between Jewish Galilee and Judea. Jesus, however, never circumvented the Samaritan region. Samaria was where He healed ten lepers, and where He revealed Himself as Messiah to a Samaritan woman who had been married and divorced five times.

Tragically, after spending every day with Jesus for more than three years and witnessing Him periodically love His Samaritan neighbors, James and John once asked Him if He wanted them to “command fire to come down from heaven and consume” an entire Samaritan village that refused them lodging (Luke 9:51-56). That gives you some idea how much average Jews loved their Samaritan neighbors, and also offers some indication of how well Jesus’ sermons were sinking in to the hearts of His closest disciples.

Clearly, the story Jesus told to illustrate who one’s neighbor is was not a story about a Jew who loved his neighbor as himself. Rather, it was a story about two Jewish leaders who did not love their neighbor at all. (Apparently the assaulted man did not fit their narrow definition of “neighbor,” thus enabling them to justify their lack of compassion.) The hero in the story was a non-Jewish Samaritan whose God-given conscience told him that nearby Jews were neighbors to be loved! And at the close of His story, Jesus told the lawyer who originally questioned Him to imitate a man whom he would likely never have considered to be a neighbor.

In any case, it is important for us to see that Jesus, being God, always spoke and acted in a manner consistent with the God who is revealed in the pages of the Old Testament. Jesus was well aware of the fact that God (that is, Himself) had commanded the Israelites to love their neighbor as themselves and had also commissioned (and even empowered) Israelite armies to go into battle. And thus Jesus, just like God as He has revealed Himself in the Old Testament, did not believe that the commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself was a commandment that (1) required Israelites to love everyone, or that (2) precluded them from any military service.

If anyone had ever asked Jesus, “Does the commandment to love my neighbor as myself mean I can never participate in military service?” Jesus would have answered, “No.” Had He answered “yes,” it would have proven that He was not the Messiah or God, as such an answer would have been an undeniable contradiction of what is revealed in the Old Testament.

There is, of course, no logical or biblical basis to make the claim that, under the new covenant, the identical commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself has been radically altered to now preclude all military service or warfare. The commandment hasn’t changed. In fact, when warfare exists to fight evil or rescue or defend the innocent, it can be an expression of love for one’s neighbor and thus an act of obedience to the second greatest commandment.

Think about it: What if the priest, Levite and Samaritan in Jesus’ story had arrived during the actual assault of the man on the road to Jericho? Would Jesus then have commended the priest and Levite for righteous passivity by their ignoring the plight of their fellow Jew? Would He who said, “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13), have condemned the Samaritan for using force to defend a man who was being brutally beaten? I think the answers to those questions are obvious.

So please remember: Goliath was not a neighbor whom God expected any Israelite to love. And David, who was commissioned and empowered by God to kill Goliath, was rightly considered a brave hero, and as one who demonstrated his love for his neighbors by eliminating their great enemy. (Yet Christian pacifists would have to consider David a sinner if he had killed Goliath under the new covenant, and consider God to be an accomplice to David’s sin.)

2.) Love Your Enemies

We all know that Jesus not only taught His followers to love their neighbors, but also to love their enemies, another commandment that is employed by Christian pacifists to support their convictions. But does one of those commandments forbid what the other permits? I’ve just proved that the commandment to love one’s neighbors does not preclude all military service. So does the commandment to love one’s enemies preclude all military service? If it does, then God is forbidding by one commandment what He allows by another, contradicting Himself.

In my previous two e-teachings, I did my best to show that Jesus did not, as is often claimed, upgrade the moral standards of the Mosaic Law through His six “You have heard…but I say” statements. Rather, He only corrected the false teaching of the scribes and Pharisees—who twisted the Mosaic Law to accommodate their own evil and selfishness—and He endorsed moral standards that any sincere student could easily derive from reading the Mosaic Law or from listening to his God-given conscience. (If you did not read those two e-teachings, I suggest that you do, especially if you are persuaded that in His Sermon on the Mount Jesus upgraded the standards found in the Mosaic Law.)

