 
### What Does the Bible Say About War and Violence?

By Ralph Orr

Copyright 2013 Grace Communion International

All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com   
The "NIV" and "New International Version" are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

Cover art by Ken Tunell. Copyright Grace Communion International.

Table of Contents

Introduction: Pacifism and the Church of God

Part 1: The Old Testament

Warfare and the Ethics of Jesus Christ – Part 1

Warfare and the Ethics of Jesus Christ – Part 2

War and Vengeance in the Epistles and Revelation – Part 1

War and Vengeance in the Epistles and Revelation – Part 2

Questions & Answers

About the Author

About the Publisher

Grace Communion Seminary

Ambassador College of Christian Ministry

# ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

## Introduction: Pacifism and the Church of God

During the American Civil War, Sabbatarian Adventists in the state of Iowa petitioned their state legislature for official recognition as a pacifist church. They wanted the legislature to recognize their pacifist convictions to help protect the church's young men from the draft. Their action provoked the Sabbatarian Adventist movement as a whole to quickly become pacifist, despite their obvious sentiments for a Union victory. In the wars that followed, members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Church of God (Seventh Day) continued their pacifist tradition.

In his early adulthood, Herbert Armstrong had no pacifist convictions despite his Quaker upbringing. When the United States entered the First World War, he tried several times to enlist and become an Army officer, but was unsuccessful. A decade later, the influence of the Church of God (Seventh Day) apparently caused him to reconsider the subject. By the outbreak of the Second World War, he had begun to advise the young men of the Church of God (Seventh Day), and of his own group (which would become the Worldwide Church of God) to maintain the pacifist tradition.

With Armstrong's founding of Ambassador College and the continued growth of his church, the issue of military service and the draft became more pressing. By the time of the Vietnam War, the Worldwide Church of God had clearly established itself as a pacifist fellowship. Ambassador College men were exempt from the draft on the basis that they were divinity students.

The turmoil of the '60s attracted many people to the church, including me. From seventh grade through college, the airwaves and newspapers were filled with the latest war news from Vietnam. During my senior year in high school I could no longer escape the question, Is it wrong to go to war? After reading the church's booklet _Military Service and War,_ I dropped all consideration of joining the military and registered with the draft board as a conscientious objector. I thought that my father would have been furious at my decision, so I never told him.

Though the Church was officially pacifist, I noticed what I considered glaring inconsistencies with that stance. When it came to the Vietnam War, for example, there was no question where our hearts were. We wanted the communists to lose and lose badly. Herbert Armstrong wrote a lead article in 1971 that justified the American presence in Vietnam based on the need to fight communism. We never published a single article condemning American actions in Southeast Asia. Condemning the killing of communists was not one of our high priorities, although we as a church officially considered warfare to be murder. The Friends, who gave humanitarian aid to North and South Vietnam, were more consistent pacifists than we were.

Later, in the Persian Gulf War, many of us cheered the liberation of Kuwait and the terribly bloody defeat inflicted on the Iraqi Army. We gloried in the armies that put the bullies to flight. Where were the tears for Iraqi widows and orphans? I saw none. I felt none. We cheered our conquering heroes and thought little of the suffering they inflicted.

It seems that we often sought noncombatant status for ourselves while we cheered our nation's soldiers. "Don't ask us to kill. But are we glad that you do that. May God give you the victory." This attitude is inconsistent with a truly pacifist position.

I noticed other inconsistencies. Some of our members and ministers, while counseling pacifism on a grand scale, had no qualms about violently defending their own person and possessions. They believed that if a potentially violent criminal broke into their home, they had the right to shoot him. I remember being shocked when an elderly widow in New Orleans showed me the loaded pistol she kept by her bed.

To be honest, I had my own misgivings about our doctrine. If I had been alive in 1939, should I have preached peace as Germany overran Poland? If I had lived in London during World War II, would God have expected me not to shoot back as the Nazi bombers terrorized my city? Were Christians really expected to only passively resist the butchery of six million Jews? More recently, was pacifism the proper Christian response to the rape and torture of the inhabitants of Kuwait City?

It is one thing for Jesus to ask me to turn the cheek when I am struck. But does he expect me to do the same when someone rapes my wife or butchers my neighbor?

There are shades of pacifist teaching, some more demanding than others. There are those who teach strict pacifism for church, state and the individual. Others teach pacifism only for Christians or those called for special Christian service. These may believe that the state has every right to respond violently to some criminals and some criminal nations. It is only believers that are to be pacifists. Those who support their country in war while not fighting for their country often hold to this view.

We will illustrate why most Christians, upon examining the biblical evidence, believe that under specified conditions Christians may participate in war. This paper will provide the backbone for much of what we hope to cover. The first part of this series is titled "War in the Old Testament."

In openly discussing whether Christians may participate in war, we hope to spread understanding about why most Christian theologians have not been pacifists. As a church we know most of the pacifist arguments, but we generally remain uninformed about how nonpacifist Christians understand the New Testament. I believe that when we thoroughly understand nonpacifist Christian ethics, we will understand why Christians may choose to be soldiers.

We do not expect our readers to consider this subject lightly. It is far too serious for that. Pastors especially should carefully consider all the issues involved. Young men and women will expect them to provide sound biblical counsel on this subject. May God be with all of you in your study.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Part 1: The Old Testament

Every Christian pacifist must deal with the Old Testament. Warfare was part of the life of the Old Testament people of God. At times, God himself commanded Israel to go to war. While Christians differ on the weight they give the Old Testament witness, they cannot ignore it. It provides the background for what Jews would have believed before they followed Jesus.

Thus, a proper understanding of the Old Testament perspective on war helps us compare and contrast its teachings with the instructions given by the greatest Jew, Jesus of Nazareth, and his apostles.

### Before the Fall

On the sixth day of the creation story of Genesis 1, God created humans in his image. He gave man and woman authority over all the earth and its life. While Genesis does not describe God's intended nature for human rule, it implies that he intended it to be peaceful. In that world there was no bloodshed. The foods of man and beast were plants (Genesis 1:29–30). Following the sixth day, God rested.

In Genesis 2, we read that God created the male first. After creating him, God put the man into a garden in Eden, a garden that God himself had planted. The garden was full of trees, both pleasant to the eyes and good for food. Two special trees were there as well — the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The garden was well watered, and the trees were to be the source of the man's food. Only of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the man not to eat. God did not deny him the tree of life. Following this instruction, God created, out of the man's side, a woman for the man. She became his wife. Despite their nakedness, they had no shame.

As in Genesis 1, so in Genesis 2. The world is at peace. Human beings do not shed blood, not even the blood of animals. Genesis 2 also adds that they lack any sense of shame, for there is nothing for them to be ashamed about. Humans have no knowledge of evil. That, of course, is about to change.

Christians insist that Genesis 1 and 2 portray an ideal. It is the ideal of what human society would be like if humankind had no knowledge of evil. If we all had nothing for which to be ashamed, the world would be at peace. Humans would not shed blood. We would be what our Creator wished us to be.

### From the Fall to the Flood

Genesis 3 quickly moves from the ideal pacific creation to humanity's first sin. The serpent's temptation of Eve, her eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and her subsequent sharing of that fruit with Adam are all part of the well-known story. Their innocence is lost. They know shame. They cover their nakedness with sewn-together fig leaves.

Genesis 3 speaks theologically about humankind's problem. Human life is cursed, because humans fall short of the ethics of their Creator, even in the simplest of matters. Genesis 3 describes those curses in terms of painful childbirth, the relationship between husbands and wives, and man's hard labor until the day he dies.

The first hint of violence comes in God's cursing of the serpent. "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel" (Genesis 3:15). This is the _protoevangelion,_ the first preaching of the gospel. God will deliver humanity from the one who introduced them to sin. Yet God will not accomplish this without violence. The crushing of the serpent's head is good news.

Before the close of chapter 3 we also read a hint of the first possible bloodshed. After banishing Adam and Eve from the garden and denying them access to the tree of life, God clothes them. He covers their nakedness with skins (verse 21). Normally this requires an animal's death.

Abel was one of the sons of Adam and Eve. He was a shepherd who brought the fat from his flock to God as an offering. Though the passage does not say so, in the broader context of Genesis we may conclude that Abel sacrificed his offering. Humans were now killing animals. Abel's offering was acceptable. The passage does not explain why this type of killing was acceptable to God. Was it a sin offering? Was it a thank offering? Was it another kind of offering? Genesis does not say.

Cain, jealous of his brother because God preferred Abel's animal offering over what may have been Cain's deliberately inferior vegetable offering, killed Abel. Cain's murder of Abel brought on an additional curse. God exiled Cain to be a wanderer. Cain complained that he feared someone would avenge Abel's murder and kill him. God promised Cain that if this occurred, the cycle of violence would increase. Cain's killer would "suffer vengeance seven times over" (verse 15).

As time passed, violence increased. Lamech confessed to killing a man. His was not a jealousy killing or done to avenge the murder of another. Lamech had vengefully killed a man who had injured him in some way (verse 23). In his lament he referred to Cain, perhaps implying that Cain had suffered violence. "If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech is to be avenged 77 times."

By chapter 6 the earth was filled with violence (Genesis 6:11). Because of this, God decided to violently drown the earth in a great flood. Of all humans, God would only spare righteous Noah and his immediate family.

In summary, from Genesis 3 to 6 we read that violence resulted from the Fall. The Fall violently affected both humans and beasts. Though originally God gave humans no mandate to kill animals, after the Fall killing animals was permissible, at least sacrificially and perhaps for clothing. (The first instruction on eating animals is not found until Genesis 9). Murder originated in jealousy.

Up through Genesis 6, the Bible mentions no human government that would have dealt with murder or any other crime. God administered the first punishments — exile and cursing, and some kind of marking for the first murderer. Vengeance killing for the murder of an innocent person happened, but those who killed for vengeance were themselves cursed.

The pre-Flood chapters of Genesis do not discuss how justice might interrelate with vengeance, or how humans might administer justice. As the story unfolds, the cycle of violence gradually increases to the point that it fills the entire earth. Though cities existed, Genesis does not tell us whether human violence was individual on individual, or city-state on city-state. Nor is there any discussion of self-defense, the defense of innocents or the responsibility of governments to defend their citizens.

Genesis never mentions how God expected a righteous person in that violent society to conduct him or herself in given situations. Genesis simply portrays violence as a universal evil. Because Noah was a righteous man in contrast with the rest of his world, the implication is that Noah was nonviolent.

### From the Flood to the Patriarchs

After the Flood, God instructs Noah on bloodletting. The first part of his instruction deals with killing animals. He tells Noah that he may eat all living creatures if Noah properly bleeds them (Genesis 9:3–4). This is clearly a new instruction, as God deliberately contrasts this post-Flood teaching with his earlier Edenic instructions about eating vegetables. It is not a sin to slay animals for food. Not all killing is bad, despite whatever Edenic ideal the Bible may suggest.

The second instruction on bloodletting deals with the killing of people. People are not to murder. God created human beings in his image. For that reason murdering them is not permissible. Yet not all killing of humans is murder. In Genesis 9 God tells Noah that a murderer is to be killed for his crime.

Murder by definition is the illegal killing of another human, especially with malice aforethought. This cannot be allowed, for it fails to respect the victim as an image of God. Therefore God said, "I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man." This accounting is placed into the hands of fellow human beings.

God may not necessarily intervene every time. Humans are to decide such issues and execute murderers when they discover them. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man" (Genesis 9:5–6). Therefore, after Noah's flood, capital punishment and murder are different. Murder is sin. Capital punishment for murder is justice. Genesis does not discuss whether capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. This is not an issue. Justice is.

Genesis 9 does not discuss exactly what standards humans were to use in deciding a capital case. Nor is there any mention of who was responsible for carrying out a death sentence. Genesis avoids difficult issues like the mistaken execution of the innocent or the prejudicial application of the law against minorities. These are modern concerns.

Genesis 9 simply says that humans are to execute murderers. The motivations of the executioner, or whether the execution takes place under ideal conditions, or whether the government can grant pardons in some cases do not negate the God-ordained command to execute murderers.

Were executions to be painful or painless? Were they to be sanitary or could they be messy? Surely the fallenness of human beings would have given any opponents of the death penalty ample reason to oppose God's decree. Surely God knew that occasionally innocent people would be executed. Yet there it is. In Genesis 9, God tells fallen humans to execute fallen humans who murder.

As the story unfolds, human society again became corrupted. Few of Noah's descendants served God. Out of all the peoples on earth, God called Abram. Like all the biblical heroes, Abram sinned. Yet because of his faith, God would declare him righteous. Abram strove to obey God. As God prospered him, Abram gained ever more servants. He trained some of these servants in war and thus formed his own army. When marauding kings captured his nephew, Abram sent his army to rescue Lot and those captured with him (Genesis 14:14). Abram ordered his army to attack at night without warning. In the battle that followed he routed his enemies and rescued the captives.

This is the first mention of armies in the Bible — the first mention of organized state violence. On one side we have the armies of the invading kings. On the other side we have the army of Abram, the man of faith. This is also the first mention of military tactics. Abram used a night attack to catch his enemies off guard. He did not simply fight a defensive war. Abram went on the offensive in territory far from his own to rescue his nephew.

When Abram returned from battle, Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, attributed Abram's victory to God. "Blessed be God Most High," he says, "who delivered your enemies into your hand" (Genesis 14:19). He has no condemnation for what Abram has done.

"After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision. 'Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield" (Genesis 15:1). Following this military metaphor, God made his covenant with Abram, promising that his many descendants would possess Canaan.

Commentators often overlook that the giving of the Abrahamic covenant followed Abram's military victory and God's introduction of himself to Abram as Abram's _shield._ The way Genesis tells the story shows no divine displeasure with what Abram has done.

As Abram became the father of the faithful, one other point may prove important for Christian ethics. Abram was willing to suffer loss for the sake of peace. Genesis 13 tells how Abram gave up the greenest pastures in exchange for peace between his servants and Lot's servants. Yet peace was not his highest ethic. When Lot and his neighbors in Sodom suffered from invasion, Abram's army went to battle to rescue them. The men of Sodom were wicked; Lot may have been greedy, but Lot was kin, and Lot's friends were the victims of an invading army. By going to war, Abram again proved his willingness to suffer loss for another's benefit.

As the Abrahamic covenant expanded, it included the promise that Abram's descendants would include kings (Genesis 17:6). That kingship includes the commanding of armies is understood.

After having his name changed to Abraham, Abraham lived to see God execute capital punishment on a grand scale. For the cities' wickedness, God killed everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah (many of whom Abraham had probably rescued earlier). Innocent babies perished with the most perverse of adults. The author of life also has the moral authority to take away life.

On another occasion, Abraham resolved a dispute with a king named Abimelech over a well that Abimelech's servants had seized (Genesis 20:22ff). Instead of resorting to war, Abraham first sought a diplomatic solution. This approach succeeded and resulted in a treaty that acknowledged Abraham's rights to the well. Though Abram was a man of war, he also was a man of peace. In the Old Testament, these characteristics are not mutually exclusive.

As time progressed, the Abrahamic covenant expanded to include the promise that his descendants would possess their enemies' cities (Genesis 22:17). How they would accomplish this was not explained. Was this to be by warfare, natural disaster, plague, miracle or all of the above?

### Moses, Joshua, covenant and holy wars

The patriarchal age ended with Abraham's descendants in Egypt—at first exalted, but a change of dynasty led to their enslavement. God arranged for Moses, an Israelite of the tribe of Levi, to be raised as a member of Pharaoh's family. We can presume that his social status required military training.

Moved by the abuse of one of his fellow Israelites, Moses murdered an Egyptian and was forced to flee. In Midian, Moses fought with shepherds who had denied a priest's daughters access to a well for their flocks. Forty years later, God called Moses to deliver Israel out of bondage. Instead of a sword, Moses returned to Egypt with a shepherd's staff. He used it to display God's unprecedented miracles. The hand of God delivered Israel and executed vengeance on Egypt.

The route God choose for the Exodus was deliberately circuitous. He meant to keep Israel from contact with the Philistines, lest Israel see war and wish to return to Egypt (Exodus 13:17). The text does not comment on whether war is right or wrong. It is simply states that if Israel sees war they might become fearful and return to Egypt.

Another possible reason for the circuitous route is so that Israel would see the power of God. He was the One who fought for them. In the Red Sea, God miraculously drowned the entire Egyptian army that Pharaoh had sent to re-enslave Israel.

Soon after that, the Amalekites attacked Israel. The Bible gives no reason why God allowed the attack. Though one might assume that it was because of Israel's rebelliousness, the Bible makes no such claim. One could just as easily argue that God introduced Israel to war so that they would be less fearful of war. He would be with them in battle. Had they not seen God destroy Egypt's army? With faith in God, Israel would conquer her enemies. From this perspective, the knowledge and experience Israel gained in fighting Amalek would be invaluable preparation for Israel's coming invasion of the Promised Land.

Whatever the reason for God allowing the war, the Amalekite method of attack was evil. Deuteronomy 25:18 tells us that the Amalekites struck those who were weary and therefore lagging behind the main body of Israelites. These would have included the infirm, the elderly and families with young children. Without hesitation, Moses ordered Israel to strike back. Joshua led their army. Thus, the future commander of the army that would invade Canaan gained valuable battle experience.

As long as someone held up Moses' arms, Israel was winning. When his arms dropped, the Amalekites gained the advantage. The battle lasted until sunset, with Israel victorious (Exodus 17:10-13). After the battle, God spoke. He had no moral condemnation. Nothing to teach Israel. No lesson to be learned. No correction given. He wanted the battle's story to be recorded and he promised that he, the Lord, would be at war with the Amalekites from generation to generation (verses 14–17). Yahweh has revealed himself to be the great warrior.

