PACIFISM: Is It wrong for a Christian to defend himself?
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth
for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you
on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matthew 5:38-39).
SHOULD THIS CHRISTIAN HAVE BEEN THERE?
A good friend of our family was a captain in the SOC
(Special Operations Commando) regiment in the Australian Army. Let’s call him
Harry. Harry was a most dedicated soldier, the creme de la creme. However, more
importantly, Harry was first and foremost a genuinely committed believer in our
lord Messiah Jesus.
Harry considered himself first enlisted “in the Lord’s
army”. He loved sharing his faith, loved talking about Bible matters and the
Gospel of salvation, and loved being with God’s people even more than his status as
an elite soldier. He would rarely talk about anything to do with the special
operations he was involved in around the various hot spots of the world.
One day, when his guard was down, I asked Harry about his
active duty. We were on a long drive from Victoria all the way back to
Queensland, so we were chatting for many hours. I asked him, “Have you ever had
to shoot someone?”
Harry proceeded to tell me about the day he was in a combat
zone and had his rifle sights fixed on an enemy soldier. He did not pull the
trigger. But when that hostile combatant started running towards one of Harry’s
fellow soldiers with his gun aimed to shoot, in that split second, Harry pulled
the trigger, and the enemy fighter dropped stone dead.
“How did you feel about killing that man?” I asked. He
responded without hesitation, “It was him or my mate. I did what I had to do.”
You can argue that if Harry was a true Christian he should not have found
himself in that situation in the first place - he should not have enlisted,
pure and simple.
But such a quick assessment fails to see the big picture.
Maybe Harry’s action saved a man who was later to become a Christian through
Harry’s exemplary witness? But one thing is for sure, Harry’s action brought a
beloved son, brother, husband and father back home his family.
Someone may still argue that the end still does not justify
the means.
To be perfectly honest, I have long pondered about the
virtues - or otherwise - of pacifism …non-violent retaliation when threatened
verbally and/or physically. It’s such a vexing question and one that cannot be
easily addressed from the confines of a relatively safe country and a cozy
armchair.
TWO ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS
Some theologians believe Christians may have a
sense of calling to join a police department or the armed services. Some
Christians do have a strong sense of a moral duty to be as salt and light right
at the coal face of society. They argue that since the Bible has many stories
about God commanding war - He is indeed called “the Warrior-God” - He
cannot be against just wars, nor would He command wars if they were evil.
(1- E.G. Loraine Boettner’s, The Christian’s Attitude
Toward War, (Third Ed., Phillipsburg, NJ 1985)
Voices on the opposite side maintain that Christians are
held to a higher standard since the advent of the lord Messiah Jesus. Jesus’
supreme example of nonviolent resistance to wickedness took him all the way as
the Lamb of God as a sin-offering sacrifice on the cross [stake] to his God and
his Father Yehovah. Jesus challenged the political and religious power
structures by refusing to use violent aggression. Therefore, God - Yehovah
vindicated him and raised him from the dead.
Similarly, Jesus commanded his followers to love their
enemies and to pray for and to forgive those who persecute them. Therefore,
enlistment in the armed services or defending oneself and loved ones is
contrary to the Christian spirit of the NT. Christians from the earliest of
apostolic days have entrusted their lives to their Redeemer and refused to
exercise their rights to self-defense and now the weapons of our warfare
are not physical but spiritual. So, who’s right?
Those who adopt pacifism in all circumstances often appeal
to the unanimous testimonies of the post-apostolic church ‘fathers’ [sic].
Tertullian (174 AD) is representative. He issued a loud and bitter cry against
the participation of certain Christians in military service. He said: “Shall it
be held lawful to make an occupation (in the army) when the lord proclaims
that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of
peace take part in the battle, when it does not become him to even sue in a law
court? On the contrary, if a soldier gets converted, he must abandon the
military immediately.”
Tertullian notwithstanding, as a matter of historical
record, many Christians were serving in the Imperial Roman army. And
there is no record of the early church insisting that a new convert must resign
from the army. However, there are records of Christian soldiers who refused to
carry out orders to torture and pillage who were executed for insubordination.
And let’s not forget the number of centurions recorded in the NT who were good
and righteous men who were a blessing and protection to God’s – Yehovah’s people
(Luke 7:1-5; Acts 10:4; 21: 30f; 27:42-43).
Does Jesus’ teaching about not resisting the evil person who
wishes to strike us apply only to interpersonal relationships or to the wider
social sphere? Does it only apply to being insulted and mocked or does it also
include when one’s bodily safety is threatened?
I hope to show that it is not a universal, blanket rule,
without exceptions. We will see that Jesus’ own example and the apostolic
application about not resisting the wicked person has qualifications and
limits.