As I showed in one of those two teachings, it is simply not true that Jesus, in His Sermon on the Mount, introduced for the first time the concept of loving one’s enemies. God indisputably expected the people of Israel to love their enemies, as revealed in the Law of Moses:

If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey wandering away, you shall surely return it to him. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying helpless under its load, you shall refrain from leaving it to him, you shall surely release it with him (Ex. 23:4-5).

As I mentioned in a previous teaching, sincere Israelites would have acknowledged that Exodus 23:4-5 had a greater application than to just the wandering oxen and overloaded donkeys of their enemies. It was a commandment to express love—in any practical way one could—towards one’s enemies.

Notice, however, the commandment had no application regarding the treatment of invading armies, and no intelligent Israelite would have ever thought that it did in light of all God’s revelation regarding warfare. The kind of enemy God was speaking about in this passage was a neighbor. He lived close enough that one might discover his ox wandering away or his donkey struggling with its load.

Remember, these same Israelites whom God instructed to show undeserved kindness to their enemies by returning their wandering animals God also instructed to go to war against certain nations. Those two instructions can’t be contradictory. So they must have different applications. Thus no intelligent Israelite ever interpreted Exodus 23:4-5 to have any application to how he should treat soldiers of invading armies or certain enemies whom God instructed Israel to annihilate. Sensible Israelites realized that Exodus 23:4-5 was just a sub-commandment of the commandment to love their neighbors, and in this case, neighbors who had made themselves into personal enemies.

Another Old Testament Instruction to Love One’s Enemies

This same ethic of loving one’s enemies was expressed in the book of Proverbs hundreds of years prior to Jesus’ incarnation:

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;
For you will heap burning coals on his head,
And the Lord will reward you (Prov. 25:21-22).

Like the previous instruction to love one’s enemies that we read in Exodus 23:4-5, this instruction had no application to military action or warfare, otherwise it blatantly contradicted other military instructions God gave Israel. It only applied to one’s neighbor who has made himself a personal enemy. God expected Israelites to mercy-shame such enemies. This passage in Proverbs again proves that loving one’s enemies was an old covenant ethic, not a new ethic that Jesus introduced in the Sermon on the Mount.

Moreover, according to Jesus Himself, even before God taught the people of Israel through the Law of Moses or Book of Proverbs about loving their enemies, He had, through His own daily example, been teaching every human since Adam to love their enemies:

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matt. 5:43-45, emphasis added).

This passage in the Sermon on the Mount is certainly the deathblow to the theory that Jesus introduced, for the very first time, the novel idea of loving one’s enemies. Jesus believed loving one’s enemies was a concept introduced by God to every human who has ever experienced a sunrise or rain shower.

And for that reason (among others), there is absolutely no possibility that Jesus was accurately quoting something found in the Mosaic Law when He said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'” If such a concept had been taught in the Mosaic Law, every God-made sunrise and rain shower contradicted it. This is just one more reason we can be certain Jesus was quoting the twisted teaching of the scribes and Pharisees. And He was not instituting a new moral standard, but was simply endorsing an old moral standard that pre-dated even the Mosaic Law.

The Only Sensible Conclusion

Because the old covenant standards to love one’s neighbors and enemies had no application to military service or warfare (as I have shown), we can not only be sure that Jesus knew that, but that His endorsements of those two standards also have no application to military service or warfare. How absurd it is, for example, to interpret Jesus’ words about not resisting evil people as if they had any application to military service and warfare. Jesus could not have made the application of those words clearer by the three examples He offered: turning the other cheek when one is slapped, giving one’s shirt to someone who sues you for your coat, and going a second mile with a soldier who forces you to carry his load for a mile, all minor offenses that occur in relationships with neighbors.

Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount audience was not an army regiment. He was speaking to regular folks from Galilee. And the three examples He shared with them about not resisting evil people were not battlefield examples, but rather examples of minor, personal offenses that might occur in everyday life.

Put another way, take note that Jesus did not say, “If someone wants to shoot an arrow at you, stand out in the open, and don’t move, in order to give him the best chance of killing you; or, if someone wants to break into your home and rape your wife, also offer him your daughter; or, if someone wants to invade your country, take all your possessions, depose your government, and march you—with your family and neighbors—away into captivity as slaves, do not resist.