Later at Mount Sinai, God entered into a covenant with Israel. This covenant, known by Christians as the old covenant, had at its core the Ten Commandments (Exodus 34:28). The Ten Commandments are listed in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. God introduced the Ten Commandments by reminding the people to whom he was giving them — to Israel.

The first four commandments regulated Israel's worship of God. The fourth commandment also regulated the work relationships of individuals within Israel. The fifth through the tenth commandment further regulated interpersonal relationships within the community.

Nothing in the Ten Commandments dealt with Israel's relationship toward outsiders. Nor did they address what to do with individuals from within the community or from without who violated the Ten Commandments. One has to look elsewhere to see how the law addressed these issues.

Included among the Ten Commandments was the simple command "You shall not murder." This command did not prohibit all killing, but only certain kinds of killing. Under normal circumstances, capital punishment and killing during warfare were not considered murder. Capital punishment was a part of the covenant itself (Exodus 21:12–17). Capital crimes included kidnapping, cursing parents and Sabbath breaking. Other capital offenses included failing to deal with a dangerous animal that subsequently killed a man (21:29), sorcery (22:18), bestiality (22:19) and idolatry (22:20).

Christians who turn to the Law to justify warfare are rarely consistent in their use of Scripture. For example, some pro-war arguments focus on the Law's regulation of warfare (which we will soon discuss), but avoid advocating capital punishment for cursing parents or Sabbath breaking. What justifies the claim that one part of the Law is authoritative while another part is not? Christian ethics often fails the test of consistency.

Returning to the Mosaic covenant we notice that if Israel had obeyed the covenant, God promised to fight for them, using the forces of nature (Exodus 23:22–30). Hornets (or perhaps pestilence [NRSV]) would drive out the inhabitants of Canaan (verse 28). Yet God would not do all the fighting. Embedded in this same context was the statement "I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you" (23:31-33). The only way Israel could _drive_ the people out would be through force.

A similar promise is found in Deuteronomy. (Deuteronomy is basically a repetition and revision of the Sinaitic covenant.) It is found in Deuteronomy 7:17-26. There it is clear that although God would send hornets and other signs and wonders, Israel was to pick up the sword and "wipe out their [the Canaanite's and related people's] names from under heaven. No one will be able to stand up against you; you will destroy them." The Mosaic Law knows nothing of pacifism.

In Deuteronomy 20, God gave laws regulating warfare. Offers of surrender, plundering and enslavement of the enemy's females and children are all regulated in chapter 20. The operative theological point of this chapter is that God would march with Israel to war. One might argue that this chapter is the beginning of "just war" ethics.

Most strikingly, some nations were to be treated more savagely than others. "However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes" (Deuteronomy 20:16). Why? "Otherwise they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God" (verse 18).

The major justification of this genocidal slaughter is that it is necessary to keep Israel's religion pure. Another is that Israel was the instrument of God's justice. Israel was to become the sword of the Lord (Leviticus 18:24ff). Whereas in the past, God executed his justice without human involvement (as at Sodom), he now has humans involved as well.

Some have argued that warfare under Moses and Joshua was permitted only because God commanded it. While it is true that God ordered some of Israel's wars, we see no such command regarding the already discussed battle with the Amalekites. Yet God was actively involved on Israel's behalf. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 20 does not demand that its laws regulating war apply only to wars that God commands. The chapter assumes that God would generally support Israel in all its warfare.

Deuteronomy 20 plainly says that some of Israel's future wars would take them far from their borders. So the warfare anticipated in the chapter was not even limited to defensive warfare fought only in their own territory. Nor was it limited to the occupation of the Promised Land. It involved the destruction of cities and the enslavement of women and children far from the land of Israel.

While the Law commanded the love of God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and of neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), such commands did not automatically exclude capital punishment or going to war. The assumption in the Law was that Israel would go to war and that they could fight wars God's way. The Garden of Eden was in the past.

One note on loving our neighbor. In Leviticus 19 we find many laws that required Israelites to treat each other equitably. Those who lacked social influence and power were to be defended. The justice system was to be impartial. In that context the law reads

#### Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life. I am the Lord. Do not hate your brother in your heart.... Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:16b–18)

In the Law, a neighbor was a fellow Israelite. A fellow Israelite was like a brother. As for an alien, if he lived among Israel, then the people were to treat him as a native-born Israelite. God told the Israelites to "love him as yourself" (verse 34). Loving someone did not mean that one would never execute that person. In the Law, the ethics of loving your neighbors and executing them if they committed a capital offense existed side-by-side. They were not mutually exclusive principles. They were not ethically inconsistent with one another. One could love God, love neighbor and kill.

Before closing this section we will suggest that the reader review the books of Joshua and Judges. Both books relate the holy wars of Israel in the period between the death of Moses and the establishment of the monarchy.

These wars were bloody affairs. Combat was at close range, often hand-to-hand. In such circumstances, soldiers would have been soaked in blood. They would have slipped on the entrails of their enemies. The screams and agonized cries of the wounded would have filled the air.

Do we believe that when Israel stormed Jericho that the soldiers who slew fleeing mothers along with the babies they sheltered in their arms were unaffected by what God commanded them to do? Though God commanded some of these wars and others received his blessing, we should not suppose that this made them any less horrific. Because war is horrific, that does not make it inherently immoral.

### David, a man of war

Among the great warriors of Israel was David. Tens of millions of children have heard how he slew the giant Goliath. For many decades the Philistines and Israelites were continually at war with each other. At one point during this period the Philistines and Israelites faced each other across a valley. The Philistine champion challenged any Israelite man to fight him to decide the outcome of their war. He openly defied Israel's God. David accepted Goliath's challenge. With faith in God, a sling and a few stones he felled the giant. Then taking Goliath's sword, he cut off his head. This gory story of faith is one of the beloved stories of Scripture.

There is, however, a part of the story that few know. David had, of course, already fought and slain both a bear and a lion. He knew how to handle a sling. He took five stones, not just one. People do not realize that David, though a youth, had already trained for war.

Before Goliath's taunting, David had been summoned to play the harp for Saul. On recommending him, a servant described David as "a brave man and a warrior" (1 Samuel 16:18). During this time of service in Saul's court, David became Saul's armor-bearer (verse 21). How this story fits in with the Goliath account that follows is unclear, for in that story Saul seems not to know David. Yet if the placement of the story is chronologically accurate, then David knew something of warfare before his confrontation with Goliath.

Eventually David rose high in rank in Saul's army. The people proclaimed him a greater warrior than Saul. This lead to Saul's infamous jealousy and David's flight, during which time he lived as a guerilla leader or brigand. However, David never attacked any Israelite, including Saul and his supporters, during this time. During all these trials God was with David, preparing the way for David's assumption of Israel's throne.

After becoming king, David warred to unite the nation and to fight Israel's neighbors. We will not relate those battles here. Still, there is one important part of the story that we should not overlook.

David wished to build God a temple, but God denied him the opportunity. Though he was a man after God's own heart, God said that David was too bloody a man to build the temple. That would have to be left to his son Solomon, who would build the temple in peace (1 Chronicles 22:7–9). Is this an important theological statement? The temple of God must be built by a man of peace. (A man of peace who nonetheless commanded a standing army.) Do we see shades of the new covenant in this part of the story?

David understood that his military victories came only because God was with him. In Psalm 33:16–18 he wrote

#### No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength. A horse is a vain hope for deliverance; despite all its great strength it cannot save. But the eyes of the Lord are on those who fear him, on those whose hope is in his unfailing love.

This thought is also expressed in Psalm 44.

#### You are my King and my God, who decrees victories for Jacob. Through you we push back our enemies; through your name we trample our foes. I do not trust in my bow, my sword does not bring me victory; but you give us victory over our enemies, you put our adversaries to shame. (verses 4–7)

Although David did not trust in his weapons or in the size of his army to bring victory, he did not disarm himself or his nation. David understood that it was God who worked through his weapons and his army to bring the victory. So David's problem was not that he was a warrior, but that he had shed "so much blood" (2 Chronicles 22:8 NRSV). That is why he could not build the temple.

We should not leave the story of David without considering Psalm 18. David wrote and dedicated this psalm to God after God delivered him from all of his enemies, especially Saul. David began the psalm with

#### I love you, O Lord, my strength. The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. I call to the Lord, who is worthy of praise, and I am saved from my enemies.

Military analogies abound. David uses poetic imagery in attributing his deliverance in war to obedience to God. Particularly interesting is David's description of battle and his training for it. Read his words carefully.

#### With your [God's] help I can advance against a troop [or can run through a barricade], with my God I can scale a wall.... It is God who arms me with strength.... He makes my feet like the feet of a deer; he enables me to stand on the heights. He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze.... I pursued my enemies and overtook them; I did not turn back till they were destroyed. I crushed them so that they could not rise; they fell beneath my feet. You armed me with strength for battle, you made my adversaries bow at my feet. (verses 29–39)

Whatever David's excesses may have been, he clearly understood that part of his natural strength came from God. God trained David for war. Those who canonized the Scripture kept these words in the Bible. If we understand the Holy Spirit to have influenced and inspired the canon, then we must balance the biblical statement that God judged David to be a bloodthirsty man with those scriptures that say that God gave David his fighting ability, trained him for war and gave him success in battle.

One incident in David's life illustrates the distinctions that people in the Old Testament made between murder and killing in war. In 2 Samuel 3 we read how Abner, the military commander of the army of Ish-Bosheth, of the house of Saul, switched sides to support David. However, Joab, David's commander, opposed this alliance. So "Joab and his brother Abishai murdered Abner because he had killed their brother Asahel in the battle at Gibeon" (verse 3). For this Joab was cursed and Abner lamented.

While the account does not directly address God's attitude toward war, it does illustrate the general perspective of Israelites living at the time. Abner's killing of one of David's soldiers was not considered murder, because that had occurred in battle. However, Joab's killing of a former enemy who had become an ally was considered murder. This confirms what we have already observed from our study of the law. Going to war was not an inherent violation of the Ten Commandments.

### Faith, love and warfare in the Old Testament

Sometimes Christians pose pacifism as a faith issue. That it is. Yet some make the additional claim that Israel's resort to military arms resulted from their lack of faith. Had they had faith, they argue, Israel would not have had an army. God would have delivered them miraculously. After all, obedience to the covenant guaranteed Israel protection from her enemies (Leviticus 26:6).

I think by now we have shown that such a view is untrue. Faith and the use of weapons are not mutually exclusive. Many great faith stories of the Old Testament involve victory in battle. While it is true that there were times when God delivered Israel without their having to resort to warfare (such as the slaughter of the Assyrian armies before the gates of Jerusalem) this was not always the case.

In Leviticus 26 we read of the blessings God would have bestowed on Israel for their obedience to the Mosaic covenant. They were told that if they obeyed, God would "grant peace in the land." They would lie down and no one would make them afraid. The sword would not pass through their land. Yet this promise did not mean that Israel would be free from warfare. Quite to the contrary. God said:

#### You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you. Five of you will chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand, and your enemies will fall by the sword before you. (verses 7–8)

A similar blessing is found in Deuteronomy 28. There too, victory in war, not freedom from war, was the blessing. Israel's enemies would flee from them.

#### The Lord will grant that the enemies who rise up against you will be defeated before you. They will come at you from one direction but flee from you in seven. (verse 7)

So obedience and faith did not mean an end to war. It meant that Israel would have victory in war and that their land would not see war's ravages. (Though obviously the soldiers who fought would experience the ravages of war.) Fighting in war was not an ipso facto evidence of a lack of God-fearing faith. From an Old Testament perspective, in most circumstances (though not all) the _refusal_ to fight Israel's enemies meant a lack of faith. That is what David saw in the soldiers who refused to fight Goliath.

But what about those cases where Israel's enemies were defeated without Israel having to fight? Do not these stories teach us that if we are righteous and faithful to God that he will fight our battles for us, without us ever having to raise a sword in anger? Are not these stories written to encourage a pacifist ethic?

Two such stories have already been mentioned: the drowning of Pharaoh's army and the defeat of the Assyrian army before the gates of Jerusalem. We could add to those two the invasion of Judah by the Moabite-led coalition recorded in 2 Chronicles 20. There we read that after praying and fasting, Judah's army marched toward the invaders with a choir singing praises to God. In response, God moved Judah's enemies to turn and slay each other.

Do these examples teach pacifism? If so, why is it that in all cases, God never required Israel to disband their army or lay down their arms? God's prophets never taught a pacifist ethic. In the three cases we have cited, God's intervention was necessary because the odds against Israel were overwhelming. God fought for Israel, but he never counseled them to disarm. In other situations where Israel needed less dramatically miraculous help, Israel fought. Even during the reign of Solomon, the typological Prince of Peace, the nation maintained a standing army.

If we may draw an analogy between warfare and medicine, it does not follow that because God miraculously heals it is wrong to be a surgeon. That God does heal says nothing about his feelings about medicine or those who practice it.

Returning to an earlier point, we have seen how Old Testament ethics did not consider love and killing necessarily to be in opposition. One was to love one's neighbor, but if a neighbor committed certain crimes, your neighbor had to die. One was to love one's neighbor, but the blessings for obeying God's law included victory in battle, not freedom from battle.

If it was not obvious before, it should be obvious now why Christian pacifists cannot rightfully use the Old Testament to support pacifism. Pacifism is not an Old Testament ethic. Sometimes, to have been a pacifist would have been blatantly unethical. The Old Testament people of God were not pacifists. Capital punishment and killing in war were not considered different forms of murder. Such killing was not sinful. The days of the Garden of Eden were past. The people of God lived in the present. The present required killing some criminals. It required killing in defense of one's people and home, and in the occasional deliverance of other people from oppression. At times it was required to fulfill the command of God.

The prophets Isaiah and Micah spoke of a day when nations would beat their swords into plowshares (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3). Nation would not lift up sword against nation, and no one would study war anymore. That day was far off, in the last days, when God would rule the earth with a rod of iron. Yet even before then, God himself would go to war against his enemies, crushing all opposition (Zechariah 14:3–16). God, the great warrior, would be victorious.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Warfare and the Ethics of Jesus Christ - Part 1

### The Sermon on the Mount

If Christian pacifism has a basis, it must be found in the New Testament. Yet to posit such a claim, Christian pacifists must show that New Testament ethics radically depart from Old Testament ethics.

It is not enough simply to claim that the New magnifies or expands on the Old. The first part of this series (War in the Old Testament) showed that God embedded killing in the law, that in the law love and going to war were not mutually exclusive. Therefore, to magnify or expand the Old might expand the circumstances under which one might kill. If Jesus said that Christians were to keep the Old Testament law, then Christian pacifists have a problem. Pacifists teach against the plain statements in the law promoting capital punishment and regulating war.

There are degrees of pacifism. Some, for example, support the state's right to execute criminals but deny that Christians can participate in executions. Others deny the state even that right. It is not our purpose to examine all varieties of Christian pacifism. We will, however, in what remains in this series, examine most of the New Testament scriptures that bear on this issue. Specifically we will explore whether New Testament ethics radically depart from those of the Old.

One other point: This paper will not challenge the claim that the early church fathers of the second and third centuries were all pacifists. That seems to be the clear testimony from the apostolic and ante-Nicene fathers. Their universal testimony combined with their proximity in time to the first Christians strongly suggests that this was how the first Christians believed Jesus' teachings applied to them. They believed that they should be pacifists. This article and the next in this series will, however, implicitly ask the questions, Did the early church properly understand that teaching? Did Jesus' ethic cover all situations? Or did circumstances later arise that showed to the church that it had not considered all aspects of the question, requiring a reevaluation of early church doctrine?

### The new covenant

A survey of Christian literature on war and pacifism shows that many parties on all sides of the issue fail to consider a fundamental theological point of the New Testament. That fundamental point, when recognized, provides a framework for comparing and contrasting Old and New Testament ethics. Sadly, I have not come across a single modern discussion of war and pacifism that pays any attention to this point. Yet it is a principal theme of the book of Hebrews, plays a major role in Paul's argument in Galatians and in 2 Corinthians, and is universally remembered by Christians when they take the Lord's Supper.

What is that point? The Mosaic covenant with its law, having been a temporary supervisor (Galatians 3:24-25) and recognized now to have been a form of bondage in comparison to the new (Galatians 4:21-31), is abolished. It is obsolete (Hebrews 8:6-13). Jesus Christ, through his shed blood, has established a new and better covenant (Hebrews 9:11-26).

#### Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:27-28)

While pacifist Anabaptists emphasize the ethics of the cross, I find their discussion of it surprisingly void of any direct reference to the abolition of the Mosaic covenant. Why this is so I do not know, for it seems to give them the potentially powerful argument that Christianity is radically different from the Old Testament faith. Yet the Anabaptist works I consulted do not address the issue of covenant. The closest they come to covenant is when they discuss law.

Perhaps nothing more plainly explains the contrast between the old and new covenants than Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 3.

#### Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory...will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!...But their minds were made dull, for to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. (verses 7-16)

Is it any wonder that Paul, when he discusses Christian ethics, never turns to the old covenant law as the foundation of ethics? Instead he turns to the example and teaching of Jesus Christ and the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Or he reasons with his readers about what is ethical and what is not, illustrating his arguments with well-known examples and commonly accepted notions of virtue and vice. Paul rarely uses the law even as an example. He never quotes the old covenant law as the final authority that settles any matter of Christian ethics. For him, "the law of Christ" has become the law of the church (Galatians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 9:21). It is God's commandments as revealed through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit that we must follow, not the law revealed through Moses.

Foundational to Christian ethics is Jesus' new commandment:

#### Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another. (John 13:34)

Why is this commandment new? The commandment to love is old. What is new is that Christians are to love one another as Jesus has loved them. Old Testament standards apparently are not high enough. A new standard, the love that Jesus had, is now in place.

