What does the Bible say about institutional violence? Is it right for Jesus followers to carry weapons and use lethal force? It is not unusual these days to see armed security personnel or even police officers guarding houses of worship. How does that square with a belief in an omnipotent, loving God? Should those same sincere believers carry weapons to protect their fellow parishioners or their own family should they be threatened? How about employing lethal weapons in the performance of their occupational duties?  One might logically assert believers ought only to serve in positions where they can honestly carry out the functions of their office without compromising their fidelity to our Lord. The issue at hand is whether engaging in “institutional violence” compromises that fidelity. For this post I have asked my friend, Reed Merino, to offer his opposing view.

“E. Stanley Jones wrote that we search in vain during the early years of church history to find Christian people engaged in warfare. He states that Christians did not become soldiers. If they were in the army when converted, they resigned. Jones describes the early believers as saying, “we will match our power to suffer against your ability to inflict suffering, we will wear you down by our spirit, by soul force against physical force, by going the second mile, by turning the other cheek,” until Rome finally stopped torturing Christians.”^1.

According to Jones, believers willingly accepted the treatment they received at the hands of evil people based on their understanding of Matthew 5:39, from Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount. Today’s believers are not always in accord with respect to topics not specifically resolved through Scripture. This discussion is intended for disciples of Jesus whose imperative is to follow Jesus, period. 

“Francis Schaeffer declared that “to refuse to do what I can for those under the power of oppressors is nothing less than a failure of Christian love. It is to refuse to love my neighbor as myself.” He went on to say that was why he was not a pacifist: “Pacifism in this poor world in which we live—this lost world—means that we desert the people who need our greatest help.” Peace at any price is never right, whether it is in the realm of spiritual warfare, church discipline, or government.”^2.

As we shall see, institutional violence is apparently approached differently between the Old and New Testaments. What if anything, has changed? Certainly, God has not changed. One can find numerous incidents in the Old Testament where Israel as the people of God was involved in war, enjoyed the blessing of God in victory and experienced defeat when out of favor with God. But a study of the context makes clear God of the Old Testament was meeting the Israelites where they were, demonstrating to people who worshiped their tribal gods that Yahweh, the God of Israel, was and is the true God. This is not to say that the full revelation of the will of Yahweh was then present.^3.

In De idololatria, Tertullian wrote decisively against military service by professed Christians.^4. Another outspoken critic of military and government service by members of the early church was Origen (c.185-c.254). He argued that Jesus’s message was one of non-violence and posited that Christians supported the emperor in the fight against his nation’s enemies through prayer rather than by military service. Priests and the religious, especially, were prohibited by him from engaging in battle. Furthermore, participation in political matters, even for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion was discouraged because the rule of the Church was seen as far more pertinent and important to the life of a Christian than matters of state.^5. And those serving as soldiers were prohibited from killing as late as the third century. Roman bishop, Hippolytus, directed that a, “Soldier is not to kill even when ordered to do so.” He continued with, “A Christian is not to become a soldier, unless he is compelled by a chief bearing the sword. He is not to burden himself with the sin of blood.”^6. That view began to change dramatically sometime around the first Council of Nicaea in 325, likely because of state-sponsorship of the church under Constantine.

Canon XII of that council read, “Those who endured violence and were seen to have resisted, but who afterwards yielded to wickedness, and returned to the Army, shall be excommunicated for ten years. But in every case the way in which they do their penance must be scrutinized. And if anyone who is doing penance shows himself zealous in its performance, the Bishop shall treat him more leniently than had he been cold and indifferent.”^7. It might appear that the Council was continuing to stand against Christians serving in the military service, but according to some commentators that was not the case. They argue that by the time the Canon was adopted much of Constantine’s power base resided in his military force. Consequently, those men at arms who were the focus of it were soldiers who had served in the army of Constantine’s rival, Licinius, who not only fought against Constantine, but waged war on Christianity itself.^8.