Also take note that, in His instructions about nonresistance, Jesus did not tell His followers only to not resist, but to give their offenders the opportunity to do twice the harm they intended. And this is a fact that Anabaptists and their theological counterparts simply ignore when they promote their unbalanced anti-military doctrines. They never explain how, if they found themselves to be targets in warfare, they would give their enemies the opportunity to do double the harm they intended, “in obedience to Christ’s command.” The reason they don’t explain it is because they can’t explain it, which is one more proof that Jesus’ commandment to “turn the other cheek” has no application to battlefield ethics.

I once had a conversation with two Hindu men who told me that I should not be eating meat because, they said, “Your own Bible teaches, ‘Thou shalt not kill.'” Although they were correct that my Bible said, “Thou shalt not kill,” I was smart enough to realize, from reading the rest of the Bible, that the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” had no application to the killing of animals. Similarly, I know from reading the entire Bible that the commandments, “Love your neighbor” and “Love your enemies” have no application to fighting evil on a battlefield.

What is also interesting about some Anabaptists is that, while they claim that they would show thieves, murderers and enemy soldiers Christ’s love by never resisting them, they are quite easily offended by those, like myself, who don’t agree with their interpretation of Scripture. They demonstrate an unwillingness to “turn the other cheek” at even the slightest doctrinal offense! (I’ve been “unfriended” a few times by such folks.) I can’t help but think that they are fooling themselves as they imagine how they would never resist much more significant offenses.

The New Testament Context

If we search the New Testament for scriptures that forbid Christians from serving in the military, we find none. John the Baptist, when directly asked by soldiers what they should do to demonstrate true repentance in response to his preaching, told them not to take money from anyone by force, not to accuse anyone falsely, and to be content with their wages. He did not tell them to de-enlist or desert.

Of course, some will argue that John the Baptist was ministering under the old covenant, when warfare was acceptable to God. This only exposes the greatest challenge facing Christian pacifists, which is explaining how a morally-perfect God who never changes can suddenly abhor and forbid what He historically repeatedly commissioned and directed.

There is no biblical record of Jesus forbidding anyone from serving in the military, even though He had interaction with military men. Remember that Jesus once healed a Roman centurion’s servant who was near death. Not only did Jesus not require any adjustment in the centurion’s career, He commended him for his extraordinary faith and marked him as a Gentile who would inherit God’s future kingdom (Matt. 8:4-13).

Christian pacifists often point out the fact that Jesus never personally carried a sword or engaged in warfare during His earthly life. But such an argument is as valid as claiming that, since Jesus was never married, no Christian should be married. Such an argument also ignores the fact that, if Jesus and the Father are one (as Jesus claimed), then every war described in Scripture in which God claimed some involvement, Jesus was equally involved. Many times prior to His relatively brief incarnation, Jesus mustered armies, gave them instructions for battle, and empowered them to overcome their enemies.

The pacifist claim that Jesus never used force to achieve His objectives is also patently untrue. Jesus at least once “made a scourge of cords” (John 2:15) and violently drove money changers from the temple while overturning their tables. “Gentle Jesus” was not always so gentle.

And when Jesus returns, Scripture foretells us that “in righteousness He judges and wages war.” (Rev. 19:11).

While the New Testament epistles address a multitude of moral issues, there is not a single verse that forbids followers of Christ from serving in the military.

Like Jesus, Peter also interacted with a Roman centurion. His name was Cornelius, and he directed 100 Roman soldiers stationed in Caesarea. Scripture describes him as “a devout man and one who feared God with all his household,” who “gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually” (Acts 10:2). But there was even more divine honor yet to be bestowed upon this military man. Cornelius and his household were specifically chosen by God to be the first Gentiles to hear the gospel, orchestrated by means of an angelic appearance. When they believed, the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and his entire household and they all spoke in other tongues. There is no record that God required Cornelius to change his profession. Cornelius became a Spirit-filled soldier who helped “keep the peace” in Caesarea.