Yet what did Jesus mean? Was the command for Christians to love one another as he loved them only applicable within the community of believers, or were they to extend the same love to outsiders? The context of the verse just quoted mentions outsiders as observers of this love, not as recipients of it (verse 35). Was there a different kind of love for those outside the faith?

Ephesians 2:14-17 declares that "Jesus is our peace" and "has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility" between Jews and gentiles. Jesus came, it tells us, to preach "peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near." This peace is the peace that Jews and gentiles can have between them when they become believers in Jesus Christ. Peaceful relationships between believers and nonbelievers are not a concern of this passage.

So, while Ephesians describes peace as a fruit of the gospel, it does not discuss the many complex issues relating to pacifism, including what a Christian should do when confronted with a professed believer who is behaving in a criminally violent manner. For example, as a member of an invading army.

Nonetheless, the establishment of the new covenant and its new law of love tells us that Christianity is something new — possibly something radically new. In this and the next article of this series we will learn if the New Testament departs so radically from the Old as to demand Christian pacifism in all situations. Are there situations where Christians may take human life? May Christians war?

### The Sermon on the Mount

Moses at Mount Sinai mediated God's law for Israel. The Ten Commandments formed the core of the old covenant.

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount serves a similar purpose. Jesus, a greater than Moses, goes up a mountain to teach his disciples his law. His sermon has points of contact with both the Ten Commandments and other first-century Jewish practices. Jesus does not simply comment on the law and its traditions, but claims that he has authority to significantly modify their demands on his disciples.

If God makes radically different demands on the church than what he demanded of Israel, it seems that Jesus would have taught those radically new demands in the Sermon on the Mount. If the new covenant demands pacifism, this would be a good place to find it. Is that the case?

### Matthew 5:7, blessed are the merciful

Jesus began the Sermon on the Mount with his Beatitudes. Each beatitude began with the affirmation "Blessed are" and was followed with a description of those whom Jesus considered blessed.

Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh have enriched our understanding of Jesus through their sociological studies of first-century Jewish culture. They argue that we can best understand the Beatitudes in the context of the honor/shame society of Jesus' day.

Ancient Mediterranean honor-based cultures considered honor more valuable than money. Honor had a far greater value than it does in our modern Western cultures in part because people thought of honor as a limited commodity that could be gained or lost. If you gained in honor, it was thought that someone else had lost honor. One could even lose physically, yet win socially, if in the process one gained honor.

A modern example of this would be how Anwar Sadat restored the honor of the Egyptian army by defeating the Israeli defenses along the Suez Canal in 1973. In Egyptian eyes, though he lost the war, he won by restoring Egypt's honor at Israel's expense. This restoration of honor is what made it possible for him to later sign a peace treaty with Israel.

Anciently, honor could be obtained in various ways. Society or one's peers bestowed honor on those thought worthy, or honor was part of one's social status or family background. That is one reason why genealogies were so important. Shame was to be avoided at all costs. Social interactions between males were often subtle contests to enhance or protect one's honor.

We can better understand much of the interplay between Jesus and others when we take this social setting into account. Consider that much of his teaching dealt with what God considers honorable and what brings shame. To varying degrees Jesus either challenged traditional views of what was honorable or called on people to do what everyone knew to be the honorable thing.

How does this affect our understanding of the Beatitudes? In that society, to be blessed was to be worthy of honor. Malina and Rohrbaugh believe that to convey this social understanding perhaps the best translation of blessed "would be 'How honorable...,' 'How full of honor...,' 'How honor bringing...,' and the like." [Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, _Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels_ (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 47.]

Malina and Rohrbaugh are right in observing that Jesus obviously considered the behaviors described in the Beatitudes as honorable. As honorable behaviors, disciples of Christ should copy them. To those who do, God will bestow honor.

We will begin our discussion of the specifics of the Sermon on the Mount with Matthew 5:7, "Blessed are the merciful [ _eleêmônes_ ], for they will be shown mercy." What does Jesus mean by merciful behavior and why does he consider it honorable?

In modern Western societies, being merciful is often associated with jurisprudence. We say that a judge is merciful if he or she gives a first-time offender a lighter sentence than the law allows. Such judges may not have any social obligation to do so, but act mercifully as they feel inclined. In the United States, judges who consistently show this kind of mercy may be considered "soft on crime" and thus lose the public's respect.

Was this the kind of mercy that Jesus meant? Was he telling his disciples that those who do not require lawbreakers to fully pay for their crimes will themselves escape full punishment? Did he have the modern Western sense of mercy in mind? If so, this certainly sounds like the beginning of a pacifist ethic.

The word translated here as _merciful_ carries the connotation of having compassionate pity or sympathy. [Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, editors, _Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament,_ Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1990), 428-9. Also Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, editors, _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume,_ translated and abridged by Geoffrey W. Bromley (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1990), 222-3.] This would appear to fit with our Western expectations.

However, Malina and Rohrbaugh argue that in first-century Mediterranean cultures mercy had a sociological meaning different from what we might assume based on its lexical meaning. They ask, What kind of behavior did that society define as merciful?

According to them, that honor-based society considered a person merciful ( _eleêmôn_ ) who compassionately fulfilled his or her social obligations. These obligations arose from a social relationship between two parties, such as between a parent and child, a husband and wife or a patron and his client. [Malina and Rohrbaugh, 49]. Compassionately paying such "debts" was merciful. Not to pay them was unmerciful. For example, the wealthy had social obligations to be patrons and to give alms. Their higher social position indebted them to others in the sense that their wealth obligated them to give alms, to be patrons of the synagogue and to finance public works. (This was one way they overcame the suspicion that they were dishonorable.) When they did these good works, society considered them both honorable and merciful. Jesus' concerns for mercy would seem to arise from people's neglect of such obligations — especially toward the poor and the widow.

Malina and Rohrbaugh believe that Jesus was saying that those who do the honorable thing by compassionately fulfilling their social obligations (the merciful) are themselves honored (blessed), for they will obtain mercy (be treated with compassion by God). Such compassionate honor is not limited to judicial matters, but involves all areas of life. The merciful and God are in relationship.

This explanation seems to be supported by the Jewish usage of a related Greek word, _éleos_ (mercy). (In James 2:13 _éleos_ is used in the context of judicial judgment. We are not saying that it never has such a meaning. But notice that verse 12 implies a social obligation to be merciful.)

#### In the LXX _éleos_ is mostly used for [the Hebrew word] _hesed_. This denotes an attitude arising out of mutual relationship, e.g., between relatives, hosts and guests, masters and servants, those in covenant relationship.... An element of obligation is thus intrinsic....

#### The New Testament often uses _éleos/eleé_ for the attitude God requires of us. In Matthew 9:13; 23:23 it denotes the kindness owed in mutual relationships. ( _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume_ , 222-3)

As this theological dictionary brings out, and as Malina and Rohrbaugh had concluded, mercy ( _éleos_ ) often had to do with relationships and implied "an element of obligation." [In James 2:13 éleos is used in the context of judicial judgment. We are not saying that it never has such a meaning. But notice that verse 12 implies a social obligation to be merciful.]

Returning to our discussion of merciful, the only other place in the New Testament where the Greek word _eleêmôn_ (merciful) is found is in Hebrews 2:17. There Jesus is described as a merciful high priest who makes expiation for the people's sins. Hebrews deliberately contrasts Jesus' priestly role with the role of priests under the Mosaic covenant.

Under that old covenant, Israel was in a unique relationship with God. Their sins hurt that relationship. The priest was obligated to intercede on their behalf by offering sacrifices to God. To not intercede, to not fulfill this obligation, would have been unmerciful. Under the new covenant, Jesus through his sacrifice intercedes for us, thus becoming the greatest high priest. In Hebrews 2:17, Jesus is called a merciful high priest because he has compassionately fulfilled this role. Jesus has become the paradigm of what it means to be merciful.

Understood sociologically, the merciful (the _eleêmônes_ ) were people who compassionately fulfilled their social obligations. They owed those obligations to people with whom they had relationships within their own community or to the community itself, not to those with whom they had no social ties. People with money were obligated to the poor, the widow and the community. Not to compassionately fulfill such obligations was unmerciful. By Jesus' selfless sacrificial example, Christians are encouraged to be merciful beyond what is socially expected. [According to _Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,_ our English word mercy derived from the Latin word meaning "price paid, wages." Both are types of debts owed. The first for goods, the second for labor. So, even in the history of English the concept of mercy has evolved.]

Even today, by compassionately fulfilling social obligations, one fosters communal peace. So mercy is an important part of any peace ethic. Yet, based on what Malina and Rohrbaugh have observed, "blessed are the merciful" does not lay a foundation for Christian pacifism. Theoretically one can compassionately fulfill all social obligations, thereby foster communal peace, and also go to war to defend one's own society. (One may even be socially obligated to fight. Society would think it unmerciful to sit back and let others take all the risks.) In first-century Jewish thought, being merciful does not exclude the possibility of fighting. As Ecclesiastes 3:1 says, "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven."

Even if the mercy of Matthew 5:7 is the mercy we think of today, thus lacking the sense of compassionate social obligation, one can still argue that mercy may be found in war. For example, one can extend merciful conditions of surrender, or one can mercifully give prisoners of war fine medical care, clean clothes, decent food and adequate sleeping quarters. So, even in the modern sense, a merciful person may fight in certain situations. Their willingness to fight does not mean they are unmerciful. In their mercy, they may be defending the weak and defenseless. General Douglas MacArthur's rule of post-Second-World-War Japan is widely recognized as the merciful administration of a great warrior.

So while Christians must be merciful, one cannot legitimately use Matthew 5:7 to establish a pacifist ethic.

### Matthew 5:9, blessed are the peacemakers

"Blessed are the peacemakers," Jesus said, "for they will be called the sons of God." As the New Testament declares Christians to be the children of God (Romans 8), then Matthew must be telling us that Christians are to be peacemakers.

It is at this point in the sermon that nonpacifists often begin to squirm, especially if they are professional soldiers. Nowhere does the New Testament directly claim "Blessed are the soldiers," or "Blessed are those who fight just wars," or "Blessed are those who kill for justice's sake." (We will later consider whether the New Testament ever considers soldiers as honorable.) Yet Jesus did say, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Jesus holds peacemaking — not simply being peaceable, but making peace — to be very honorable. Peacemakers will be called God's children.

Peacemaking, of course, is not limited to the prevention of warfare. Peacemaking includes removing all sorts of stress, tension or violence in all realms of life. A family counselor might be a peacemaker. A labor negotiator might be a peacemaker. A pastor counseling someone about a deeply personal problem would be a peacemaker if he helped bring peace-of-mind to that person. Peacemaking is far more than simply preventing or stopping war. For our discussion we will focus on peacemaking as it relates to shedding blood. However, it is important to remember that nothing in this verse suggests that Jesus meant for his teaching to be limited to a discussion of bloodshed.

The question before us is, Can one be a peacemaker, yet under certain circumstances be violent, without violating Jesus' teaching? For example, may a Christian crisis-situation negotiator, who seeks a peaceful resolution to crises, ever kill a terrorist who is about to murder his hostages? Or do the Beatitudes rule out the taking of human life in all situations?

While many contrive situational arguments against pacifism, recent decades have given us enough hostage-taking incidents to know that the above scenario is far too real. Some pacifists insist that pacifism is such a basic moral principle that even a high plausibility that a terrorist will murder his or her hostages can never justify killing the terrorist to defend them. Their lives are in the hands of God. Such pacifists might argue that since one cannot know the mind of God, one cannot rule out the last-second miraculous deliverance of the hostages. Therefore, some allege that all such antipacifist illustrations are contrived, for they leave the omnipotent God out of the equation. But do they? Did David leave the omnipotent God out of the equation when he said God trained him for war, and gave him strength in battle? As we saw in the first installment of this series, he did not. So, one can imagine situations where God might require fighting — at least from an old covenant perspective.

However, we are concerned about the new covenant. Does "blessed are the peacemakers" automatically mean that a Christian peacemaker can never take up the sword?

The Beatitudes list general, not specific, approaches to life. Some passages, such as those honoring people who hunger for righteousness, those who are meek and those who are pure in heart are speaking of moral principles to be lived every day. Yet when verse 4 says that those who mourn are blessed, we have no reason to believe that Christians must mourn every moment of every day of their lives. Nor does verse 11 mean that Christians should constantly be persecuted for righteousness. So, though we may insist that peacemaking should be a major part of our Christian walk, does that mean we must therefore place peacemaking above all other values?

Sometimes being a Christian brings a sword (Matthew 10:34). It creates conflict between those who believe and those who do not. Peacemaking is not such a high value that Christians must avoid all conflict. To be a peacemaker in every situation would mean that Christians not preach the gospel where it brings strife. "Don't rock the boat" could then be our motto. So while the verse does not justify warfare, neither does it justify peace at all costs. Though it teaches peacemaking, it does not address all issues of violence. For example, it does not deal with the defense of the helpless. Can bloodshed ever be a legitimate means to bring peace to some situations?

So while "blessed are the peacemakers" clearly places honor on creators of peace, the verse does not explain how they should create peace. Sometimes peace comes through violence: That is how God's kingdom will be fully established. So, are the peacemakers of Matthew 5:9 those who pacify, or those who are pacifists? The two are not the same. "Blessed are the peacemakers" speaks of those who pacify.

### Matthew 5:19, the least of these commandments

Jesus taught:

#### Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

On the surface one might wonder what this verse has to do with pacifism. The answer depends on to what commandments Jesus was referring.

A common assumption is that Jesus was referring to the Ten Commandments. Yet Jesus did not say "Ten Commandments." He said "these commandments." Yet did not Jesus say a few verses earlier that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it? Did he not teach that the smallest stroke of a pen would not disappear from the law until all was fulfilled? Yes, of course he did, and the law is much more than the Ten Commandments. Why, then, do some limit their discussion to the Ten?

If Jesus meant that the Old Testament law defines the commandments that Christians are to keep, his teaching creates severe problems for every Christian on earth. It creates problems for Paul, who taught that the law, or at least major portions of it, was done away. Are Christians really to practice stoning? Must we wear phylacteries? Are we to practice levirate marriage? Arguing that Matthew understood Jesus to say that the old covenant law applied to Christians seems far-fetched.

That leaves us with only one possibility. Jesus did in some sense fulfill all of the law and the prophets just as he said. Now that everything has been accomplished, though heaven and earth have not yet passed away, the least stroke of the pen may now disappear from the law. A new order has come.

It is not my purpose to explain how Jesus fulfilled all the law and the prophets. That would take another lengthy paper. Yet I do suggest that this must be the case. Otherwise, the verse makes no sense in the New Testament canon. Therefore, the commandments that Jesus urges his disciples to obey and teach — the least of " _these_ commandments" — are Jesus' own commandments. I remind the reader that Matthew ends the Sermon on the Mount with the parable of the wise and foolish builders. The wise builders are those who put into practice the words of Jesus. The implication is that those who put Moses' words into practice, but ignore the words of Jesus, are foolish builders. Their house will collapse.

One objection to this conclusion might be that the Sermon on the Mount hardly reads like a law code. That is true. Most of the Sermon is case law and wisdom teachings, not law code. Principles, examples, parables, midrash and encouragement combine to create a powerful sermon on Christian ethics. Disciples should practice these words (Matthew 7:24) just like Israel was to practice the old covenant law.

Some argue that Jesus meant the Sermon on the Mount for the millennium. Others believe he meant its teachings to be an interim ethic for the time immediately before the end. Neither position appears valid. Jesus expects us to obey his teachings now, not later. Though he may have thought the end was near, he never taught an interim ethic. He taught as one who believed that this was the way things ought to be — always.

For Christian pacifists and nonpacifists alike, this point becomes important. Statements such as "blessed are the peacemakers" are not merely Jesus' suggestions. They express the heart of his ethic and wisdom, and therefore become commands for his disciples. We must be peacemakers. We must practice all the ethics and wisdom taught in the Sermon on the Mount. But to do so requires that we first understand what his teachings mean.

With that in mind, we now move on to other teachings from that sermon.

### Matthew 5:21-26, murder and reconciliation

In a reference to the law, Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'" Then, to affirm his authority as higher than the law, he said, " _But I tell you_ that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment" (emphasis mine).

Some ancient manuscripts have Jesus saying, "angry without cause," instead of simply "angry." Perhaps this textual variation is an editorial gloss that reflects either a copyist's understanding or the church's interpretation of Jesus' words. In any event, Jesus taught a morality that was deeper, richer and in many ways more difficult to fulfill than the law. In Matthew 5, he seems to proscribe most, if not all, anger. He even adds that "anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Strict pacifists argue that this automatically rules out all killing. How can one take a life without hating? Without being angry? Without having the spirit of the one who says "You fool!" Do not all military organizations try to instill that evil spirit in their recruits? Is not that the spirit created by war?

Here again, while pacifists call on Christians to stop trying to escape what they see as the clear implications of the verse, nonpacifists call for a more nuanced understanding. For example, though the verse eschews murder and anger, does this verse mean that all forms of killing are murder and that all anger is wrong?

One key to understanding the passage is to recognize that it deals with a disciple's relationship to his "brother." Disciples are not to murder, nor are they to have anger toward a "brother" or call a brother _Raca_. Knowing who a "brother" is helps us understand and apply the passage.

In Matthew's context, "brothers" does not refer to males having the same parent. "Brothers" refers to men and women of the same spiritual family — in this case, to Jesus' disciples (Matthew 12:48-50). This is a member of the church (Matthew 18:15-17; 28:10). We mean the same thing today when we speak of brothers and sisters in the faith. That is how the entire New Testament, especially Acts and the epistles, constantly uses the term. Exceptions, or nuances, are in Acts 13 and 23 where Paul calls his fellow Jews "brothers." (Of course, they were of the same spiritual family — the people of the Mosaic covenant. See also Romans 9:3, where Paul speaks of "my brothers, those of my own race.") The term refers to the members of the household of faith, not to the heathen.