THE CONTEXT
Let’s remember that Jesus was born into a century marked by
egregious political and social violence against Jews. Even Jews with their love
for Torah were divided as to how to respond to Rome’s subjugation.
Oppressed by Rome, the Sadducees tried to parley and
collaborate with Rome; the Zealots engaged in guerilla assassinations carrying
daggers under their garments and they engaged in stealth-killing of the enemy
as well as fighting in open insurrection; the Essenes quietly withdrew from society
to the desert for non-involvement, and prepared their hearts in prayer and
study in communal isolation waiting for the visible intervention of God’s
Kingdom.
PART TWO
Jesus stepped into this dangerous and confused climate with
his radical message: “You have heard that it was said: “Eye for eye, and
tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone
strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew
5:38-39).
It seems to me that difficulties over Jesus’ teaching in
Matthew 5:38 arise from a failure to understand that it is situated amid a denunciation of the hypocrisy and false righteousness as taught and
practiced by the scribes and Pharisees. He was exposing their error(s) when he
said: “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes
and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20)?
(2 - This theme is ubiquitous throughout the ‘Sermon on
the Mount’ … e.g. Matthew 5:46-47; 6:1-2,5,16; 7:29.)
Perhaps Jesus was not annulling the Law of ‘tit for tat’
(Lex Talionis) of the OT but correcting its misuse, even its abuse, by the
leaders in Israel. Jesus was exposing the erroneous practices of the scribes
and Pharisees who were oppressing their fellow countrymen. Jesus even described
their behavior as devouring widow’s houses! Let’s test this hypothesis …
UNDERSTANDING THE OLD TESTAMENT LAW
The OT prescription of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth occurs first in Exodus 21:24 (and in two other places at Leviticus 24:19-20
and Deuteronomy 19:21). Exodus 21 opens by addressing the judges like this: “These
are the judgments which you shall set before them”. So, these statutes,
including an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, are the parameters given
to the magistrates of the courts.
This formula was not given to foster personal vengeance -
indeed, the law specifically forbade taking such matters into one’s own hands:
You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor
and not bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any
grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor
as yourself … (Leviticus 19:17-18). The context shows that the whole point
of this “tit for tat” law was that it was to provide the nation’s judicial
system with a ready guideline for punishment. It was designed to stop personal
and tribal vendettas. On the personal level, if offended, one was to try to
honestly correct his neighbour - You shall surely rebuke your neighbor. If he
refused correction, recourse was open to go before the magistrate
So, this law of eye for eye was designed to limit
excessive retaliation. William Barclay goes so far as to say it was the
beginning of mercy. The important thing to remember is that it was a good
and practical law intended as a guide for Israel’s judges when assessing any
penalty for violence or unjustified aggression. It was a law for a judge and
not a private citizen.
(3 - GOSPEL OF
MATTHEW, Vol 1: The Daily Study Bible, St Andrew Press, Edinburgh, 7th
Impression, 1968, p.161)
AN INSULT, A SLAP, A PUNCH OR A WEAPON?
The context of the Messiah Jesus’ instruction then, is that
his followers are not to exhibit the spirit of revenge which the scribes and
Pharisees were practicing. It seems these teachers of the Law were suing their
countrymen with pernicious regularity. If they felt the slightest insult or slander,
they would drag the alleged offender off to face the music in court.
The followers of the lord Messiah Jesus were to display an
altogether different attitude. There is far more here than meets the eye here
[sic]. William Barclay explains it this way: Suppose a right-handed man is
standing in front of another man, and suppose he wants to slap the other man on
the right cheek, how must he do it? Unless he goes through the most complicated
contortions, and unless he empties the blow of all force, he can only hit the
other man’s cheek in one way - with the back of his hand.
(4 - GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, Vol 1: The Daily Study Bible, St
Andrew Press, Edinburgh, 7th Impression, 1968, p.161; Ibid, p.164
Now according to Jewish Rabbinic law to hit a man with
the back of the hand was twice as insulting as to hit him with the flat of the
hand. There is a doubly insulting contemptuous arrogance about a flick or a
blow delivered with the back of the hand.
So, what the lord Messiah Jesus is saying is that even if
we should be insulted with the most calculated of insults, and even if it’s
delivered with a violent slap or blow, the Christian must on no account resent
it, and must certainly not race off to the law courts for compensation over
hurt pride or even the loss of reputation or character.