Speaking of keeping the peace, an equipped standing army is perhaps the most effective implement of peace that exists, as it deters, by its presence, evil governments who are being tempted to instigate war. Jesus Himself mentioned this phenomenon:

Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace (Luke 14:31-32).

By being prepared for war, a nation can prevent war. Thus, by serving in the military, a man or woman can be considered to be a peacemaker, a label that Jesus certainly honored in His Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:9). War itself, when defensive, always has peace as its end goal. In such cases, bravery is an expression of love.

“ Moral soldiers are brave heroes, motivated by love. —DAVID SERVANT

Where Never is Heard a Disparaging Word

None of the apostolic authors of the New Testament epistles wrote disparagingly of the military or soldiers. Rather, Paul often used military terminology to illustrate spiritual truths, indicative of his generally positive attitude towards the armed services.

For example, he instructed the Ephesian believers to “Put on the full armor of God” so that they might be able to “stand firm against the schemes of the devil,” and then he elaborated on the spiritual significance of the various pieces of that armor, from helmet to sword to shoes, that clearly paralleled the typical armor of a Roman soldier (Eph. 6:11-17).

Paul referred to Epaphroditus and Archippus as his “fellow soldiers” (Phil. 2:25; Philem. 2), and admonished Timothy, “Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:3). If being a soldier was inherently evil, would Paul have used such language? (Imagine, for example, him admonishing Timothy to be a “good prostitute for Christ.”)

The list of “heroes of faith” found in Hebrews 11 includes a number of God-pleasing military heroes and episodes:

By faith the walls of Jericho fell down [during Israel’s conquest of Canaan] after they had been encircled for seven days. By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace [aiding Israel’s military conquest].

And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon [a “valiant warrior” (Judg. 6:12)], Barak [an Israelite general who commanded 10,000 soldiers], Samson [called by God to deliver Israel from the Philistines], Jephthah [a valiant warrior” (Judg. 11:1)], of David [God-anointed slayer of Goliath and thousands of Israel’s enemies] and Samuel and the prophets, who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight (Heb. 11:30-34, emphasis added).

This would have been a great opportunity for the author of Hebrews—so concerned that his readers obey Christ—to remind them that war and military service, although once a laudable expression of faith, had now become a banished act of sin under the new covenant. But there is no such disclaimer.

Writing to the Roman Christians about Roman governing authorities and the soldiers who enforced Roman law, Paul referred to them as “ministers of God” who do “not bear the sword for nothing,” because they are “avengers who bring wrath on those who practice evil” (Rom. 13:4). Did Paul believe that no Christian could possibly serve as such a soldier, a “minister of God” who “brings wrath on evildoers”? If he did, why didn’t he say so?

The Disarming of Peter

Christian pacifists point to the fact that Jesus, as He was being arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, disarmed Peter, as proof that no Christian should be armed:

Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave’s name was Malchus (John 18:10).

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” (Matt. 26:52).

Of course, these are just two verses in a Bible that must be harmonized with the rest of Scripture. The fact is, the same Person who disarmed Peter previously armed hundreds of thousands of men and sent them to war. And it could certainly be argued that Jesus had previously armed Peter:

And [Jesus] said to [His apostles], “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 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. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough” (Luke 22:35-38).

It can’t be denied that, at that very time, Jesus’ apostles possessed at least two swords, even before Jesus told them that anyone who had no sword should sell his coat and buy one. Let that sink in. At least two of Jesus’ closest apostles (who surely heard His Sermon on the Mount) had been carrying swords. And one of them apparently was Peter, because within a very short time, he was using what Scripture refers to as “his sword” to defend Jesus from being arrested.

If Jesus’ words to Peter, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword” was to be a permanent disarming of Peter (and all followers of Christ), Jesus certainly sent Peter a very mixed message within the space of a short time. A few hours earlier, Jesus told all of His closest disciples to purchase swords, and when they immediately produced two from among themselves, Jesus did not rebuke them (of course), but told them two was sufficient.