Therefore, while we may be tempted to expand Jesus' Sermon-on-the-Mount teaching on anger to cover all our human relationships, including war, to do so requires that brother take on a meaning that it simply does not have. To put it another way, for us to properly apply this verse to enemies, Jesus must at times use "brother" to refer to an enemy. Yet nowhere in Jesus' teaching, nowhere in the New Testament, does _brother_ ever refer to an enemy. Moreover, 2 Thessalonians 3:15 tells us that if we find it necessary to disfellowship a brother for moral reasons, we are not to regard him as an enemy. An enemy is not a brother.

So when Jesus teaches against anger directed toward a brother, Jesus is teaching his disciples to love one another. He is not commenting on their relationships with those outside the faith, or with those who have departed from the faith or with enemies. Jesus himself got angry with those who stubbornly resisted righteousness when they should have known better, and he called such people names (Matthew 23). What he would not stand for was for one of his disciples calling another disciple a fool. If we call a Christian brother a fool, we place ourselves in danger of "the fire of hell."

What I have found especially odd is that both sides of the war issue have failed to address the question, Who is my brother? Perhaps the reason is that we often think of the brotherhood of men (or is it the sisterhood of women?) and then assume this was the biblical perspective. However, it is not. An enemy is not a brother. A brother is of the household of faith.

This whole issue of brotherhood is especially critical not only for understanding the passage in question, but also for understanding many other passages to which pacifists refer. Could much of their exegesis rest on a misunderstanding of _brother_?

To return to the section of the Sermon on the Mount that we are now studying, notice how Matthew 5:23-26 uses the term "brother." In these verses a brother has something against us. Jesus counsels us that before we offer our gift in the temple, we should go and be reconciled to our brother (verses 23-24).

Jesus then follows this teaching with an example that is similar but in some ways significantly different. In verses 25-26 he discusses a situation where we have an adversary who is taking us to court, apparently over a debt that we owe. Jesus counsels that we settle quickly with those to whom we owe money, before they drag us into court, lest the judge throw us into jail.

Neither case addresses warfare, violent life-preserving self-defense or the defense of others. Both cases assume we are in the wrong. Both cases counsel us to correct the wrong. In these cases, there simply exists no cause for violence.

So what have we found in these passages? While the pacifists' interpretation of these passages might be initially attractive, they cannot sustain it. These teachings of Jesus focus on love within the community of faith and the payment of debts to those outside it. As such, they illustrate how one can be a peacemaker. However, we cannot build an ethic of war and peace on these verses, for war and self-defense are not their subject. They do not eliminate the possibility that one could severely punish even those whom one loves. That one can love the family, pay one's debts, and morally fight the nation's enemies remains a possibility. We must search elsewhere for a viable pacifist ethic.

### Matthew 5:38-42, eye for eye

The Mosaic law regulated punishment and vengeance so that their effects would not exceed the crime. Jesus referred to these regulations when he said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'" (Matthew 5:38, referring, perhaps, to Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20 and Deuteronomy 19:21). That people applied these verses to personal vengeance outside the judicial system seems very likely, though that was not the original intent of the law. The law expected Israel to administer such sentences within the judicial system (Exodus 21:22; Leviticus 24:22-23; Deuteronomy 19:16-20).

Jesus, in referring to these laws, commented, "You have heard that it was said...," not, "You have read what was written." He, therefore, may not have been directly referring to the written law. Perhaps he had in mind the oral law or the common beliefs about the law. The average person could not afford a copy of the Scriptures. They only heard the law read to them. Still, whatever Jesus was referring to had as its basis the Mosaic law.

Jesus, in giving his antithesis of the law, again positioned himself as a greater authority than the law. He said:

#### _But I tell you_ , Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (emphasis mine).

Let us study his comments in detail.

Jesus begins with a general principle: Do not resist an evil person. Christian pacifists often call this passage a key to the scriptural foundational of their position. Jesus illustrates his ethic of nonresistance with four examples: 1) turn the left cheek to the one who strikes you on the right, 2) give both your cloak and tunic to the one who wishes to sue you, 3) go two miles if forced to go one, and 4) give to those who wish to borrow.

Each of these cases is limited. Jesus obviously means for them to illustrate his teaching not to resist an evil person. Left unanswered is, Do we apply this teaching in all situations, to all evil persons? Those trained to think in terms of law, not cases, would be less likely to ask this kind of question. But we _should_ ask about cases, for what are these passages but examples of specific cases?

One striking observation about these passages is that Jesus never discusses a government's responsibility, or the responsibility of government agents, to protect citizens from the evil actions of others. Nor does he discuss if a Christian might violently come to the defense of a third party, either as a government agent or private citizen. Furthermore, though the law originally placed "eye for an eye" within the frame of jurisprudence, Jesus does not discuss jurisprudence either. Each of his examples deals with conflicts that individuals might face in their private lives. Public and civic duties, duties toward innocent third parties, are not an issue.

The first example he gave is that of being struck on the right cheek by an evil person. Why the right cheek, and not simply being struck anywhere? Why not mention being clubbed or attacked with a knife? The most likely way to be struck on the right cheek is with a backhanded slap. If Jesus had a backhanded slap in mind, then it appears he was referring to being insulted, as opposed to being involved in a knock-down, drag-out fight. At least that was what Augustine argued. [Paul Ramsey, _Basic Christian Ethics,_ Library of Theological Ethics (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 166. Ramsey rejects Augustine's reasoning, arguing that a mere insult does not fit the context of Jesus' teaching not to resist an evil person. Yet it seems to me that it is Ramsey who is in error. Augustine was much closer in culture to Jesus than Ramsey, so was in a better position to understand the implications of Jesus' remarks. Ramsey is viewing the passage more through American eyes than ancient Mediterranean ones. Ramsey too easily dismisses Jesus' mention of the right cheek. Why not the left? A back-handed blow to the right cheek is an insult. Such a blow comes from an evil person.]

In which case, Jesus was teaching that Christians should not return insult for insult. [My wife calls this passage "the little sister verse." She explains that if a little sister knows what is good for her she will not hit back when her big brother clobbers her. Why? Because if she does hit back, he'll hit her again. It's better for her to scream for her parents instead.]

Was Jesus teaching more? Remember, he gave these examples to illustrate how not to resist an evil person. Every example given by Jesus to illustrate this principle deals with abuses of various types against oneself. Abuses against others he does not discuss. Nor does Jesus discuss all possible situations.

As we have seen, Jesus' first example deals with being struck on the right cheek. The second example, of surrendering more than what one is being sued for, shows how nonresistance can take many forms. The evil person is using the judicial system to get one's tunic. One should give him one's cloak as well, Jesus advised. He did not suggest that individuals surrender their whole wardrobe, or the wardrobes of their children.

This lawsuit example had a basis in the real-life experiences of many first-century Jewish peasants who were often abused by wealthy landowners. The corrupt judicial and economic systems favored those in power. Poor Jews related to what Jesus was teaching. Corruption was common. (Remember the illegality of Jesus' own trial, and his parable of the unjust judge.)

In Jesus' day, the law of retribution (eye-for-an-eye), which was meant to curb vengeance, could be used to exploit others. That was because corrupt officials used it to rob the defenseless. Paul Ramsey observes that Jewish teachers interpreted the law of retribution to mean

#### monetary reimbursement for injuries.... [With that understanding] legal procedure, then, attempted to estimate the value of a wound or limb lost; just retaliation meant suit for damages. (Ramsey, _Basic Christian Ethics_ , 67)

Instead of an eye being taken, the supposed value of an eye was taken. Just retribution, however, did not always occur. The poor had little ability to defend themselves. In Jesus' example, the plaintiff is evil, not because he had no basis for his claims, but because he was trying to take the very clothes off the poor defendant's back, the tunic that kept him warm. The evil plaintiff had no concern for the poor. Nevertheless, Jesus taught that those dragged before such a court should also surrender their cloak. On a practical level, where the courts are stacked, legal resistance is futile. It is often better to sacrificially give in than to suffer a worse fate for resistance.

What Jesus did not explain is whether a Christian must never violently resist an evil person's attack on a third party, say the widow next door, or more broadly, on another nation. What if an evil person is suing the widow, are Christians to stand back and allow the widow to be abused? What if an aggressor nation threatens to invade a peaceful nation? Where there is an honest government, are Christians in that government not to resist the evildoer? If God has placed a gun within their reach, must they never use it? How long will civil society stand if it does not violently resist violent evildoers?

The passage we have just studied is not, strictly speaking, a pacifist passage. Even pacifists could violate it if they resisted passively. It is more accurate to call this a nonresistance passage. The examples that Jesus gave us are limited to injuries suffered by a private individual in one-to-one situations. Jesus is denying private revenge to the private citizen. He does not discuss the broader issues of protecting the innocent and the government's responsibility to maintain civil order. Jesus makes no claim that nonresistance applies to matters of national defense, the judiciary or the protection of third parties.

Again Malina and Rohrbaugh give us fascinating insights as they place this teaching in the context of the Mediterranean honor-shame societies.

#### The...scenes here all describe having one's rights infringed on in a humiliating way: being struck on the right cheek by a backhand slap is an insult, as humiliating as being successfully sued in court or being forced to carry military gear for a mile. All such humiliating behavior required defense of one's honor.... The key to imagining the scenarios here is to realize that all of them presume an audience. In the Mediterranean world no one fights in public without others intervening to break it up. Barroom fighting between two he-men with all bystanders watching is North American behavior. Should someone be publicly insulted, the bystanders are sure to intervene. The real question raised by the image here is whether an insulted person should seek to defend his own honor or let another person defend him. Allowing others to come to one's defense enables one to be reconciled later with the one who dishonored, and not proceed to a demand for satisfaction and feuding. ( _Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels_ , 55)

While their insights are helpful, I believe they miss the mark in one minor point. Malina and Rohrbaugh go on to argue that we should understand the fourth example — lending to those who ask without expecting repayment — separate from the first three. They do not associate this example with public humiliation. In that honor-shame culture, giving money as alms and patronage was one way a wealthy person maintained or gained honor.

However, the behavior described by Jesus is giving neither alms nor patronage. It was lending. To repay a loan was both a financial and a social obligation. To repay showed honor to the lender. Jesus asks potential lenders to give up their right to repayment. In effect, he asks them to give up their right to be honored. This fourth example is also a one-on-one situation. On these grounds the fourth example belongs with the preceding three.

Therefore, based on the evidence available to us, it is a misunderstanding of the text to claim that Jesus addressed here the subject of pacifism. Instead, Jesus told his disciples that they should be willing to give up their right to defend their individual honor. In this way, they would maintain and extend social peace within their communities. By giving this teaching, Jesus redefined what kind of behavior was honorable. He was not teaching that Christians could never violently defend the honor of, protect, or rescue others. (To refuse to defend would have been dishonorable.) Nor was he discussing the proper Christian response to violent illegal activity. Nor was he addressing the responsibilities of the police, military or the state. In this passage, these were not his concerns.

### Matthew 5:43-48, love your enemies

As we have seen in the first article in this series, Leviticus 19:18 teaches that the people of God should love their neighbor as themselves. Under the old covenant, love was compatible with capital punishment and many forms of war. A neighbor was someone from one's own community, not someone afar off. Jesus, in his antithesis of this law, appears to challenge these ideas.

#### You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

Some late manuscripts add after _enemies_ , "bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you." These additional words are either the historic teaching of Jesus or a Christian community's commentary on his words, i.e., how they believed loving one's enemies was to be lived out. Because the Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6 associates these thoughts, a copyist may have added them to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. That would explain why not all ancient texts of this passage include them.

The interpretive key to this verse is understanding exactly who is our enemy. The second key would be to understand what loving them entails. Often people assume they know without carefully considering the issues.

Verse 47 says, "And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?" Jesus gave this example to illustrate how we are to love our enemies. We should do better than pagans, who greet only their brothers. Because we have already established that brothers are those who share a common faith, we must conclude that an enemy is someone who is outside that common faith, in this case not a disciple of Christ. However, that is not the only criterion, as pagans and tax collectors — both mentioned in the text — are not necessarily enemies. Furthermore, an enemy is someone one might come across while going about in public. It is in that circumstance that the question about whether to greet him or her might come up. Jesus is not describing a battlefield, warfare or the execution of a crime.

Jesus' prime concern is our general attitude toward enemies within our own town. We should pray for them. Greet them. Extend blessings to them just as God gives rain and sun to the just and the unjust. If we copy God's example we will be perfect, just as our heavenly Father is perfect. And we will have greater social peace.

Yet, if the Father's behavior toward the unrighteous is to be our guide, we cannot escape the fact that he also deals with some unrighteous in markedly violent terms. In his entire teaching, Jesus does not rule out the severe judgments of God. Nothing in the Sermon on the Mount suggests that perfection be found only in God's benevolence and not in his violent justice. Having noted this, we also note that nothing in Jesus' statement suggests that the state, the courts, the church or individual Christians should ignore criminal behavior. We have no reason to conclude that loving your enemy automatically rules out punishing him or her when the occasion warrants. Biblically, love and punishment, love and killing are not mutually exclusive.

Matthew 5:43-48 does not address the broader social responsibilities of Christians to maintain social peace or reestablish it in the face of violent criminal activity. Instead, it discusses our everyday relationships with those people in our community who freely move about, yet, though they may not be criminals, for some reason have become our enemies. These we must love by praying for them, greeting them and blessing them.

So while we might assume that Jesus' command to "love your enemies" demands pacifism in the face of international strife or violent criminal activity, his concerns in this passage are much more parochial and everyday. Careful exegesis should not allow us to expand his teaching beyond the kinds of circumstances he was discussing.

### General observations

The Sermon on the Mount appears to be a powerful pacifist sermon. Jesus' call to believers to be both merciful and peacemakers, his expansion of the commandment against murder to include both hatred and name-calling, his insistence on reconciliation and out-of-court settlement, his substitution of nonresistance for personal revenge, and his teaching that we love and bless our enemies all paint a consistent picture. Jesus calls his disciples to live a fundamentally peaceful life — a life that at its core willingly denies the self for the sake of peace. Yet is this truly a totally pacifist ethic?

As we have seen, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount never addresses significant concerns that pacifism ultimately embraces. Jesus never denies that there may be a place for taking human life. He never rejects capital punishment, nor does he deny the state the right to violently protect its citizens. He does not criticize soldiering, and he does not discuss all issues regarding self-defense (such as the possibility of a husband protecting himself for the sake of his family). More notable is his failure to mention whether one can come to the defense of another — violently or otherwise. On issues of criminal justice, he is silent. Group-to-group and nation-to-nation interactions are not a part of this sermon. Finally, he does not mention whether a disciple can, as an agent of a government, carry out the government's God-given authority to use the sword (an authority the Bible readily recognizes).

The perspective of the entire sermon is personal activity at a community level. The community could be the church or the town in which one lives. The people with whom one might be in conflict are people one probably knows. They are church members, or they are one's fellow townspeople. They are not those with whom one or the state may be at war. They are not criminals engaged in rape and murder.

Of course the Sermon on the Mount is not the sum of Jesus' ethics. In other places he does teach that disciples should strive to live at peace with those with whom they might otherwise be in conflict, such as the Samaritans. Jesus' vision of whom his followers will be ultimately includes people of all nations. Christianity is to embrace everyone. Thus we tend to universalize the ethics of the sermon and apply it to all situations. Yet upon closer inspection, the peace passages all deal with personal concerns within a limited locale. The Old Testament call for national Israel to defend the fatherless, widow and poor, and to act for social justice are simply not present in these teachings. Jesus does not explain how the state and its citizens should collectively maintain an orderly and safe society, one protected from criminals and criminal organizations both within and without.

In short, nothing in the Sermon on the Mount totally rejects violence and bloodletting. Jesus' sermon may teach peacemaking, but pacifying is not unqualified pacifism. Many pacifists fail to perceive this distinction.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Warfare and the Ethics of Jesus Christ – Part 2

### The Sermon on the Plain

The Sermon on the Plain is quite similar to the Sermon on the Mount. Some conclude that the two sermons are differing accounts of the same event. Supposedly the Gospels portray them as two because of the diverging oral traditions that circulated in the early church. These diverging traditions were sources for the Gospels. Yet having preached two slightly different sermons on the same subject in two different congregations, I see no reason to reject the apparent testimony of Matthew and Luke that we are dealing with two sermons there as well. There are enough differences in the details and the occasions of the sermons to suggest that this was the case.

For our purposes we will focus our attention on Luke 6:27-36. The message here parallels the peace teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. It begins with "I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." The observations we made about Matthew apply here. Jesus is speaking about personal injuries of a local nature — of being hated, cursed and mistreated. He is not addressing the defense of others or of the nation. Nothing in his words suggests any response to criminal behavior. Nor is he suggesting that the state stop enforcing its laws, refuse to punish criminals or cease defending its citizens. Finally, nothing in his words suggests that loving one's enemies, doing good for them and praying for them excludes any possibility that a believer, even under the most extreme circumstances, cannot take that same person's life.

Verse 29 reads,

#### If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

One possibly significant difference between this passage and the Sermon on the Mount is that instead of the disciple being struck on the right cheek, the blow comes to either cheek. This seems to envision more than a backhanded slap. What do we make of this? Is the verse expressing a general attitude toward personal abuse, or a commanded literal response applicable in all situations? If so, is it the only response permissible?

For example, one evening I saw a large man beating an elderly woman as they walked along a lonely downtown street. Should I have told the woman, Turn the cheek? Or, if I thought it necessary to save her life, could I have become violently involved in her defense? (As it was, I yelled at the man to leave the elderly woman alone. He turned his drunken rage toward me, at which point, to protect my wife who was with me, I drove away. We circled the block and were shocked to find the two walking together.)