The lord Messiah Jesus was often insulted with the most
degrading character assassinations. He was mocked as a drunkard (a wine bibber),
he was accused of being a sinner just like the company he kept with prostitutes
and tax collectors, and he was called the prince of demons. And although he did
give counterarguments that they could not resist, Jesus never sought revenge
by dragging them off to the law courts! In fact, we know this is Jesus’
intention by the example he gives in the very next verse, verse 40, where he
mentions if anyone wants to sue you… However, when his accusers dragged Jesus
off to court to be tried …
JESUS DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE FOLLOWED HIS OWN TEACHING!
When an officer of the court struck the lord Messiah Jesus
on the face, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” Jesus answered,
“If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly,
why do you strike me?” (John 18:22-23). Jesus drew attention to an abuse, an
illegality, during his own trial before the powers of the day. He did not turn
the other cheek without rebuke!
The apostle Paul, for the sake of the Gospel,
confronted the civil authorities for their illegal treatment of himself and his
companions as Roman citizens. After being manacled and flogged, the next day
the magistrates sent to release Paul and his companions, but Paul stood on his
rights as a Roman citizen saying, “They have beaten us openly, uncondensed
Romans, and have thrown us into prison. And now they try to put us out
secretly? No indeed! Let them come themselves and get us out” (Acts 16:35ff).
The magistrates were to be confronted, and publicly rebuked!
It must be underlined, that these instances were not for the
purposes of self-defense or retaliation and certainly not for personal revenge.
The apostle Peter drew his application from the lord Messiah Jesus’ example
when he wrote: When you do good and suffer for it, and you take it patiently,
this is commendable to God …for the lord Messiah Jesus suffered for us, leaving
us an example, that you should follow his steps … [and] he committed himself to
Him who judges righteously (1 Peter 2:18).
Thus, if the Christian must resist evil, it is not from a
spirit of personal bitterness or revenge, but for the sake of truth, the
Gospel, and the protection of others.
The first generation of Christians in the apostle Paul’s day
took it this way. They suffered painful blows with insults without retaliation,
for you put up with it if someone brings you into bondage, if someone preys
upon you, or takes advantage of you, or gives you a slap in the face… (2 Corinthians
11:20)!
There is no disagreement with the fact that the lord
Messiah Jesus introduced a new spirit of non-resentment and of non-retaliation
that his followers were to show. The lord Messiah’s people must not be about
promoting their own rights and importance.
But it does not follow that we should never try to right
wrongs in the meantime or be indifferent to injustice wherever it occurs.
Pacifism does not mean passivity! Evil must be confronted, rebuked, and exposed.
So far so good, I think. We can all agree that Christians
should not bite back with insults when offended.
However, we have not yet specifically addressed the
question of self-defense when physically attacked.
Does resisting the wicked man mean I cannot physically
defend myself when my very life is being threatened, or that I cannot protect
my family and property when they are being violently attacked? Does it mean a
Christian should not join the police force or the armed services in defense of
his family and country and that those who do so are disobedient to the
lord Messiah Jesus?
Do we think Harry should not have been in the SOC (Special
Operations Commando) regiment in the first place where he had to shoot and kill
enemy combatants?
“Pardon me, sir, I’m Rebecca Smith from CNN. What’s your
name?” “Morris Feinberg” he replied. “Sir, how long have you been coming to the
Western Wall here in Jerusalem and praying?” “For about 60 years.” “Sixty
years! That’s amazing. What do you pray for?” “I pray for peace between the
Christians, Jews, and the Muslims. I pray for all wars and all the hatred to
stop. I pray for all our children to grow up safely as responsible adults and
to love their fellow man. I pray that all politicians tell us the truth and put
the interests of the people ahead of their own interests. And finally, I pray
for world peace and that everyone will be happy.” “And how do you feel after
doing this for 60 years?” “Like I’m talking to a brick wall!”
All who sincerely pray and long for worldwide harmony
have a soft spot for this good-natured Jewish humor. The God of the Bible has
promised the dawn of a new Age of universal harmony at the Parousia (personal
arrival) of His Son the lord Messiah, but in the meantime, opinions are divided
on the best way to prepare for that kingdom where the lion will lay down with
the lamb.
We have seen that in Jesus’ day, the Jewish nation itself
was deeply divided as to how to respond to Rome’s subjugation. The Sadducees
tried to parley and collaborate with Rome -
diplomacy; the Zealots engaged in guerilla assassinations carrying
daggers under their garments for stealth-killing of the enemy as well as fighting
in open insurrection - terrorism; the Essenes quietly withdrew from society to
the desert for non-involvement - metaphorically speaking, withdrawing to put prayers on rolled up bits of paper and
stuffing them into the Western wall; or, perhaps the best way for peace is to
be conscientious objectors to all direct participation in the armed services -
pacifism.