Is it thus possible that when Jesus told Peter to put his sword “back in its place,” He meant nothing more than that Peter put his sword back in its sheath, simply because His arrest was actually God’s will? And is it possible, in light of the fact that Jesus had just told His disciples to purchase swords and had sent hundreds of thousands of men to war in the past, that His words, “All those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword” could be best interpreted as meaning, “Those who attempt to quickly solve everything by violence (as was Peter at that moment) typically die violently.” Because let’s face it, not everyone who takes up a sword dies by a sword, and Jesus certainly knew that.

In any case, no one can deny that Jesus told His closest disciples to purchase swords. No one can deny that, from among them, they already were carrying two. I personally do not believe that Jesus ever flip-flopped theologically, as that would be an indication that He was not God. To claim that Jesus told His disciples to purchase swords and then an hour or two later He permanently banished use of any sword by any of His followers seems like a stretch.

The Early Christian Writers

Not finding any real support in Scripture, Christian pacifists often resort to quoting pacifist passages from the voluminous writings of the “church fathers,” that is, influential writers and theologians who lived during the centuries after the original apostles had all died.

Just for the record, I have recently read the writings of all the “apostolic fathers,” that is, those church fathers of the 1st and 2nd centuries who are believed to have personally known some of the Twelve Apostles, or to have been influenced by someone who did. (Their writings are First Clement, Second Clement, The Letters of Ignatius, The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Diognetus, and Fragments of Papias.) Although all of the apostolic fathers wrote in some detail about how Christians should behave, none of them wrote anything negative about military service. At least one of them, the earliest, Clement of Rome, wrote in a very favorable way of moral military action as an act of love (see 1 Clement 55).

I have, of course, already demonstrated from Scripture the error of Christian pacifism. It is therefore safe to conclude that the latter church fathers who wrote negatively regarding Christian military involvement either (1) possessed only a very simplistic theology based on an unbalanced focus on a few out-of-context scriptures, or (2) simply described how those who believed in Christ no longer engaged in hate-filled and vindictive tribal warfare, or (3) wrote during a time when any involvement in the military required an unquestioned moral compromise, which was certainly the case at many times during the Roman Empire.

If, for example, a political leader is sending soldiers to imprison and kill followers of Christ, no Christian should be serving in his army. Or, by way of another example, if I was living in Germany in 1940, I would be writing that no Germany Christian should be enlisting in Germany’s army, and I would be telling those who had been drafted to defect.

There are numerous nations of the world in whose armies no Christian should ever consider enlisting simply because such nations have demonstrated devotion to immoral causes. True Christians should not and will not join them. If they are conscripted or drafted, they should resist and face the consequences (in spite of the fact that Christian pacifists, if they were consistent, would actually have to instruct such folks not to resist). If any Christian soldier finds himself being expected by his superiors to violate his conscience, he should disobey orders and face the consequences. Every soldier is a free moral agent who is responsible before God for his own actions. He can never excuse any immoral action by claiming that he was “only following orders.”

So, just because (1) the commandments to love neighbor and enemy do not preclude military service, (2) there are no New Testament prohibitions regarding military service, and (3) soldiers often find themselves serving as peacemakers, this does not mean that there are no moral considerations for Christians who currently are serving in the military or considering serving.

“ We thank God for the loving, brave, and moral soldiers who keep peace, fight against evil, and protect us all. —DAVID SERVANT

Moral soldiers are brave heroes, motivated by love, who are willing to risk their lives to always do what is right, even if it means disobeying orders and facing the consequences. If Spirit-filled soldier-and-centurion Cornelius had found himself under orders to capture and imprison Christians, I suspect he would have refused to obey his orders, and he may well have told his commander, “I’m a Christian, so you’d better arrest me.” If he had been ordered to do anything against his conscience, he would have resisted and faced the consequences, even if it meant a court-martial, imprisonment, or execution, in which case he would have gained a martyr’s crown. There are plenty of examples in history of Christian soldiers who have done that very thing.

There is a day coming when war will cease forever (see Is. 2:4). Until then, we thank God for the loving, brave, and moral soldiers who keep peace, fight against evil, and protect us all. They are, as the apostle Paul wrote, “ministers of God” who “do not bear the sword for nothing” (Rom. 13:4). — David

The post A Biblical Challenge to Christian Pacifism appeared first on David Servant.