Take another example. When I was a child, my family and I heard the screams of a neighbor as her schizophrenic husband was stabbing her to death. A laborer working next door to her house ran toward the screams in time to see her stumble out the door. She fell to the ground dead. If he were a Christian and had arrived in time to defend her, what was he to do? Turn the other cheek? Tell her to turn the other cheek? Of course not, this madman was taking a knife to her throat!

Were these the kinds of situations Jesus addressed when he advised his disciples to turn the other cheek? A careful reading of the text suggests otherwise. Even if the blow to the cheek is a punch, Jesus does not describe a full scale fight, beating or an attempted murder. It is one blow to the cheek that he mentions, perhaps delivered in a moment's outburst. Turning the cheek in that kind of situation can often diffuse the tension, preventing its escalation. He is not addressing a beating or an attempted murder of ourselves or of someone else.

Jesus' examples in this sermon are all on the personal, private, local and limited level. Jesus never suggests that Christians should never use violence in the defense of others. Nor does he absolutely rule out violently defending oneself. Jesus is not teaching pacifism as we generally understand the term. Pacifism has to be read into the text through a less-than-careful exegesis.

Bible students have long recognized Luke's interest in love and the poor, and his call for Christians to be willing to give up this world's goods. In the Sermon on the Plain, these emphases come across in several ways.

#### Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even "sinners" love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even "sinners" do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even "sinners" lend to "sinners," expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. (Luke 6:31-35a)

In the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus first emphasizes the Christian responsibility to love our enemies. He illustrates his teaching with an economic example. Love of enemies is not a matter of feeling. Love is an action, here the lending of money. Those who love their enemies do good to them. Specifically they lend to them. They do not expect to get anything back.

As in Matthew, the enemy that Jesus envisions lives within the disciple's community. The enemy lives close enough to ask for a loan. Furthermore, the disciple is not at war with the enemy. Their socially calm relationship makes the lending possible. If practiced, Jesus' teaching would help maintain that social calm, and perhaps win the friendship of the enemy, through kind benevolence. Nothing in Jesus' teaching suggests that if the enemy is acting criminally toward the disciple that the criminal should go unpunished or unrestrained. Nor does Jesus suggest that a disciple can never participate in that restraint or punishment. The teaching assumes a calm social relationship that makes it possible to conduct normal commerce.

Keep in mind that in the law, one can punish those whom one also loves. In the law, love and capital punishment are not mutually exclusive. Jesus never disputes this. One is to love one's enemies and God, the state, neighbors and all the believers. Love of enemies does not replace all other love obligations, and Jesus does not suggest that it does. Sometimes these obligations conflict, a point we shall discuss later in this series.

Another difference between the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain can be found in Luke 6:36, "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." The Greek word translated here as _merciful_ is different from that found in Matthew 5:7. The word in Matthew ( _eleêmôn_ ) often referred to those who compassionately fulfilled their social obligations. The word in Luke is _oiktirmôn_. It also includes the concept of compassion and appears to be a close synonym for Matthew's word. [William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, _A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), 564.]

In Luke's sermon, Jesus calls on his disciples to have the same kind of mercy/compassion that the Father has. As we have observed, our God is a compassionate God and also a warrior. The two traits are not mutually exclusive.

Immediately after the Sermon on the Plain, Luke relates the story of the compassionate centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant (Luke 7:1-10). Luke describes this soldier as a deserving man (verse 4). Jesus himself singles this centurion out for his exemplary faith. Being a soldier, Jesus shows us, is no evidence of weak faith or a lack of compassion. This soldier's faith and compassion are examples for us. The Gospel says nothing negative about soldiering. Luke portrays this soldier as honorable and exemplary. Nor is this the only place where Luke speaks positively about soldiers.

### Luke 9:55-56, the Son of Man did not come to destroy

Some manuscripts of Luke include the teaching that "The Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." The specific incident prompting this teaching was a Samaritan village's rejection of hospitality to Jesus and his disciples. They refused hospitality because Jesus was heading for Jerusalem.

In anger James and John asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" (Luke 9:54). Jesus rebuked them and said they did not know what spirit they were of. It is at this point that some manuscripts add "for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

Whether this additional saying originated with Jesus or was an editorial gloss meant to explain his rebuke of the two disciples, we cannot say. For our purposes, it probably does not matter. James' and John's responses went beyond what the law allowed. The Samaritans had not committed a capital offense.

That the Son of Man came to save human lives is not in doubt. That salvation, however, was not physical, but eternal. The passage contrasts James' and John's quickness to destroy people with Jesus' desire to save them. It does not comment on whether they could have destroyed the Samaritans under different circumstances. It simply illustrates the general approach Jesus took with people. He did not defend his honor from every slight. That Jesus will come with a different purpose the second time is well attested to in the book of Revelation.

We should not misapply these words to circumstances they did not address. While soldiers may not find this passage justifying many of their attitudes, neither will pacifists. Eternal salvation as opposed to a vengeful spirit is the issue at stake, not self-defense or military service.

### The Good Samaritan

Since the law tells me to love my neighbor as myself, the question naturally arises, Who is my neighbor? An expert in the law once asked Jesus the same question. Luke tells us that the lawyer asked this because he wanted to justify himself. Apparently the man did not love his neighbor, and he thought he had good cause not to. Lest we forget the context of the original law, it is found in Leviticus 19:18. In the law a neighbor was someone who lived in proximity to you. By implication he was a fellow Israelite.

Jesus did not answer the lawyer's question directly. Instead he spoke the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate the behavior of one who puts the law of loving neighbor into practice. The parable is found in Luke 10:30-37. At the conclusion of the parable Jesus asked, Who was a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers? The lawyer replied, The one who showed mercy. [ _eleos_ here means compassion without the implication of any social obligation.] Jesus then told the lawyer to do likewise. So showing mercy to the wounded and suffering fulfills the New Testament's perspective of loving our neighbors.

Jesus does not suggest that the thieves, who left their victim for dead, should be shown mercy. Nor does he explain what others should have done had they come on the robbery while it was taking place. We cannot determine an all-encompassing Christian ethic on the use or nonuse of violence from this parable. It does encourage selfless sacrifice to relieve the suffering of others, even those with whom we might otherwise be in conflict. Yet it does not address the more complex issues of defense and justice.

### Peter's sword

As he was preparing to leave the upper room for the Garden of Gethsemane, and knowing that the authorities would soon arrest him, Jesus reminded his disciples of their first evangelistic tour. He asked, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. Jesus then said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors,' and I tell you this must be fulfilled in me." In reply "the disciples said, 'See, Lord, here are two swords.' 'That is enough,' he replied" (Luke 22:35-38).

Sometimes people cite this text as proof that Jesus approved of Christians arming themselves. A legalist might even claim that they are commanded to do so. Yet such a conclusion does exegetical violence to the text. Jesus says nothing about whether Christians should routinely arm themselves. When the disciples say they have only two swords, he replies that two swords are enough. Enough for what? To fulfill the prophecy "He was numbered with the transgressors." Apparently the charges that the authorities would bring against Jesus included sedition, for he claimed to be King of the Jews. Though the Gospels do not record it happening this way, Jesus' accusers could have used the fact that his disciples carried swords as evidence that he was an insurrectionist.

Later, as Jesus was about to be arrested, his followers asked, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" (verse 49). Peter did not wait for an answer. He struck at the high priest's servant, cutting off his ear (verse 50, also John 18:10). "But Jesus answered, 'No more of this!' And he touched the man's ear and healed him" (Luke 22:51).

Each Gospel treats this incident differently. Where Luke has Jesus saying, "Enough of this!," Mark has Jesus asking, "Am I leading a rebellion?" (Mark 14:48).

In John, Jesus rebukes Peter with the words "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given?" (John 18:11). Matthew gives us a significantly different version of Jesus' rebuke. "'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword'" (Matt. 26:52). Jesus then adds: "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" After which he challenged the crowd with "Am I leading a rebellion?" (verses 53-55a).

Pacifists almost universally see in these events a confirmation that God calls Christians to nonviolence. When faced with an armed crowd and a kangaroo court, Jesus denied his right to resist. He not only commanded his followers to put up their swords, but taught them that "all who draw the sword will die by the sword." What plainer call to pacifism could there be?

But is it?

All pacifist discussions of this event seem to miss the point. Jesus' renunciation of the sword at this crucial moment is not because he is espousing a universal pacifist ethic. He had an army at his command. Nevertheless, for Jesus to use that heavenly army would be contrary to why he came to Jerusalem. He came to die for our sins. He could not both fight and fulfill God's sacrificial purpose for him. It was just then that the sword had to be denied. This was to be the supreme example of Jesus' love for his disciples. They were to love each other as he had loved them.

So there is no universal pacifist ethic in these events. Jesus is speaking to the special circumstances of his death.

Those who see Jesus only as God might argue that Jesus' right to use the heavenly armies was his right as God, for only God can take life. Yet in the Old Testament, God has clearly delegated to humans authority to take human life. In the New Testament that authority has not been recalled.

Furthermore, the assumption that Jesus at that moment was speaking as God raises theological problems. It suggests that God is limited because he needs angels to rescue him. The opposite is true. Humans occasionally need angels to help them conquer their enemies, not God.

The correct understanding of who Jesus was recognizes both his full divinity and his full humanity. Verses suggesting his humanity should not be confused with those suggesting his divinity. This is a case in point.

To be rescued, the human side of Jesus needed the help of others. As King of the Jews, Jesus had the right to command armies. This could not be so if he were a pacifist. Therefore, one cannot legitimately use Jesus' teaching at the time of his arrest to support pacifism.

How then should we understand his aphorism "all who draw the sword will die by the sword"? The first step is to recognize that it is an aphorism — a brief wisdom saying. It is a general truth that in the proper circumstances generally happens. It is not a divine law or unconditional prophecy. Many soldiers have died peacefully — General Eisenhower, for example. Their deaths prove this verse is not a divine law or prophecy. Jesus' words in this instance are words of wisdom. They are an aphorism, not a law.

Peter drew the sword, of course, but did not die by the sword. This illustrates the general nature of aphorisms. Jesus is simply saying that those who resort to weapons as their primary way of dealing with life's problems will often have their lives ended with weapons. Gang violence is but one example of the general truthfulness of this aphorism. In this specific case, Peter surely would have died violently had not Jesus quickly calmed the situation. The armed crowd far outnumbered the apostle.

### Conclusion

We have now completed our study of war and pacifism in the Gospels. We have seen how verses that on the surface appear to support an unconditional pacifist ethic do not. While they are concerned with interpersonal ethics lived out in communities, they leave totally unaddressed the broader issues of life-saving self-defense, defense of third parties, national defense, capital punishment, military service and war. They never challenge the old covenant perspective that love of God, country and neighbor may require the execution of criminals or the instrument of war. The radical departure from old covenant ethics required to justify a new-covenant-based pacifism is not present.

Nor do the Gospels ever suggest that those who war somehow lack faith, patience, compassion or love. That some soldiers lack these traits is obvious, but not all soldiers lack them. As our first article in this series began to point out, in the Old Testament and the Gospels love and killing are not mutually exclusive. The God of love kills.

The Sermon on the Mount tells Christians to be pacifiers — peacemakers. This is how all people ought to live. Sadly, not everyone does. What ought to be is not what is. The world has its criminals and its criminal nations. Violence is a part of our world. How are governments and Christians to respond to this violence? Since the responsibility of an ordered society has been placed in human hands, how are humans to deal with violent murderous criminals?

The Gospels never call on Christians to be pacifists. God, the great peacemaker, is also a warrior. Jesus has armies at his command. We are his disciples. When he returns, the armies of heaven will come with him.

We could have said more. As we hinted earlier, we could have discussed how the Gospels portray soldiers. If we had, we would have seen that some soldiers are spoken of respectfully, while others are not. Yet the Gospels tell neither the good nor the bad soldiers to give up their profession. The military and those in it come under no broad moral judgment. On the other hand, Jesus took a clearly negative approach toward Pharisees, scribes, tax collectors and lawyers. Yet few believe that Christians cannot be scribes or tax collectors or lawyers. The Gospels never describe soldiering as sinful.

Before completing this series we need to survey the epistles and Revelation. In Paul's writings especially we find verses that many pacifists believe support their position. We would be remiss if we did not discuss them. We plan to do so in the next part.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## War and Vengeance in the Epistles and Revelation – Part 1

No pacifists were among the Old Testament righteous. In the law, loving neighbor did not exclude all possibility of killing neighbor. Neighbors who committed certain crimes were put to death. Warfare itself was at times an expression of faith and love for God. The idea that love, faith and war are inherently in conflict and mutually exclude one another is not an Old Testament idea. The Mosaic blessings for obedience to God did not bring freedom from war, but victory in war. In the Old Testament, God is the great warrior who trains, leads and fights alongside his human servants. In the Old Testament, within certain bounds, God has given to humans the authority to take human life.

Having established this, in the second article we asked, Does the New Testament teach a pacifist ethic that is by its nature radically different from the Old Testament's approach to war? and, Has God rescinded from humans their limited authority to take human life?

To answer these questions our second article explored the Gospels. We found that the Gospels uphold some soldiers as honorable examples for Christians of faith and love. Jesus never called soldiers to leave their profession. Jesus never renounced the Old Testament perspective that in some circumstances love and killing may go together.

Though Jesus taught the turning of a cheek when struck once, he never discussed self-defense when confronted with a murderer. Though he never used deadly force, he never renounced deadly force in the defense of the poor, the weak or the widow. He never spoke against one nation coming to the defense of its citizens or the citizens of another nation. The strident antiwar rhetoric of many pacifists was not a part of Jesus' teaching. Jesus never equated all ways of taking human life with murder. Even he could command armies, and would fully set up his kingdom with violent deadly force. His self-sacrificing and forgiving spirit did not eliminate all cases of either his or someone else's use of deadly force.1

Jesus limited his ethical illustrations to person-to-person situations. His examples of how to love even our enemies did not deal with life-threatening situations, such as attempted murder or invasion. They dealt with less violent situations that one might face within a community. They said nothing about three-party or group conflicts. Jesus said nothing about a state's responsibility to protect its citizens or maintain public order. Jesus' examples never directly addressed the broader issues of military and police force.

The dichotomy that some Christian pacifists make between love and all forms of deadly force, including warfare, is unknown in Jesus' ethic. The looked-for radical departure from the Old Testament's view of war is not in the Gospels.

### Beyond the Gospels

These observations remain critical for modern Christian ethics. Yet by themselves they are not complete. The New Testament witness does not end with the Gospels.

Acts tells us of the theological and evangelistic development of the newborn faith. The Epistles and Revelation give us insights into the ethical life of the church. In them Paul, Peter, James, Jude and John (and perhaps others) deal directly with the internal affairs of the church and with Christian morality. They discuss administrative, doctrinal, personal, and most important for our discussion, ethical matters.

As each year brought the believers further in time from the cross, they were asking new questions. Of concern to many was how this new way of life was to be lived in a fallen world.

As a group, the earliest Christians never had a problem with military service. Being Jews, they were exempt from service in the Roman army. Not until the mid A.D. 60s did Romans make distinctions between Jews and Christians, at which time Christians would have lost their Jewish exemption. For all practical purposes, however, the situation did not change. Christians, by virtue of being considered traitorous atheists, could not have been Roman soldiers. Nor would they have wanted to, as the Roman army generally imposed a culture of paganism on its soldiers.

So, by A.D. 65 many issues we face today over military service were not yet active concerns of the church. During these early years the church did not need the apostles to write specifically about military service or pacifism. Although a rare soldier such as Cornelius came into the church, the apostles did not feel it necessary to address whether Christians might serve in a military or police force or whether in the performance of their duties they could take human life. The church was more concerned about proclaiming the risen Lord than figuring out all the details of Christian ethics for all time thereafter.

Remember, most of the Epistles were written before A.D. 65. That is perhaps the major reason they do not directly discuss most aspects of military service and war. There was no need.

Still, is it not true that the ethics of the Epistles lay a foundation for Christian pacifism? For example, is this not what the acts of the sinful nature in Galatians 5 and the love verses of 1 Corinthians 13 imply? Are these not pacifist passages? Do these not radically depart from Old Testament attitudes toward war?

We shall now examine these and other allegedly pacifist verses found in the Epistles. In doing so we will ask, Do the Epistles support absolute pacifism?

### The acts of the sinful nature versus the fruit of the Spirit

In Galatians, Paul lists the acts of the sinful nature and the fruit of the Holy Spirit. He says that the acts of the sinful nature are obvious. Those that relate to warfare and bloodletting include "hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy." Paul tells us that "those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19–21). All these acts of the sinful nature can lead to deadly violence. In war, people on all sides have these behaviors or inward desires.

In contrast, Paul says that "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (verses 22–23). We should have these. It does not seem possible for one who fights to have them. One will not win hand-to-hand combat through joy, peace, kindness and gentleness. So, these verses might seem to rule out for Christians any use of force, but especially deadly force, that society would otherwise expect to be the appropriate reaction to injustice, criminal activity, civil disorder or unjust assaults on another.

Yet, does Paul intend these verses to encompass all acts of the sinful nature and all the fruit of the Holy Spirit? Do these two lists fully explain Christian ethics? A closer examination shows they do not.

Notice that Paul does not mention here all acts of the sinful nature. For example, he says nothing about sloth or lying. Galatians 5:19–21 is not a comprehensive sin list.

Nor does he list all of the fruit of the Holy Spirit. For example, how do we fit Samson into this list, who when the Holy Spirit fell on him slew a thousand men (Judges 15:14–19)? How do we fit into this list David's statement in Psalm 44 that it was God who fought alongside Israel to give them their victories? If the fruit of the Spirit automatically rules out all forms of warfare, how then do we understand God himself, the Mighty One? Revelation shows us that even in the New Testament, God condones some forms of war (Revelation 19:11–15). It seems that the fruit of the Spirit would have to include this side of God as well. Yet, the fruit of the Spirit listed in Galatians 5 says nothing of this. So the list is incomplete.