Into this troubled milieu, the lord Messiah Jesus
proclaimed a radical answer - repent and believe the Gospel of the Kingdom of
God. To that task, the first Christians dedicated themselves in preparation for
the universal reign of God’s righteousness. They were sent out as lambs into
the midst of ravenous wolves. In the previous article, we concentrated on the
question of personal retaliation when vilified, insulted, and mocked. We saw
that Christians are to be motivated by the same temperate spirit of the lord Messiah Jesus - on no
account must we resent or hit back, or drag an offender off to the courts for compensation and
personal satisfaction.
We also saw that non-retaliation does not mean we are to
passively “just take it on the chin” when insulted or even dragged before the
courts. There is a time and a place to firmly rebuke injustice - to stand for
right and to fearlessly speak out.
That much said, I don’t think we can use Matthew 5: 38-39
to argue that Christians are forbidden to defend themselves from physical
violence where the outcome is a matter of life and death.
A slap on the face is humiliating but not
life-threatening.
The lord Messiah Jesus was not specifically addressing
the question of whether Christians may enlist in the police force or the armed services or
defend their homes and families.
We also suspended our judgment of dedicated Christian SOC
soldier ‘Harry’. To these matters, we now turn.
THOSE WHO TAKE THE SWORD WILL PERISH BY THE SWORD
Objectors to Christians defending themselves in the face
of physical violence usually quote Jesus’ words to Peter who had just sliced
off the ear of the servant of the High Priest … Put your sword back into its
place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword … (Matthew 26 52).
A little context is needed. The disciples had been told
on numerous occasions that it was the Father’s – Yehovah’s will for the lord
Messiah Jesus to be handed over to the authorities and to be executed. So,
Peter should have known he was not to fight the detachment of guards and
soldiers coming to arrest Jesus (John 18:3). Drawing his sword in this context
was to oppose God’s – Yehovah’s revealed purposes for the Messiah.
Likewise, we are not to draw the sword against duly
authorized officials of the law. They are authorized to bear the sword. If
Jesus meant everyone in this statement, he was also condemning every government
officer who bears arms. Scripture calls those authorities who bear the sword to
execute wrath on evildoers the “ministers of God - Yehovah” (Romans 13:4).
The Bible teaches us that there is a legitimate use of
“the sword” and also an illegitimate use of the sword. Those who kill
illegitimately will face eternal judgment (Revelation 13:10). Even a Christian
who is guilty of manslaughter, or worse, may still face the death penalty
administered by the government. His faith may not save him … There is a sin
leading to death. And I do not say that he should pray about that (1 John
5:16).
When a group of soldiers asked John the Baptist “What
should we do?”, he replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely
- be content with your pay” (Luke 3:14) ( ) There was no suggestion from John
that the soldiers should renounce their profession first. On the contrary, if
they were to go on receiving pay, they would have to remain in their
profession! They were to be godly soldiers. And on that basis John baptized
them. Peter did the same after Pentecost (Acts 10:47).
When under threat of attack while rebuilding the walls of
Jerusalem, Nehemiah recorded that “we prayed to our God - Yehovah and set a
guard” (Nehemiah 4:9). He encouraged the people thusly, “Do not be afraid of
them. Remember Yehovah, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers,
your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes” (vs. 14). We are told
they carried trowels in one hand and swords in the other hand (verses 14-18).
God blessed their work and the walls went up. Sometimes prayer by itself is not
enough.
When God provides us with the means to do His work, it is
foolish to discard them. Jesus did not command Peter to throw his sword away.
He told him to put it back in its place. Jesus had already agreed that Peter
could carry that sword (Luke 22:36).
Sometimes, not carrying a sword (i.e. a defensive weapon)
may be the height of stupidity. That would be just as foolish as those
believers who dismiss modern medical science in the matters of health and
hygiene, saying their faith in God – Yehovah is sufficient and nothing more
needs to be done.
A Seventh Day Adventist Pastor, John Whitcombe observes
that, being a keen student of European history, I am acutely aware of the
absolute necessity it has been for Protestants over the centuries to bear arms
in the face of aggressive papal onslaught. The lesson of the Spanish Armada,
the Waldenses, the Hussites, the Bohemians, the Huguenots, the Cathars, the
Battle of the Boyne, the German Electors, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the
English Civil War, and the Thirty Years’ War is that Protestant armies comprised
of armed citizens were essential to resisting papal aggression. Without
Protestant citizen armies, armed and willing to take the field of battle, the
Protestant Reformation may never have survived. In our modern era the
Christians of northern Iraq and Nigeria, under savage assault by Boko Haram and
ISIS, would suffer even greater loss without armed men willing to defend them.
