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