Examining the acts of the sinful nature more closely, we notice several other interesting points. While we would agree that "sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft" are universally sinful and therefore always to be avoided, can we say the same about several other acts that Paul lists? What about hatred? Is hatred to be universally avoided? Are we not to hate sin? Romans 12:9 says we are to hate what is evil. Revelation 2:6 says we are to hate the work of the Nicolaitans. How should this observation affect our understanding of Galatians 5?

Notice also discord. Are there not some things with which we are to be in discord? Are we not to be in discord with Satan and the ways of this world? Should we not be in discord with false teachers and false prophets? Discord by itself is neither good nor bad. We could say the same of dissensions and factions.

Then there is jealousy. One of God's names is Jealous. Jealousy characterizes him (Exodus 34:14). So some kinds of jealousy must be godly, while others are sinful acts of the flesh.

So what are we to make of these two lists? Are they fixed codes of conduct that cover every situation? Can we use them as an unshakable foundation for Christian pacifism? It does not seem so, for some of the things listed are absolutes while others are situational.

To understand how to apply these two lists, we should pay attention to two important facts. The first is the original setting of these lists — their context. The second is their literary genre — that they are characteristic of a specific literary form common in Paul's day.

As to the first point, these two lists are part of a letter to the churches in Galatia. These churches were torn by dissent originating with Judaizing troublemakers. False teachers from Jerusalem urged gentile believers to obey the law and become circumcised.

Paul's response is bluntly corrective. Shortly before he introduces his list of sinful acts of the flesh, Paul angrily writes, "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Galatians 5:12). Considering the issues involved — the gospel of eternal salvation against an imposition of circumcision — Paul's tone is not surprising. His purpose was to silence the heretics and restore the spiritual unity of the Galatian believers in Christ.

Paul follows his harsh words with verses 13–16a: "You, my brothers, were called to be free. Do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. So I say, live by the Spirit."

The Galatian heretics were not treating their fellow members with love. They were teaching _others_ not to treat them with love. This had to stop. Having dealt with the heresy, Paul next addressed Christian morality. Christians are to love one another.

It is in that context, of Christians loving Christians, that we should understand Paul's vice and virtue lists of Galatians 5. Read his words carefully. He is not addressing how believers should behave toward violent unbelievers (or for that matter, toward believers who become violent). He is not addressing how believers should behave when confronted with warfare. Paul is not telling them how they are to respond to the beating and attempted murder of a neighbor. Nor is he discussing the attempted rape of a daughter or other forms of severe violence in or out of the church. He is not writing an entire ethic that covers every situation that a Christian might face. He is simply telling Christians that they ought to get along, that they ought to love one another, that they ought to bear one another's burdens (6:2). The whole passage specifically addresses how believers are to behave toward each other. The Holy Spirit should govern those relationships. Among themselves, Christians should be peaceful. Loving neighbor sums up the law.

People who do not treat each other properly, who relate to one another through the flesh and not the Spirit, will not inherit the kingdom of God. Believers should not provoke or envy one another (5:26).

The second fact we need to consider is that the literary genres of Galatians 5:19-23a are the genres of vice and virtue lists. Such lists of general moral principles (either negative or positive) were common in the Jewish and the Hellenistic worlds. They were never intended as comprehensive discussions of acceptable or unacceptable behaviors. As general lists, they gave their readers a general understanding of what others expected of them. Complex ethical issues required more detailed, more nuanced discussions.2

To apply Paul's lists in Galatians 5 to the complex issues of military service, war, capital punishment and defense ignores both the general nature of such lists and the church context that they were specifically addressing. Civil, national and personal defense are not Paul's concerns in Galatians 5. Internal church affairs are. We should not assume more for these passages than what Paul originally intended.

Some pacifists argue that the very nature of warfare is such that one cannot carry it out without sin. Those who look to the Bible as the ultimate standard should immediately recognize the speciousness of such an argument. God wars in both Testaments.

In the Old Testament God ordered others to war. As we have noted, the blessings for obedience to God's Mosaic covenant did not include freedom from war, but victory in war. In the New Testament, God continues to be portrayed as a God who wars. Those familiar with the apocalyptic portions of the New Testament know this. The Bible never portrays all warfare as inherently sinful.

I would agree, however, that sin always accompanies human war. The nature of humans is such that no activity — not even preaching the gospel — is free from sin. We taint all the good we do with sin. The motivations of the best of actions are at some level a mixture of good and bad, a mixture of sin and righteousness. To expect Christian behavior to be otherwise is unrealistic. To refuse to participate in an activity simply because some sin will be present makes no sense.

If that were to be our guiding principle, then we would accomplish nothing. No weak person would be protected. No criminal would be punished. All for fear of sin. The taint of sin is no excuse for inaction. We must base Christian ethics on something greater.

Where an action is permissible, but the motivations behind the actions are tainted, a Christian should repent of the tainted motivations. However, he or she may still perform the action.

Before moving on, we should make a few additional observations about the fruit of love. As we have discussed in previous installments and will discuss further, the responsibility to love is multidirectional. Sometimes this creates conflicts. I must love the believers and my enemy. I must love my neighbor and my community. Yet at times my enemy is at the throat of my brother or sister, or my neighbor is undermining my community. To resolve conflicts between those I must love requires that I recognize a hierarchy of responsibility. That is true even within the church.

My love responsibility to my community may require that I severely deal with my neighbor, even if he or she is a professed Christian. Harsh actions do not rule out the presence of love. Just because I may need at times to act swiftly does not rule out patience. Just because I may occasionally mourn, be in conflict and be angry, does not rule out the presence of joy, peace and gentleness. Humans, like God, can be a mixture of all these simultaneously. Yet pacifists often speak as if it must be one way or the other. This is simply not so.

In summary, Galatians 5:19–24 is not an all-encompassing Christian ethic. Much is left out. Complex ethical issues surrounding war, military service, self-defense and the defense of others are not its concerns. Its vice and virtue lists address how the Galatian church is generally to worship God and treat fellow Christians. Some behaviors unacceptable between believers, such as strife and dissensions, should be present under other circumstances. Jesus dissented and was at strife with Satan.

Because these verses do not address how a Christian may respond to those who would murderously disturb civil order and peace, no valid reason exists to interpret these verses as pacifist.

### We do not wage war as the world does

Another passage popular with Christian pacifists is 2 Corinthians 10:3, "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does." Surely this verse advocates pacifism, doesn't it?

Again, we need to carefully examine the passage's context. When Paul says, _"we_ do not wage war," to whom is he referring? Some pacifists assume that Paul is referring to Christians in general, that as a whole Christians do not wage war. Is their assumption correct?

The proper interpretation of the passage hinges on understanding to whom Paul referred when he said _we._ Careful study of 2 Corinthians shows that Paul consistently referred to himself and his traveling companions as _us_ and _we_. He did not use _us_ or _we_ to refer to the Corinthians or for Christians in general. The Corinthians he called _you._

For example, in 10:11 "we" refers to Paul and his party who are absent from Corinth. _We_ does not refer to the Corinthians themselves. In 10:8, Paul says that the Lord gave "us" (his party) authority to build up "you" (the Corinthian members). In the next verse (10:9) Paul writes that he did not want to frighten "you" (the Corinthians) with his letters. While in 10:16 "we" (Paul's party) hoped to preach the gospel in regions beyond "you" (Corinth). And so forth throughout the book. (Notice especially 8:16–9:5).

The importance of these observations for understanding 2 Corinthians 10:3 is this: When Paul says: "Though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of this world," he is speaking of himself and those with him. He is not speaking of Christians in general. It is Paul who does not wage war as the world does. It is Paul who does not use worldly weapons but spiritual weapons.

(That all Christians wage spiritual warfare is without question. What is at issue is whether 2 Corinthians 10:3 refers to that struggle. The context of the passage argues that it does not).

Why are Paul's weapons not of this world? Paul's calling was to be an apostle, not a soldier. He was called to do battle on a spiritual level beyond that of the typical member, not on a physical level. To explain his calling, Paul used the weaponry of war as a positive metaphor for his preaching of the gospel. "The weapons we fight with," he wrote, "are not the weapons of the world."

Nonetheless, Paul's weapons have "divine power to demolish strongholds" (10:4). What kind of strongholds? "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience" (verses 5–6).

In this passage Paul uses military weaponry, conquest, the taking of prisoners and the punishment of evil as positive metaphors for preaching the gospel and defending the faith. If war were inherently sinful, is this not a strange analogy? Can we imagine him using adultery or theft as metaphors for his work? I do not think we can, because in Paul's writings they are always sinful. Yet in 2 Corinthians, warfare is a fit analogy for preaching the gospel.

Why does Paul mention this spiritual warfare? Paul had struggled with many difficulties in the Corinthian church. His letters were corrective. He knew that some would oppose him. Paul wrote: "Some say, 'His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing'" (verse 10). Paul warned that "such people should realize that what we are in our letters when we are absent, we will be in our actions when we are present" (verse 11).

In other words, Paul uses the metaphor of warfare to warn his opponents that he has divine power to conquer all false doctrine and mischief. He has power to punish the disobedient.

To repeat, Paul compares his struggles against doctrinal error to warfare. That is the warfare Paul fought. It was his calling. He was not called to be a soldier. This passage addresses Paul's circumstances not all possibilities.

Thus, a careful examination of 2 Corinthians 10:3 shows that it is not a pacifist passage. It is Paul's description of his apostolic calling and struggles within the church. Yet his positive uses of warfare metaphors suggest that Paul was not as condemnatory of warfare as most pacifists are. If anything, the passage leans away from pacifism, not toward it.

### If I have not love

One cannot complete a thorough study on whether Christians may war without prayerfully considering the "love chapter" — 1 Corinthians 13.

#### Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.... Now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Because of the way many think of love, they conclude that love must be pacifist. For how could one bomb, or shoot or burn an enemy in love? At first glance, 1 Corinthians 13 seems to support this view. "Love is kind." "It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered."

Yet let us not forget that God is love (1 John 4:8, 16), yet he also burns and kills. The lake of fire awaits sinners. These must be understood in light of his loving justice.

As we have mentioned before, when one examines specific cases, defining love and how to practice it becomes problematic. Love is multidirectional. Life gives us conflicting responsibilities. These may require decisions on whom to love and whom not to love, or at least how to love and whom to place first in our love obligations.

For example, Jesus says that I am to love both my enemies and my neighbors. What do I do when my enemies attack my neighbors? To whom are my duties of love owed?

In such situations, it is not possible to be kind and patient with both. If I do nothing, then I am not being kind to the victims. If I intervene in some meaningful way, then I may not be able to be kind or patient with the attackers. If I understand where my priorities should lie, I will know whom to treat kindly in such circumstances and whom not to. I will know how to fulfill my love responsibilities. Kindness must be shown to the victim by stopping the attack. Later, once everything is settled down, I may show some kindness to the attacker.

In the New International Version, 1 Corinthians 13:7 says, "love always protects." If this translation is correct, then our understanding of our love responsibilities takes on a significant meaning. If love "always protects," then surely it protects the innocent from the guilty, the weak from the strong, the poor from the rich, the powerless from the mighty. That is the thrust of many words in the Prophets.

To put it into other words, Does love always protect Hitler's SS? Then how does it always protect the Jews? Does love always protect the child molester? Then how does it always protect the child? Does love always protect a murderer? Then how does it always protect the murderer's potential victims? It seems that protecting everyone simultaneously is impossible. We must make distinctions. I believe love always protects the innocent, the poor, the widow, the downtrodden, the righteous, the stranger and everyone else before it ever protects a rapist, murderer, sadist or despot.

If love always protects, then when we use deadly force against murderous criminals and murderous nations to protect the innocent we may be doing so in love.

Let me illustrate this with a story I heard as a sermon illustration at one of our meetings in Spokane, Washington. I have no reason to doubt the story, for it would have been well known by some church members in the audience. Those who know the details of this story will forgive me if I get some details wrong. The thrust of the story was as follows.

In Montana a lady had an extremely violent husband. They lived on a plot of land isolated from their neighbors. The woman's elderly father lived in a building next to her and her husband. The husband frequently beat her. He would often fly into a horrendous rage. One day the husband went completely out of control. He threatened to kill his wife and her elderly father. The husband poured gasoline around the base of both houses. He owned guns, and everyone was absolutely terrified that he was going to carry out his threats. No one had seen him in such a rage before. In desperation, the woman, to protect her elderly father, took her husband's pistol and stood between her father and her husband. She pointed the pistol at him and insisted that he was not going to kill anyone. In his rage he charged them. She fired. The bullet killed him instantly. The realization of what she had done totally devastated her. She was convinced that she was a murderer. Yet was she? If love always protects, and she fired not out of malice but out of fear and concern for what would happen to innocent human beings, did she murder? Love, Paul says, always protects.

Or is this what Paul says? Almost all English translations say nothing about love always protecting. Most English translations say that love "bears all things." Does love bear all things, or does love always protect? The margins of some translations suggest that either translation is possible.

The Greek verb under question is _stégo_.

#### This verb comes from a stem meaning "to cover," "to conceal." It is a rare term but persists in both prose and common speech. Its basic meaning is "to keep covered," but this gives it such senses as "to protect," "to ward off," "to hold back," "to resist," "to support." It can also mean "to keep secret," "to keep silent," "to keep confidence." (George W. Bromiley, _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume_ [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1990], 1073)

As one can see, several senses of _stégo_ could be considered as types of protecting. But this is not enough to establish that "protect" was what Paul meant. While the NIV says "Love always protects," many translators would disagree. Because translators disagree significantly as to Paul's intended meaning for the verb in 1 Corinthians 13:7, we should not build our ethic around any one of their opinions.

On the other hand, could we say that the opposite is true? Does love never protect? That claim would be absurd. Viewed from that light, then, one attribute of love is that it does protect, whatever Paul intended to say in 1 Corinthians. The issues, of course, are who to protect, when to protect and how ferocious and deadly can such protection become? When confronted with a murderous enemy, may love use deadly force to protect?

It seems to me that one could be patient, kind, not envious, not boastful, humble, polite, not self-seeking, slow to anger and have all the other attributes of love listed in 1 Corinthians 13 and still on occasion use deadly force. God does. The use of deadly force does not automatically exclude the attributes of love.

Let us review the love attributes found in 1 Corinthians 13 from another perspective. We will use the same illustration that we used earlier, when discussing the attribute of protection. This time we will discuss the attributes of kindness and patience.

Would love always be kind to and patient with Hitler's SS? Then how would it have always been kind to and patient with the Jews, the Gypsies and other SS victims? Is love always kind and patient with the child molester? Then how is it always kind and patient with the child? Is love always kind and patient with a murderer? Then how is it always kind and patient to the murderer's potential victims? It seems that being kind and patient with everyone simultaneously is impossible. We must make distinctions.

I believe love is always kind and patient where God finds it is wise and morally appropriate to be kind and patient. To always be kind and patient with a child molester, a sadist or a power-hungry despot would be to turn one's back on the cries of those they oppress and abuse. It would be to turn our backs while people rape, murder, torture, burn and destroy. Such an ethic I find morally reprehensible. Surely it is not a stretch to suggest that Paul did not intend his words to be an all-encompassing ethic that defines Christian behavior in every situation. He did not discuss every situation.

As in so many of these allegedly pacifist passages, Paul is not addressing in 1 Corinthians 13 the broader issues of justice, social stability and the defense of the innocent, the poor, the widow, the downtrodden, the righteous, the stranger and everyone else who is legally, if not morally, innocent. He is not discussing how to defend the helpless, punish the guilty or protect society from the murderous. He is simply giving the Corinthians general guidelines on how to conduct their affairs. They needed to hear this because they were not doing it, as a reading of 1 Corinthians should make clear.

The letter's concerns are not the broader issues of how to maintain a civil and just society, or how to respond to marauding bandits or invading armies. Paul is writing about local church turmoil and how to put it to an end. You put it to an end with love.

Paul makes no claim that his general description of love should apply to how Christians always respond to the evil in this world. It is how they should live toward each other. Left unanswered is the question, What do we do if we, our families or the neighbors next door are confronted with evil? Paul does not say. His subject was not pacifism.

### James asks, From whence come wars and fightings among you?

The apostle James asked rhetorically, "From whence come wars and fightings among you?" (James 4:1, KJV). He answered:

#### Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?

Never a clearer statement on war's origins has been given. Lust leads to war. Have we now found a pacifist scripture? James lays the blame for war on uncontrolled lust. With that we can all heartily agree. What James does not discuss is how a Christian, when confronted by a lust-driven war, may respond to that assault. James never suggests that Christians, when confronted with an outbreak of such horror, must never ferociously protect him or herself or others. That would be reading something into the text that is simply not there.

To suggest that this origin of war —lust — is also the reason people defend themselves when attacked is not logical. Such arguments do not distinguish between the criminal and the victim, between the criminal and the duly constituted authorities who exist to protect us from the criminal. Therefore, to consider James's comments on the origin of war as a cry for pacifism is not logical. Hitler and Churchill were not moral equivalents. One started war out of lust. The other defended Europe from that lust.

### The wisdom that comes from heaven

#### But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness. (James 3:17–18)

These verses place the church on the side of peace. Not only should Christians be on the side of peace, they are to promote peace. Christians are to love peace. They are to be peacemakers. They are to sow in peace to raise a harvest of righteousness.

However, just as we have observed earlier, these verses do not address how we are to respond in every case to those who sow war and violence. Being a peacemaker and loving peace is not the same thing as being a pacifist. James does not call on Christians to totally renounce deadly force or warfare. Though as James says, peacemaking is part of heavenly wisdom, the Bible also teaches that God, in his heavenly wisdom, uses and will use violent deadly force. Therefore, one cannot indiscriminately claim that one who uses such force has rejected heavenly wisdom. A more nuanced understanding of each situation is required before passing judgment.