Sometimes those defenders are government forces, but often they are local
Christian militias, stepping in to defend the innocent against murderous assault,
when it is politically convenient for governments to look the other way.
ESCHATOLOGICAL ETHICS VERSUS PRESENT REALITY
As Christians, our ethics and life’s orientation are to be
lived with the expectation that the ultimate reality is the coming Kingdom of
God. Practically, this means we are caught between the present reality of evil
and the future triumphant inbreaking of the lord Messiah Jesus reigns into our
world. We anticipate a glorious future, but it’s not yet here. It would be
foolish to try to lie down with the lion or the wolf now, or to let the kids play
with venomous snakes!
So, let’s try to see how this plays out as we answer the
question as to whether it’s permissible for followers of Jesus to defend
themselves from physical violence – to have the sword “in its place”, so to
speak.
THE ISAIAH WALL
One of the most famous verses from the prophetic books of
the Old Testament (OT) is the one that adorns the Isaiah Wall right across the
street from the United Nations building in New York. It reads, and they shall
beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation
shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore
(Isaiah 2:4).
It expresses the Jewish hope and the Christian hope for
universal peace as an essential component of the Messianic Age. And by the way,
it’s currently a stumbling block to Jews accepting Jesus as their Messiah for
the simple reason that he seems so far to have failed to bring in that Age
that puts an end to blood-shedding.
While Isaiah’s verse is famously quoted, not too many
are aware of the far lesser-known verse from Joel which reversed Isaiah’s words
at a time when Israel needed to fight her enemies … Prepare for battle, arouse
the warriors … beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into
spears … (Joel 3:9-10)!
Given that we have not yet entered the Messianic Age of
universal peace, and given that we live in an age where violence, murder,
pillage, and invasion of one’s property, are rampant realities, perhaps Joel’s
call is the prudent approach as we await the Messianic Age?
The writer of Ecclesiastes was a pragmatist and said
that, in this life, there’s a time to kill, a time to heal ... a time for war,
and a time for peace (3:3,8). Would Jesus agree with this? And don’t forget we
read in both Testaments that God - Yehovah says: “Vengeance is mine, I will
repay” says Yehovah”. Let the wicked stamp all over us in the meantime. We
are God’s – Yehovah’s lambs to the slaughter. Surely the follower of the lord
Messiah Jesus is under new covenant ‘spiritual’ obligations?
Should we just keep praying to the brick wall while
the defenseless and innocent suffer? Is evil not to be resisted? And more to
the point, have the advocates of Christian non-resistance properly interpreted
Jesus?
An early Zionist essayist, Ahad Ha’am, expresses his
alarm at Jesus’ teaching and captures well the consternation of many
modern Christians concerning the matter: If I practice love to the extent that
when you smite me on the right cheek, I offer you the left also, I am thereby
encouraging injustice. I, like you, are then guilty of the injustice that is
practiced.”
In an argument with the pacifist writer Leo Tolstoy,
Thomas Masaryk (1850-1937) the great humanist and founder of Czechoslovakia
expressed similarly: If someone attacks me intending to kill me, I
shall defend myself, and if I cannot avoid it, I shall kill the attacker. If
one of us two must be killed, let the one be killed who has the bad intentions.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer the German theologian and pastor
started off as a pacifist, but the realities of the Nazi cruelties eventually
changed his mind and joined the resistance movement. The Nazis finally executed
him for crimes against their regime in 1945. Dietrich Bonhoeffer saw the flaws
in his pacifism and famously said: “Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is
to act.” He provided this helpful analogy; “If I sit next to a madman as
he drives a car into a group of innocent bystanders, I can’t, as a Christian,
simply wait for the catastrophe, then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I
must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.”
In OT law one was allowed to defend one’s family and
property. In the mayhem of a night break-in, If a thief is seized while
breaking in [lit. tunneling his way into a house at night] and is struck so
that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed … but if the thief enters
when the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed …” (Exodus
22: 2-3). The defense must be proportioned!
Thus, the Jewish Bible iterates that one is justified
when defending himself from the wicked aggressor, whereas Jesus’ teaching seems
contradictory for he says, “Offer the wicked man no resistance” We have seen
that the context concerns personal calumnies, and is not specifically
addressing the question of pacifism per see.
THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHTHORSEMEN IN 1917: A JUST WAR?
Many of Israel’s wars were commanded by God. They were
therefore “just wars”. God- Yehovah Himself is called Yehovah Sabaoth … Yehovah
of hosts or God of armies. But is there such a rationale for war, or at least
some wars, today?