We said at the start of this paper that we would be looking to see if the Epistles call Christians to radically depart from the Old Testament's attitude toward warfare. We asked if the Epistles ended humanity's God-given authority to take human life under certain circumstances. We could also ask if a different ethic is required for Christians in this regard than is required of the world. While Christians are called to a higher calling, nothing in James calls on us to become total and absolute pacifists. Peacemakers, not pacifists, are what we are called to be. James does not help the pacifist cause.

### Endnotes

1 This paper makes the ethical distinction between _violence_ and _force_ common to discussions of this subject.

Richard A. Horsley in _Jesus and the Spiral of Violence_ (1993) begins chapter two by discussing the evolving understanding of _force_ and _violence_ in philosophical, theological and political circles. He asks: "What differentiates 'violence' from 'force'?" Horsley answers: "Some might hold that 'force is exercised by the established government in maintaining public order and national defense, whereas 'violence' is the proper label of physical violation of public order and security. But what of the government of a totalitarian dictatorship? In that case its use of 'force' is 'illegitimate.' Hence it should be preferable to have the _legitimacy_ of force as a principal criterion: 'force' is legitimate, but 'violence' is illegitimate. The term 'violence' is thus not only descriptive but also evaluative or normative.... Thus a legitimate government would be using _force_ to restrain and eliminate criminal abuse and harm to its citizenry. And similarly, citizens would be using _force_ and not violence in acting to overthrow an illegitimate government that had been using violence and not force against its subjects."

In a slight modification of the above, this paper uses the phrase _violent force_ to emphasize the kind of force warriors use in battle and citizens often use when defending against a murderer. _Force_ maintains the concept that such action is is legitimate while its potential fierceness is suggested by _violent._

2 For those interested in a more detailed treatment of vice and virtue lists I recommend _Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook_ by James L. Bailey and Lyle D. Vander Broek (Westminster/John Knox, 1992). They write, "Many of the N.T. lists do appear to have been shaped relative to the situation at hand. In Gal. 5:19–23, for instance, several of the listed vices (enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy) and virtues (love, joy, peace, patience, etc.) speak directly to the problems the church is experiencing" (page 67).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## War and Vengeance in the Epistles and Revelation – Part 2

### Hebrews 11, these all had faith

Sometimes we hear the argument that those who defend with lethal weapons lack faith. If only they had more faith in God, he would deliver them without their need to fight. Or if they died, God would deliver them in the resurrection of the just.

This argument reminds me of those who believe that using doctors is a lack of faith. If you really trusted God, they say, God would heal you. You would not need doctors. Of course the Bible does not teach this approach either. One can trust that God will heal in whatever way he pleases, by miracles, through doctors or through the body's natural healing ability. To insist that healing from God comes only through what we call a miracle is to limit God. It is by limiting God that we show a lack of faith.

One could equally say that if you really trusted God to provide for your needs you would not go to work. Going to work, it could be alleged, shows a lack of faith in God's ability to provide. Yet the people of God have always worked. They have understood that although God provides, he expects Christians to earn their daily bread. Christians go to work in faith, not without faith.

In the Old Testament the people of God fought. They picked up their swords and trusted in God to deliver them. They knew that God would fight for them either through their swords or by whatever other means he chose. Faith and fighting were not mutually exclusive behaviors.

Hebrews 11 surveys the Old Testament witness of faith.

#### I do not have time to tell you about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.... Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated — the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground. (verses 32b–38)

What fascinates me about this passage is the great variety of experiences that the people of God have been through. Some suffered for righteousness' sake, were driven about, tortured and martyred. They were unable to defend themselves and were without others to defend them. Others found miraculous deliverance. Still others fought boldly, God working with them to bring deliverance. The New Testament does not disparage, criticize or downplay any of their faith experiences. Nor does the New Testament suggest that our faith must find its expression differently — with the one exception that the New Testament specifies that we must have faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

Hebrews 11 covers about 2000 years of history, from Abraham to John the Baptist. It spans two covenants — the Abrahamic and the Mosaic. The New Testament's history of the new covenant begins with the death of Jesus about A.D. 30. It ends about 70 years later with the writing of the book of Revelation. The new covenant is now 2000 years old, but the biblical history of the new covenant spans only a small portion of that time.

Why is this significant? Suppose, for example, we had only the history of Israel's 70 years of Babylonian exile. Though we would have the story of Daniel in the lion's den and Meshach, Shadrach and Abednego in the fiery furnace, we would have no biblical record of the fall of Jericho, the period of the judges or David's slaying of Goliath. Different situations in Israel's history produced different faith experiences.

In isolation, the examples from Daniel might be understood as supporting pacifism, since Daniel and his friends did not fight. The other examples cannot be so understood. To have the first examples alone would give us a very incomplete picture of how God defends his people.

This incomplete picture might lead us to believe that God never commanded Israel to war. Or we might not know of the times that Israel righteously trusted God when they went to war. We would know nothing of how God trained David to fight.

My point is this, to believe that the experiences and beliefs of God's people in one limited period are normative for all time is in error. Just because the Ante-Nicene fathers were apparently pacifists, or that the New Testament church never fully faced the issue of military service, is no proof that we must be pacifists. While we appreciate much of what they stood for, not all of their theology and ethics were sound. They did not anticipate the many questions that Christians today must consider. New situations require new thinking.

Unfortunately for us, the New Testament also does not address all the ethical dilemmas that face modern Christians. We must mine Scripture for guidance, while being careful to discern properly the original situation in which a teaching was given. If the contexts are different, we must take care to be certain that the teaching applies in the new situation. It may not.

Hebrews 11 praises the faith of those who lived before there was a Christian church. Their faith at times involved combat. At other times it involved flight and deprivation. Even in Hebrews 11 contexts changed from one story to another. What might have been appropriate for one person of God may not have been for another. What united them was their faith in God. That ethic remains.

Although Hebrews 11 does not address military service and pacifism under the new covenant, by giving us its many examples of faith during times of war, it suggests that we should not automatically think less of those whose faith permits them to fight. In Hebrews 11, those who conquered their enemies through faith are equal morally to those who died as martyrs. In modern parlance, they praised the Lord and passed the ammunition.

### To this you were called

Of the pacifist churches, those in the Anabaptist family (e.g., Mennonites, Amish, Brethren) have the longest history of consistent pacifism. Born in persecution and martyrdom, Anabaptist theology has often stressed the suffering of Christ as the pattern for Christian ethics. Jesus' nonviolent suffering on the cross, his forgiveness of those who tortured and murdered him and his willingness to die for all humanity have been the basis for their understanding of Christian ethics. Christians, they believe, are to live just as he did. That means they cannot participate in carnal warfare.

Related to the above is their belief that this world is so corrupt that Christians should not participate in its affairs. That means that Anabaptists as a whole do not hold government jobs. While they acknowledge that human government has God's approval, they believe that a Christian has been given a higher calling requiring his or her separation from this world's institutions. In the paragraphs that follow, we will examine these claims in more detail.

Before doing so, we should perhaps remind ourselves of a point we made in part two of this series. There we observed that the purpose of Jesus' sacrificial suffering was a unique aspect of his ministry. To fulfill his purpose Jesus had to deny the sword. This uniqueness of Jesus' mission should caution us not to take cross-based ethics too far. Our mission is not Jesus' mission.

However, although our mission is not Jesus' mission, Christians should not assume that God does not call us to sacrificial service as well. Jesus told his disciples to take up their crosses and follow him (Matthew 10:38, 16:24). Those who seek to save their lives, Jesus said, would lose them. While those who lost their lives for his sake would find them (16:25). Christians must consider that martyrdom for Jesus may be part of their calling.

With that in mind, we turn to 1 Peter. It teaches:

#### If you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.... When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. (1 Peter 2:20b–25)

Our Christian calling includes a call to be willing to suffer unjustly and not fight back. Any Christian ethic that does not include this teaching has failed to grasp the fullness of Jesus' example for us. To grasp how Peter understood this ethic, we need to study 1 Peter 2 in its context.

Peter's statement on Christian suffering follows his teaching that Christians should have public good deeds so that pagans who see them will glorify God on the day of visitation (verse 12). Peter lists the type of good deeds he has in mind. Christians, he says, are to submit to governmental authorities (verses 13–17). Christian slaves are to submit to their masters, even unjust ones. Such submission might result in an unjust beating (verses 18–21). Slaves are to do this because Jesus himself patterned such behavior. He was _the_ suffering servant.

In chapter four Peter expands his advice.

#### Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ.... If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed. (4:12–16a)

Unjust suffering for what is good, suffering for being a Christian, is noble. It imitates Jesus. Still, we should keep in mind that Peter never advised that we should seek to suffer. For example, he never taught Christians to become enslaved to unjust masters so that they could then copy the suffering of Jesus.

Peter directed his advice to those who were suffering already, to those who had little opportunity to escape unjust blows. He spoke to Christians caught in oppressive situations with no hope of escape. His was not an explanation of how Christians were to behave in every circumstance.

Notice also that Peter implied that people who behaved criminally should expect to suffer. But Christians, he argues, if they suffer as Christians, have nothing to be ashamed of.

Whether Christians employed by governments can bring suffering, even death, on those behaving as criminals is beyond 1 Peter's concerns. Peter's call to Christians to endure suffering as Jesus did springs from the congregational realities with which he was dealing. In Peter's day many Christian slaves were without any hope of emancipation. In Peter's day, Christians generally were denied government and military positions. Governmentally sanctioned persecution was becoming an increasing problem. Christians did not seek military or government employment in part because to do so would have required their participation in pagan rites.

1 Peter does not say how Christians may behave in a culture where slavery is abolished, governments protect Christians, paganism is no longer imposed and believers may be employed in governmental and military service. These circumstances, different from those faced by the early church, are our present reality.

It should be apparent that Peter's advice does not automatically transfer to every modern circumstance. For example, Peter's advice assumes that Christians are in no position to either liberate slaves, or short of that, to prohibit their abuse and punish their abusers. We should not assume, therefore, that he would give the same advice to those who could defend the oppressed as he would give to those who were abused and could do nothing to change their condition. Properly understood, one cannot use 1 Peter to defend pacifism.

### 1 John 4:20, if we hate our brother

John is known as the apostle of love. If love requires pacifism, then it seems that the apostle of love would say so. Some believe that he does.

First John tells Christians "to love one another as he [Jesus] commanded us" (1 John 3:23, cp. 3:11). First John defines love not by giving us a series of commands, but by examples both positive and negative. For example, it affirms "If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother" (verses 20–21).

The reader of the earlier articles in this series will recall that we have dealt with most of the key points in this passage already. For example, we learned that in the New Testament a brother is not any human being, but is a member of the household of faith. So when John tells us to love our brothers, he is saying we should love fellow Christians. He is not discussing whether we should love anyone else or how to love anyone else.

Love is also multidirectional. Love for one person may conflict with love for another, or love for the community. One may find it necessary to punish those to whom one owes love. It may even be necessary to defend with deadly force one person you love against the assaults of another person you love. This is an unfortunate but occasionally real example of love in action. In both Testaments, bloodshedding and love are not mutually exclusive. The Bible makes no such dichotomy.

So, all that we can say from John's writings is that he tells us that Christians should love Christians. Christians should not hate Christians. On this point all Christians would agree.

### The Apocalypse

God also inspired the apostle of love to write the most enigmatic of the New Testament books — the symbolic and violent book of Revelation. Bloodletting fills many of its pages. For pacifists, these bloodlettings are the acts of sinful humanity, the acts of Satan or the result of the just judgments of the Lord of life. The church is believed to shed the blood of no one, but through its martyrs has its own blood shed. By the close of the book, God has avenged his people.

That God's vengeance concludes the book again points out that warfare is not inherently sinful. In the New Testament, God and the Lord Jesus Christ are warriors. They fight to defend their defenseless church.

Revelation 11 particularly intrigues me. I believe it says something important that most commentators miss. It tells the story of God's two witnesses. It says of them:

#### If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. These men have the power to shut up the sky so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying, and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they will.

I grant that this is apocalyptic imagery, so it is debatable how literally we should take this. Are these actual men? Time will tell. They may be. Regardless, they are portrayed as men who do God's will.

In Revelation God gives the two witnesses unique power and authority. The chapter does not simply say that they will announce God's judgments. Instead, it explicitly says that God will grant them the power to start killer plagues. When water turns into blood, when plagues of all kinds strike the earth, when it does not rain for three-and-a-half years, people will die, including innocent babies. They will die because these men order it.

Whether these men are apocalyptic symbols or are real-live prophets makes no difference in the validity of their ethical example. Symbolically or literally, they are not pacifists. God and the apostle John have no problem with that. In the new covenant era, it is righteous for the two witnesses to use deadly force.

### Do not repay anyone evil for evil

I have waited until this point in my paper to analyze what some may consider to be two of the strongest pacifist pericopes in the New Testament, Romans 12:17–21 and Romans 13:8–10. These verses come before and after Paul's discussion of the God-ordained purpose for the military.

There are two basic views of these verses as they relate to Paul's comments on human government. A Christian pacifist understanding would have these verses contrasting the Christian walk with what God has in mind for human government. There is one standard for the church, another for the state. This is the Anabaptist view. They add that Christians, because they have a different calling, cannot be agents of the state.

The nonpacifist view sees these verses as showing how private Christian citizens and the state should interact. This view says that private citizens should not unnecessarily take the law into their own hands. The state has been ordained to deal with evil persons. If Christians are working for the state, then that becomes their responsibility as well.

We should now examine these verses. In them Paul says:

#### Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary;

#### "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."

#### Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:17–21)

Keys words in this pericope are _evil, right, peace, revenge, wrath, enemy_ and _good_. Let us think about these words. Christians are not to repay evil for evil. But what is evil? How we define this term will control our understanding of this verse. In this passage, Paul does not explain what he means by evil. He assumes that he and his readers share common ideas of what evil is. (Some things Paul probably considered evil are listed in Romans 1:28–31. See also his comments in 7:21–23, where he tells of his own evil within.)

I understand evil to be actions and attitudes reprehensible to God. I do not believe defending a widow from a vicious murderer, even if it means taking the murderer's life, is evil. It would be evil, however, if I, in revenge, assaulted the innocent grandmother of the murderer.

I do not read Romans as condemning as evil the defense of the innocent, even if such defense causes harm to the guilty. I believe pacifists who consider Paul's desire that we not return evil for evil to also forbid every type of deadly force are wrong. Deadly force is not inherently evil.

To say that something is bad does not always imply a negative moral judgment, especially when speaking of things. By contrast, to say that something is evil always implies a strongly negative judgment. For example, we can speak of a bad piece of fruit, like an apple, and simply mean that it has spoiled and is no longer good for eating. The fruit is bad, but the fruit is not evil. We are not making a moral judgment about the apple.

But now let us speak of bad apples. Literally, a bad apple is an apple that has begun to rot. Metaphorically, a bad apple is a person whose character has begun to rot. If such persons are extremely bad, they are evil. To call anyone evil is to make a severe moral judgment about that person.

In some modern teenage slang "bad" means "good." Those uninformed of this usage may not understand what a teenager means when he or she says something is "bad." These illustrations show how understanding the context in which a writer uses words enables us to understand the writer's meanings. Not paying attention to contexts can lead to inaccurate conclusions.

Most people agree that war is bad. Most agree that many wars are evil. Yet, few agree that all who fought against Hitler were evil or that their cause was evil. To say that war is bad is not the same thing as saying war is evil.

To say that some wars are evil is not to say that all wars are evil. To say that one side in a war is evil is not to say that both sides are evil. To say that one soldier who kills is evil is not to say that all soldiers who kill are evil. What interests us is whether Paul considers all forms of bloodshed — including defensive warfare, capital punishment, killing in self-defense or the defense of others — to be evil behavior for Christians. If Paul does characterize all such behavior as evil for Christians, then we can conclude that Paul believes Christians must be pacifists.

Of course, as we have said, some view warfare as evil for Christians but not for non-Christians. Let us consider that possibility. Does Paul argue for a two-tier, two-realm morality: one morality for non-Christians and another for Christians?

As we have seen, Paul commands Christians not to repay anyone "evil for evil." If one believes that all bloodshed is evil, then one will read this statement as denying any possibility of Christian bloodletting. Yet if one does not believe all bloodletting is evil, then one will not think this is what Paul means. We cannot use this statement by Paul to defend pacifism until we prove that Paul believes Christians can never under any circumstances kill another human. Is this what Paul believes?

Fortunately, Paul's comments do not end there. He immediately follows with "Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody" (verse 17b). If one does what everyone considers right, one will not be repaying evil with evil. Because everyone does not have the same opinion about all types of violent force, Paul's statement is not too helpful.

To clarify his teaching further Paul says, "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Obviously Paul understands that living at peace may not depend on us, and, therefore, may not be possible. If the enemy insists that he or she is going to bomb your home, peace no longer exists. Paul's statement implies that Christians may not always be living at peace. At those times may we use violent force?

Paul understood that mistreated people may try to seek revenge. The old covenant regulated vengeance within Israel. No one could demand more than an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth. By Paul's day, the rabbis understood that the most practical way to handle such cases was to impose a monetary fine on the guilty party.

The law also imposed death sentences to maintain Israel's religious purity and to punish murder. In Genesis, God gave all nations authority to take human life. Murderers were to be executed.

Paul does not tell us in Romans 12 what kind of vengeance he has in mind when he says, "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath." However, a few verses later Paul explains that soldiers, those who "bear the sword," are God's servants and God's agents of wrath (13:4). To "leave room for God's wrath" would, therefore, have to include allowing for the activity of soldiers. God's wrath is not limited to human activity, but may include it.