I often think of the last great cavalry charge in
history. In WW1 the British had tried to break the Turkish defences at
Beersheba in Gaza. Three British divisions had bombed, shelled, and strafed this
Ottoman stronghold from the western and southern sides with no success.
Repelled and contemplating withdrawal, suddenly out of the desert, the
Australian 4th Brigade (including some of the 12th Brigade) appeared. Their
horses were near to complete exhaustion, frothing at their mouths, because they
had had no water for days (60 hours). It was late afternoon on October 31st, 1917.
The brash Aussies offered to charge the Turkish guns. The British derided them
for their proposed stupidity. After all, the heavy British
bombardment had failed. What good could men on horseback do? But the Brits
watched in disbelief as the Aussie horsemen lined up. It was now dusk. The
order to charge was given and the Lighthorsemen drew their bayonets and charged
into the teeth of the Turkish machine guns and heavy artillery!
The daring, the speed, and the suicidal madness of the
cavalry attack panicked the Turks who feverishly fired away with their mighty
guns. But the Aussies kept yelling and coming as the Turks tried to quickly
readjust the sights on their guns. In their panic they kept firing over the
horses and their riders, such was the speed of the famous Waler horses. To
cut a long story short, approximately 800 horsemen captured the heavily
defended Beersheeba, took 1,000 prisoners, and lost 31 of their own.
Why do I tell this story to answer the question as to
whether there are such things as “just wars” still? Well, truth be known, there
was a significant number of those Aussies who carried Bibles in their shirt
pockets right next to their hearts. They believed they were there on a Divine
mission to liberate the Holy Land and to return to the Jews as the prophets
had foretold.
You may say: “But Greg, that sounds like the atrocities
of the Crusaders from the Middle Ages.” I answer that, unlike the Crusaders who
bore cruel medieval antisemitism by only saving those Jews who would convert to
Christianity, our Aussie soldiers were no Jew haters. They had the conviction
that they were in a holy war and fulfilling Bible prophecy to bring Jews back
home to their Promised Land.
Whether you agree with their convictions and actions or
not, we cannot argue with the fact that the charge of the Lighthorsemen at
Beersheba bears the stamp of a mighty miracle of Biblical proportions. (Space
does not permit me to list several other ‘supernatural’ events that
followed the Lighthorsemen in their Middle East campaign.) I cannot think that
Yehovah of Hosts was not there that day at Beersheba working out His eternal
purposes for Israel, albeit through war.
There are numerous OT examples of men and women who
carried out God’s will by killing wicked persons.
MAHATMA GANDHI
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin makes the claim that while a few
Christian sects such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses hold themselves literally to
Jesus’ pacifism, almost every nation with a significant Christian
population has chosen to either “disregard or reinterpret Jesus’ words”. Then
the rabbi makes the arresting assertion that, indeed, Jesus’ foremost
twentieth-century disciple on this issue has turned out to be not a religious
Christian, but a devout Hindu, Mahatma Gandhi.
During the Second World War, when it appeared that Nazi
Germany might overwhelm England, Gandhi offered the British the following
advice: “I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for
saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to
take what they want of the countries you call your possessions … If these
gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not
give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to
be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them” (Non-Violence in
Peace and War).
A few years earlier, only months before WW2 erupted,
Gandhi had offered the German Jews similar ‘wisdom’ for overcoming Nazi
antisemitism: “I am as certain as I am dictating these words that the stoniest
German heart will melt [if only the Jews] …adopt active non-violence. Human
nature … unfailingly responds to the advances of love. I do not despair of his
[Hitler’s] responding to human suffering even though caused by him.” Good
advice? Christian advice?
Needless to say, Jews reacted to Gandhi’s advice with
pain, scorn, and incredulity. The philosopher Martin Buber referring to the link
between Jesus’ and Gandhi’s teaching, responded to Gandhi in an open letter: We
did not proclaim, as did Jesus, the son of our people, and as you do, the teaching
of non-violence, because we believe that a man must sometimes use force to save
himself or, even more, his children.
Six years and at least six million murdered Jews later,
Gandhi offered some postmortem wisdom to the dead Jews. In a 1946 conversation
with his biographer, Louis Fischer, he stated: “Hitler killed five million
Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered
themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the
sea from cliffs.” Fischer interrupted, “You mean the Jews should have committed
collective suicide?” Gandhi replied, “Yes, that would have been heroism”.
One of the best known and quoted rabbis, Moses Maimonides
in his Mishnah Torah, “Laws of Murder and Preservation of Life,” 1:6-7,9 says:
Every Jew is commanded to save a person being pursued for his life, even if it
means killing the pursuer, even if the pursuer is a minor. Thus, if the warning is
issued and he continues to pursue, the pursuer can be killed even without his
acknowledging the warning. But if the pursuer can be stopped by disabling part
of his body, by striking him with an arrow, a stone, or a sword … then that
should be done. And this is a negative commandment, ie., not to have mercy on
the life of a pursuer.
Telushkin summarises his chapter on this note: While
Maimonides’ statement refers to acting against one individual who is
threatening another, the same logic applies to one nation fighting a war
against an aggressor state. Terrible as war may be, the alternative often is
worse. Had Gandhi convinced the English to lay down their arms, Nazism would
have conquered Europe, if not the world, democracy would have come to an end,
and not a single Jew might be alive today. Similarly, if Israel had not been
willing to fight wars of self-defense, it would long ago have been destroyed,
and its citizens killed. Thus war, while always unfortunate, is not always
evil, sometimes, fighting a war is the most moral thing to do.
As Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has
famously said, “If the Arabs would disarm, we would have peace; if Israel were
to disarm, Israel would cease to exist.”
The lord Messiah Jesus did not forbid his followers to
resist evil by a lawful defense. In Matthew 5:38, he was not specifically
addressing the question of legitimate self-defense when one’s life, family or
property is being violently attacked. True, in such tragic situations,
sometimes his advice was to simply flee. Do what many of the saints have done:
Run for the mountains, flee to the wilderness, seek refuge, and trust in God’s –
Yehovah’s protection. As much as within us lies, we are to avoid direct
conflict.
HACKSAW RIDGE
Mel Gibson directed the 2016 movie Hacksaw Ridge which
depicted the true story of Pfc. Desmond Doss won the Congressional Medal of
Honour despite refusing to bear arms during WW2 on religious grounds. Doss was
drafted and ostracised by his fellow soldiers for his pacifist stance but went
on to earn respect and adoration for his bravery, selflessness, and compassion
after he risked his life - without firing a shot - to save 75 men in the Battle
of Okinawa.
In my personal opinion, I think Desmond Doss exemplified
the spirit of Jesus by risking his life, getting the blood of his fellow
soldiers on himself, and saving his comrades in the heat of battle. Which
brings us to …
SOC - SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMANDO ‘HARRY’
So, after much reflection, I am convinced my Special
Operations Commando mate, ‘Harry’ acted within God’s – Yehovah’s will when he
downed that enemy combatant who was about to kill his mate. He was not acting
out of a sense of personal grievance. He was not shooting at innocents
indiscriminately. He waited until that foreign soldier showed his intent to shoot
another man in the back. It would have been wrong and far worse not to have
shot that enemy soldier. I certainly can’t condemn Harry for being there in the
first place as God’s instrument at the right time.
Even if our conscience would not agree with Harry pulling
the trigger on a murderous combatant, the Christian may surely serve the lord Messiah Jesus as his salt and light as a medic, mechanic, chaplain, cook, or any other area
of logistical support in the service of his or her country against treacherous
and terrorist regimes.
This is not to deny that killing another in reasonable
self-defense will not have consequences in our own minds and persons. Killing
another who is made in God’s – Yehovah’s image will damage the soul for sure.
After all, King David, the man after God’s – Yehovah’s own heart, desperately wanted to build the
Temple of Yahweh, but the God – Yehovah whom he had obeyed denied him that privilege
saying, “You have shed much blood and fought great battles; you shall not build
a House for in My Name for you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight”
(1 Chronicles 22:8).
David often enquired of Yehovah God as to whether he
should enter a battle. And the Bible testifies how God directed him into many
victorious battles. Since there is no criticism of David’s military campaigns,
God’s refusal to let David build the Temple suggests that even in times of
justified wars, or even in a matter of legitimate self-defense, violence
against others is still detrimental to one’s own soul. I pray that you and I
are never put in such terrible situations, but like Bonhoeffer reality has a powerful
way of changing one’s course.
We are to entrust our personal grievances into the hands
of the One who has promised to finally set all things right. A Day is on the
horizon when swords will be beaten into agricultural tools. However, to deduce
from Jesus’ teaching about not resisting the wicked person a universal law and
a general application of unlimited non-resistance of evil is to ignore the
exceptions that Scripture and common decency allow for. It is also contrary to
our innate God-given need for protection, preservation of life, and justice on behalf of others.
WHY DID THE EARLY CHRISTIANS LAY DOWN THEIR SOLDIERY?
Those who argue that the early Christians who laid
down their weapons and left the Roman military should be our model, fail to
include a critical part of the equation. Every Roman soldier had to swear his
allegiance to Caesar as his lord. Every year, along with all citizens of the
Empire, they had to take a personal oath of allegiance to Caesar above all
other names. They must offer a pinch of salt or some incense on the altar to
their ‘god’. Christians in that army for obvious reasons could not do this.