Since God has established government to execute his wrath, Paul's advice seems to mean that Christians should not take the law into their own hands. They are to allow for God's ordained way of bringing wrath.

How should Christians behave when wronged? Besides trusting God to avenge (verse 19), Christians are to treat their enemies with kindness. A hungry enemy is to be fed. A thirsty enemy is to be given drink. This is to be done with the knowledge that "you will heap burning coals on his head." We are to conquer evil with good (verse 21).3

We should consider, however, that when the enemy is shooting at you, feeding them is not possible. When the enemy is bombing your city, you cannot give them drink.

Paul envisions a more personal and perhaps communal situation. You know your enemy. You know if they are hungry or thirsty. The situation is calm enough for you to safely give them food and drink.

You cannot apply Paul's counsel when your enemy is acting violently toward you, your family, your neighbors or your country. It can only happen when your enemy is acting peacefully toward you.

Nor does Paul suggest that because we feed our enemies, we sit back and do nothing to bring them to justice. Suppose someone rapes your wife. Such things do happen. You know who the rapist is. Vengeance is due. Yet you do nothing to apprehend him or that might result in him being punished. Why? Because Paul counsels you to feed him.

That, of course, would be nonsense. Paul says nothing about ignoring crimes, or doing nothing to punish criminals legally. He says simply that we must not seek private vengeance, that we must trust in God's determination that vengeance will be done, and when possible to "live at peace with everyone." Then he goes on to say that soldiers are instruments of God's vengeance.

To take a modern example, Western nations have sought to treat captured prisoners of war humanely. They have to a greater or lesser degree fed them when hungry and given them drink when they were thirsty. Western nations have tried, though not perfectly, to overcome evil with good. American treatment of conquered Japan and Germany is an imperfect example of what Paul is talking about.

That God wants us to do good to an enemy does not mean that God never allows us to respond with violent force to our enemy's evil doing. Though we are not to return evil for evil, not all violent force is evil. Doing good and responding with violent force are not contradictory behaviors. Our enemies' actions have some bearing on how we respond. Private vengeance is usually wrong. Vigilantism can rarely be justified. Yet legal governmental wrath on evildoers God has ordained.

To explain himself further, Paul taught that the only debt we should owe anyone is the debt of love (13:8). To love another is to fulfill the law (verses 8b and 10b). Paul seems to have understood that to love our neighbor means we are to love all humankind (verses 8 and 10). "Love does no harm [or wrong, NRSV] to its neighbor" (verse 10). In this passage Paul did not explain exactly what he meant by harm (or wrong). Instead he gave us examples.

Paul's examples came from the Ten Commandments. He cited them not as law but to illustrate what he meant by _harm_. The commandments he quoted prohibited things that gentiles widely considered harmful (verse 9). Paul would not limit harm to these examples, but he does not say exactly what he considers harm to be in every case. Christians, he simply says, are to be harmless.

However, just as with love, so it is with harmlessness. Our obligations to be harmless are multidirectional, and therefore can be conflicting. If I know a father is molesting his daughter, is my obligation of harmlessness to him or his daughter? Whatever I do or not do, the potential for harm is there. If I see a drunk beating up his elderly mother, am I to be harmless to her or to her drunken son? If I do nothing, then my inaction causes her additional harm. If I intervene, then my actions may harm him. If a deranged killer is attacking his family, to whom am I expected to be harmless? Either my action or my inaction will probably harm somebody.

This raises an important point. Pacifists often accuse nonpacifists of supporting behavior that is terribly grave in its consequences. To them, pacifism is relatively harmless. Yet in the examples given above, pacifism is not necessarily harmless. Pacifism can have just as grave consequences as the refusal to kill.

Returning to Paul, we can see that his call for Christians to be harmless is possible in many one-to-one situations. But when a third party is involved (either directly or indirectly), our obligations can be conflicting, making total harmlessness impossible. Pacifism itself cannot be harmless to everyone every time. The Holocaust is a mute witness to that truth. Even if we allow for passive resistance or nonlethal force as potential options to deadly defense, would such tactics have stopped Hitler? Harmlessness to the SS would have lead to increasing harm of the Jews and everyone else they hated. Paul's comments on harmlessness seem only to make sense in his broader command that "if it be possible...live at peace with everyone" (12:18). Our conflicting responsibilities to love means that it is not always possible for us to do this.

### For he is God's servant

We can now examine Paul's understanding of human government. Romans 13:1–7 has bedeviled Christian political theorists for centuries, not because what it says is incomprehensible, but because people's understanding of how it is to be applied are so varied. If Paul had only written an entire book on the relationships between Christians and human governments it might all be much clearer. Yet he did not. He wrote seven verses. He gave us basic principles, not detailed applications.

In speaking of human government, Paul was not addressing the forms that those governments might take. His was not a treatise on democracy, kingship or any other form of human government. He was simply addressing the purposes that God has given to governments. His argument assumed that governments act responsibly, according to their God-given functions. He was speaking of the ideal, not the real. That governments often stray far from the ideal has created some ethical dilemmas for Christians.

Paul tells Christians in Romans 13:1 to submit to governments because God has ordained them. No authority exists that God has not ordained. Rebellion against such authority is, therefore, rebellion against God. Judgment will come on the rebels, presumably from the governments themselves. That is because "rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong" (verse 3a).

The argument presupposes God's superior authority over the governments, for he ordained them. This superiority of authority means that Christians have a superiority of obedience. Where God and state conflict, obedience to God comes first.

Government authorities that are fulfilling their God-ordained roles will commend those who do right. They will do this because they are God's servants to do us good (verse 4a).

Where government authorities are God's servants, may Christians be this kind of God's servant? May Christians be governing authorities? May they bear the sword? Paul does not say. We know that he assumes Christians are not government authorities, because he only speaks of Christians as under the authorities. Yet Paul's argument does not envision all Christian possibilities. The what-if question we just raised is not a part of his letter.

Paul's argument also does not envision all governmental possibilities either, such as an Adolf Hitler or a Stalin. In Romans 13, governing authorities are God's servants and they behave as God's servants. Later in Revelation, as Rome persecuted the church, the Roman government is portrayed as a power that has joined the other side.

Revelation portrays Christian responsibility toward such governments as nonsubmissive. For example, the two witnesses resist with deadly plagues those who seek their harm, until it is God's time for the two witnesses to be martyred. The "woman" of Revelation 12 flees from Satan rather than submit to death, though some of her children are martyred. In Revelation the righteous die rather than submit to "Babylon's" demands. Nothing suggests that their deaths are because they are pacifists or conscientious objectors. Socially powerless, they await the return of the Lord of Lords, who will lead the armies of heaven into righteous war.

But in the ideal presentation of Romans 13, government authorities appropriately bear the sword as God's servants (verse 4). The sword symbolizes their power over human life.

In Paul's day, the army carried out all police, prison and military functions of the state. The modern distinctions between police and army did not exist. So, whatever Paul wrote about soldiers applies to law-enforcement agents.

Paul taught that soldiers and those who command them are governing authorities. Soldiers are God's servants. Paul does not claim that God approves of every one of their actions any more than he approves of all our actions. But they are God's servants. These servants are agents "of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (verse 4). The sword is an instrument of wrath.

As Paul often does, he speaks of generalities without any qualifying statements. Obviously God does not approve every wrathful act of governing authorities. Yet he approves some of their wrathful acts. That is the purpose behind God's giving the sword to governments. He often brings vengeance through them. God holds them accountable for how and on whom they execute vengeance, but not for vengeance itself. That God gave them a sword means they can kill people, for that is the purpose of a sword. Yet they should kill according to the reason God gave them the sword in the first place: to bring God's wrath on wrongdoers.

We submit to these authorities because of who ordained them and because we do not wish to have a conscience problem. Because they are God's servants, and labor continually at their jobs, we pay our taxes. That is how they get paid (verses 5–7).

For us as a church, these verses raise interesting questions. For example, when was the last time you heard a sermon telling Christians to honor the military or police because they were ministers of God? I have never heard a sermon that said the American soldiers, Russian sailors and Japanese airmen were all God's ministers. Yet that is what the Scriptures teach. Perhaps we would have had a different view of military service and war had we preached these verses.

In all of Paul's discussion of government authorities, their God-ordained functions, their power over life and our Christian submission to them, Paul never implies that Christians cannot morally perform government functions. Of course, neither does he encourage Christians to find ways of serving God in this manner.

May Christians war? Our answers seem to hinge on whether we believe Christians can be the kinds of servants of God who "do not carry the sword for nothing" and who "bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

Anabaptists generally say that Christians may not serve God in this way, that what is duty to the unbeliever is sin for the believer. They believe that in this matter God has two different rules of conduct, one for Christians one for non-Christians. Most other Christians disagree.

### Endnote

3 At first, Paul's claim — that giving food and drink to our enemies will result in burning coals heaped on their heads — appears to suggest that we do good to gain vengeance. However, that contradicts a purpose for feeding our enemies — to relieve their physical needs. Thus, many commentators feel "burning coals on their heads" metaphorically refers to a burning conscience. By treating our enemies with kindness we move them to repentance.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Questions & Answers

By Michael Morrison, PhD

**Question:** Is it permissible for a Christian to be in the police and carry a gun on the job?

**Answer:** Yes. Romans 13:1-4 tells us that God has authorized civil governing authorities. They bear the sword, verse 4 tells us, to punish those who do wrong. God has authorized civil authorities to punish criminals. Usually this is done through process of law, but laws also authorize the police to take potentially lethal action in certain situations.

Civil government, specifically the function of law enforcement, is a divinely authorized role. The police carry potentially lethal weapons as part of their divinely authorized job of preventing social chaos. They hold a terror to those who do wrong, verse 3 tells us, and in so doing, they are God's servants (verses 4, 6).

If prowlers are outside our home, they may be armed and dangerous. It is not wrong to phone the police and ask them to confront the prowlers. It is not wrong to request legal armed protection; neither is it wrong to provide that divinely authorized armed protection. It would be hypocritical to allow Christians to request police protection and simultaneously condemn those who provide it. (We are not discussing the problem of police who abuse their position.)

Police are carrying out a divinely authorized job that is needed for social stability. They carry weapons not for personal revenge or anger, but to protect and help others. In many cases, they risk their lives to save others. We do not require them to quit this in order to be considered Christian.

In the first century, soldiers did the work now done by police. Some of these soldiers, probably Jewish soldiers, asked John the Baptist what they should do to repent (Luke 3:14). He told them, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely — be content with your pay." He said nothing about putting away their swords. A few years later, Cornelius the centurion was baptized, and nothing was said about his occupation. Even as a sword-carrying centurion, he was considered devout and righteous (Acts 10:2, 22). There was nothing unrighteous about his role in enforcing the law.

In some translations, the sixth commandment says, "You shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13). But the same law code also prescribed the death penalty for many transgressions. The people who carried out the death penalty were upholding the law, not breaking it. The meaning of the sixth commandment is, as most translations convey, "You shall not murder." The distinction between _kill_ and _murder_ recognizes the fact that under some circumstances taking human life is permissible or divinely mandated. Under those circumstances, which would include proper law enforcement, taking human life is not a sin. It is therefore permissible for a Christian to work in law enforcement, because that is a divinely authorized role. Policemen may be baptized, and Christians may join the police.

**Question:** Should military service be viewed in the same way as police work?

**Answer:** Military service, although it can include functions similar to law enforcement, is much more complex. One major difference is that military personnel are not allowed to quit whenever they want. One week they might be commanded to serve as police, but theoretically the very next week they might be commanded to fight as aggressors. They are not allowed to quit at such moments simply because they don't feel the action is right, or because they feel the government has given them biased information.

For this reason, we believe that Christians who are considering joining the military should carefully and prayerfully consider the commitment they would be making and their reasons for making it. We do not believe that it is a sin to join the military. (Some nations require all citizens to serve a term in the military, and in such cases it is usually wise to serve the required term. Christians often have the option of noncombatant roles.)

We also recognize that some Christians honesty believe that they should avoid military service. Being a conscientious objector for right reasons is an honorable position to hold.

When police are ordered to do something illegal, they should refuse to do so, and they have the option of leaving such employment. When military personnel are ordered to do something ungodly, they should also refuse to do so. However, they cannot simply leave the employment of the military. Severe penalties may be involved, but Christians should obey God rather than human governments whenever there is a contradiction. If military personnel are commanded to knowingly act unjustly and be unjustified aggressors, they should refuse no matter what the penalty is. However, the church is not in a position to evaluate their situation for them. Each person must make his or her own decisions.

back to table of contents

## About the Author...

Ralph Orr was a minister and an employee of the denomination now known as Grace Communion International.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## About the Publisher...

Grace Communion International is a Christian denomination with about 50,000 members, worshiping in about 900 congregations in almost 100 nations and territories. We began in 1934 and our main office is in North Carolina. In the United States, we are members of the National Association of Evangelicals and similar organizations in other nations. We welcome you to visit our website at www.gci.org.

If you want to know more about the gospel of Jesus Christ, we offer help. First, we offer weekly worship services in hundreds of congregations worldwide. Perhaps you'd like to visit us. A typical worship service includes songs of praise, a message based on the Bible, and opportunity to meet people who have found Jesus Christ to be the answer to their spiritual quest. We try to be friendly, but without putting you on the spot. We do not expect visitors to give offerings—there's no obligation. You are a guest.

To find a congregation, write to one of our offices, phone us or visit our website. If we do not have a congregation near you, we encourage you to find another Christian church that teaches the gospel of grace.

We also offer personal counsel. If you have questions about the Bible, salvation or Christian living, we are happy to talk. If you want to discuss faith, baptism or other matters, a pastor near you can discuss these on the phone or set up an appointment for a longer discussion. We are convinced that Jesus offers what people need most, and we are happy to share the good news of what he has done for all humanity. We like to help people find new life in Christ, and to grow in that life. Come and see why we believe it's the best news there could be!

Our work is funded by members of the church who donate part of their income to support the gospel. Jesus told his disciples to share the good news, and that is what we strive to do in our literature, in our worship services, and in our day-to-day lives.

If this e-book has helped you and you want to pay some expenses, all donations are gratefully welcomed, and in several nations, are tax-deductible. If you can't afford to give anything, don't worry about it. It is our gift to you. To make a donation online, go to www.gci.org/participate/donate.

Thank you for letting us share what we value most — Jesus Christ. The good news is too good to keep it to ourselves.

See our website for hundreds of articles, locations of our churches, addresses in various nations, audio and video messages, and much more.

Grace Communion International  
3129 Whitehall Park Dr.

Charlotte, NC 28273-3335

1-800-423-4444

www.gci.org

### You're Included...

We talk with leading Trinitarian theologians about the good news that God loves you, wants you, and includes you in Jesus Christ. Most programs are about 28 minutes long. Our guests have included:

Ray Anderson, Fuller Theological Seminary

Douglas A. Campbell, Duke Divinity School

Elmer Colyer, U. of Dubuque Theological Seminary

Gordon Fee, Regent College

Trevor Hart, University of St. Andrews

George Hunsinger, Princeton Theological Seminary

Jeff McSwain, Reality Ministries

Paul Louis Metzger, Multnomah University

Paul Molnar, St. John's University

Cherith Fee Nordling, Antioch Leadership Network

Andrew Root, Luther Seminary

Alan Torrance, University of St. Andrews

Robert T. Walker, Edinburgh University

N.T. Wright, University of St. Andrews

William P. Young, author of _The Shack_

Programs are available free for viewing and downloading at www.youreincluded.org.

### Speaking of Life...

Dr. Joseph Tkach, president of Grace Communion International, comments each week, giving a biblical perspective on how we live in the light of God's love. Most programs are about three minutes long – available in video, audio, and text. Go to www.speakingoflife.org.

back to table of contents

##

Grace Communion Seminary

Ministry based on the life and love of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Grace Communion Seminary serves the needs of people engaged in Christian service who want to grow deeper in relationship with our Triune God and to be able to more effectively serve in the church.

Why study at Grace Communion Seminary?

 Worship: to love God with all your mind.

 Service: to help others apply truth to life.

 Practical: a balanced range of useful topics for ministry.

 Trinitarian theology: a survey of theology with the merits of a Trinitarian perspective. We begin with the question, "Who is God?" Then, "Who are we in relationship to God?" In this context, "How then do we serve?"

 Part-time study: designed to help people who are already serving in local congregations. There is no need to leave your current ministry. Full-time students are also welcome.

 Flexibility: your choice of master's level continuing education courses or pursuit of a degree: Master of Pastoral Studies or Master of Theological Studies.

 Affordable, accredited study: Everything can be done online.

For more information, go to www.gcs.edu. Grace Communion Seminary is accredited by the Distance Education Accrediting Commission, www.deac.org. The Accrediting Commission is listed by the U.S. Department of Education as a nationally recognized accrediting agency.

back to table of contents

## Ambassador College of Christian Ministry

Want to better understand God's Word? Want to know the Triune God more deeply? Want to share more joyously in the life of the Father, Son and Spirit? Want to be better equipped to serve others?

Among the many resources that Grace Communion International offers are the training and learning opportunities provided by ACCM. This quality, well-structured Christian Ministry curriculum has the advantage of being very practical and flexible. Students may study at their own pace, without having to leave home to undertake full-time study.

This denominationally recognized program is available for both credit and audit study. At minimum cost, this online Diploma program will help students gain important insights and training in effective ministry service. Students will also enjoy a rich resource for personal study that will enhance their understanding and relationship with the Triune God.

Diploma of Christian Ministry classes provide an excellent introductory course for new and lay pastors. Pastor General Dr. Joseph Tkach said, "We believe we have achieved the goal of designing Christian ministry training that is practical, accessible, interesting, and doctrinally and theologically mature and sound. This program provides an ideal foundation for effective Christian ministry."

For more information, go to www.ambascol.org

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