Caesar was not lord; Jesus was their lord Messiah and king.
But this surely does not apply to the modern Christian in
Western armies of the world who swear allegiance to “God, king, and country”
and uphold the rules of international law. If you are in the Republic of the
USA there surely can be nothing wrong with enlisting for “God and the
Constitution” - upholding the rule of law?
Yes, of course, there may come a time when one has to
disobey an unjust order. In this case, as in all situations, we must obey God –
Yehovah rather than man.
CONCLUSION
War is an inevitable evil because of the spiritual
darkness of our world. But I think there may be circumstances that necessitate
the use of force to prevent an even greater evil. Before Nazi Germany
started invading sovereign nations without provocation and murdering Jews,
gypsies, homosexuals and the disabled on an industrial scale, Great Britain’s
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (in)famously pursued a policy of
appeasement. In hindsight, his peace at any price actually facilitated the war
and is considered a massive diplomatic failure.
Whilst nations are sometimes too quick to resort to armed
conflict, it would seem that war can be a legitimate and morally justified
response to evil. Sadly, there are times when no amount of diplomacy or
sanctions will prevail. I am persuaded God – Yehovah has used defensive wars
against tyrannical and Satanic regimes such as the Nazis and the Imperial
Japanese to finally promote greater justice and peace.
If war can be morally justified, it follows that it is
not morally wrong to join the military. This premise is corroborated by the
Bible’s interpretation of the history of war. The New Testament does not call
into question the moral integrity of Christians who serve in the military;
however, those who serve have a responsibility to do so with an exemplary moral
character that bears witness to the values of God’s- Yehovah’s kingdom - kingship.
The presence of devout Christians in both civil and military
services can lead to a more significant impact. Christians can and should be a
restraining influence to ensure that our military maintains the highest
possible ethical standards. From this perspective, one could make a case for
having as many Christians in the military as possible!
Like the good and godly centurions honored by Jesus in
the NT can we not give thanks to the military personnel who bring to a most
challenging world, uprightness, honor, true valor, and civility?
When did you last give your heavenly Father thanks for
the brave men and women who have sacrificed themselves for your present
security? I am thankful to God – Yehovah who has given to my country the
arms necessary to protect its citizens and to administer temporary justice with
the necessary force.
Remember how Abraham, “the friend of God” and “the father
of all those who believe” armed his servants, and pursued those who had
kidnapped his nephew and other innocents to rescue them (Genesis 14:14)? This
does not mean I shall be a vigilante and pursue the kidnapper with weapons. But
I shall use all the authority of the law and its jurisprudence to help promote
Kingdom values.
True, we await the return of Jesus with his mighty angels
when Yehovah God shall finally take out His vengeance on all those who have
refused to believe His Gospel and when He will give ultimate relief from the
curse of sin and those who persecute the church (2 Thessalonians 1:7).
But in the meantime, and whilst we await the fulfillment
of Isaiah’s prophecy of universal righteousness and peace at the dawning of the
Messianic Age when swords shall be beaten into plowshares, I personally think
it prudent to acknowledge we are living in a violent, unjust, evil Age, and
that the lesser of two evils may be to beat plowshares into swords as the prophet
Joel called.
“Peace Through Strength” is pragmatic. But grace must
reign through righteousness (Romans 5:21).
Lasting peace can only be rooted in lasting justice. As a
citizen of the coming Kingdom of God upon earth, I should actively display the principles
of that Kingdom of God in the here and now? Let us pray for peace in the nations
as we get about being the lord Messiah Jesus’ witnesses and promoting the
Gospel of His Kingdom in a non-violent way. And let each be convinced in his
own heart how best to promote the lord Messiah Jesus’ witness, as we live in
this wicked world.
FINALLY:
The general right to self-defense is clearly biblical.
The followers of the lord Messiah Jesus are not to use violence for propagating
the gospel, for personal revenge, or out of hatred, but they do clearly seem to
have the right to use arms in defense of themselves, their family, and the
community of faith when under attack.
In this context, theologian Norman Geisler argues convincingly that “to permit murder when one
could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have
hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying
to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of
omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission.
A man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder
fails them morally.”
Living in an evil world, difficult choices are forced
upon us. I hope and pray that I never again have to defend my family, myself,
or a neighbor from a violent assault, but if that evil day comes, as a husband father, and neighbor it is my responsibility to take all necessary measures
to protect the innocents whom God - Yehovah has entrusted to my care.
Written by Greg Deuble and edited and added on to by Bruce Lyon