The most dramatic change in direction came with the development of “just war” doctrine, which has continued into the present. “The need for just war criteria represents the efforts of Western cultures to regulate and restrict violence by establishing rules which specify the situations in which war can be legitimately used as a tool in international statecraft, as well as by setting out rules which govern ethical conduct during combat.”^9. In the Summa Theologicae, Thomas Aquinas presented the general outline of what became traditional just war theory. He described the justification for declaring war, Jus ad Bellum, along with actions that are permissible in the conduct of war, Jus in Bello. They are summarized as follows:

Just War^10.

• The war must have a just cause.
• The war must be waged by a legitimate authority.
• The war must be fought with a right intention.
• The war must be a last resort.
• The expected results of the war must be proportionate.
• There must be a reasonable hope of military success.

Conduct of War

• The weapons and acts of fighting must be discriminating: non combatants may never be targeted.
• The weapons and acts of fighting must be proportionate.
• All the legal rights of enemy soldiers and civilians must be honoured (sic).

The rules of just conduct within war fall under the two broad principles: discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination pertains to legitimate targets in war and proportionality concerns morally appropriate force.^11. Wars that are permissible within Christian thought are limited to holy war and just war. “Holy war is fought for the goals or ideals of the faith (The Crusades) and is waged by divine or religious authority. In a holy war, Christian participation is a positive duty, whereas, in a just war it is permissible, but restricted. Therefore, a holy war is automatically a just war, but a just war is not necessarily a holy war.”^12.

“The Christian consensus is that a war is only just when its cause is to defend the life, liberty, and property of a people who are being assaulted by an aggressor. In defending against the crimes of a belligerent foe, a just war is also the punishment of evildoers and a vindication of justice.”^13. According to some scholars, defensive war is supported by Old Testament Scripture. They cite the case law of Exodus 22, which seems to authorize deadly force in self-defense against a dangerous, nighttime intruder, and may, by application, authorize the use of deadly force in national defense against those who invade or attack the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.^14. Ambrose (c.339-397) recognized the necessity of war for the sake of a secure peace but denounced needless bloodshed. His student Augustine (354-430), by combining Roman and Judeo-Christian thought, explained the existence of war as one of the unavoidable consequences as well as remedy caused by human sin. He argued, however, the right end of society is peace and justice, even in war.^15. This rationale eventually provided legitimacy for the Crusades which synthesized holy war with the just war.^16. 

Martin Luther, in apparent agreement with Francis Schaeffer, characterized a just war as an act of charity, by comparing war and soldering to the acts of a good doctor who may be required to amputate a limb to prevent infection. He even advocated coming to the aid of third parties, or neighbors as he says, “although you do not need to have your enemy punished, your afflicted neighbour (sic) does.”^17. War was seen as an element of Christian discipleship so long as it is not for “avenging yourself or returning evil for evil, but for the good of your neighbour (sic) and for the maintenance of the safety and peace of others.”^18. Augustine, on the other hand, maintained a private citizen or cleric, could not kill an attacker, even in self-defense, since this would entail loss of love. Apparently, the non-violence/pacifism of the early Church extended to civilians.^19.

Footnotes:

1. Myron S. Augsburger, “Christian Pacifism,” http://intervarsity.org/news/christian-pacifism, accessed October 19, 2019.
2. William D. Barrick, “The Christian and War,” http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj11k.pdf, accessed October 11, 2019.
3. Augsburger.
4. Edward A. Ryan, J.J. “The Rejection of Military Service by Early Christians,” http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/13/13.1/13.1.1.pdf, accessed October 7, 2019.
5. Arthur F. Holmes, ed., War and Christian Ethics: Classical and Contemporary Readings on the Morality of War, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, (2005) 48-50.
6. Ivar Hellberg, “Religious Perceptions of the Just War and Military Ethics,” http://faithandwar.org/index.php/god-man-and-war/42-god-and-human-nature/67-religious-perceptions-of-the-just-war-and-military-ethics, accessed October 7, 2019.
7. The Ecumenical Council, Nicaea A.D. 325, http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/nicaea.html, accessed October 7, 2019.
8. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, “Canon XII,” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xviii.html, accessed October 7, 2019.
9. Keith J. Gomes, “An Intellectual Genealogy of the Just War: A Survey of Christian Political Thought on the Justification of Warfare,” http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/80-gomes.pdf, accessed October 5, 2019.
10. Hellberg.
11. Alexander Moseley, “Just War Theory,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/, accessed October 9, 2019.
12. Gomes.
13. William O. Einweihte, “A Christian Perspective on Just War,” Darish Press, http://darashpress.com/articles/christian-perspective-just-war, accessed October 5, 2019.
14. Ibid.
15. Gomes.
16. Frederick H. Russell, The Just War in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press (1975), 19, 26-38.
17. Gomes.
18. J. Daryl Charles, Between Pacifism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition, Downers Grove, IL: Inter VarsityPress (2005), 52.
19. Gomes.

GUEST’S VIEW

By “institutional violence” I mean the use of legally approved violence, such as being used by the military and police.

As with other questions, this question cannot be answered properly by simply searching out all the Scriptures that deal with warfare, in the hope of finding a simple “yes” or “no,” (such as “Thou shalt [not] be a soldier”). The reason for this is because the Scriptures are the product of the single mind and heart of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, every passage is yoked to every other passage, sort of like the way that every part of a symphony is connected to every other part of it: all the parts are the product of the composer’s mind and genius.  This means that if you want to know what God means by one passage (for example on this subject of warfare), you need to draw together all the other passages that deal directly and indirectly with this subject: the sum of all the passages describes what the revelation of God actually is. There are some New Testament passages that deal directly with this issue, but there are also teachings that, while not dealing directly with the issue of institutional violence, describe heart attitudes that powerfully impact the conclusion.

So, the answer to the question about things like military violence is linked to the new way of life and attitudes that Jesus created, the way of heaven that is appropriate to one being transformed into the character and personality of God Himself. The effect of the presence of God’s Spirit includes a heart that is saturated with His “love,” “kindness” and “gentleness (Galatians 5:22-23).

Jesus created a way that is indeed impossible for humans to live out, (i.e., on their own; Matthew 19:26).  But He also declared that this impossible way is possible with God (through the Spirit-created heart of God entering into us and motivating us).

What Jesus said about violence is only one of numerous “impossibles” He laid upon those He would accept as disciples:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’  But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.  And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.  And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two.” (Matthew 5:38‑41)

“You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you.” (James 5:6)

“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mis­treat you.” (Luke 6:27‑28; also, Romans 12:14)

“Servants, be submissive to your masters with all res­pect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are un­reasonable.  For this finds favor, if for the sake of con­sci­ence toward God a man bears up under sorrows when suffering un­just­ly.” (1 Peter 2:18‑19)

These are not idealistic goals by a God who is willing to accept behavior that is more “realistic”: they are commands that the Son of God demands of us if we want to be His “friends” (“You are My friends if you do whatever I command you” – John 15:14).  These commands are indeed the source of great frustration to our flesh’s desire for continued existence and for revenge — so much so, that most of those who are called Chris­tians refuse to accept them in their grammatically natural, literal and true sense.  But we must accept them with­out compro­mise lest we prove our­selves false disciples. After all, Jesus warned us from the very begin­ning, “He who loves his life loses it; and he who hates his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal” (John 12:25).  Anyone who has not let go of this world in a true way, and anyone who yearns to stay on in this world will of course have to resist the force of His teach­ing.  But if we have no strong desire to escape from this world, how can we dare con­sider ourselves Chris­tians?

Being non‑defensive in imitation of Jesus does not leave you defenseless — hardly!  It only makes you refuse to resort to human defenses and forces you to trust instead in God’s defenses. You can en­trust to the Lord the defense of you and of those you love and experience these threat­ening moments as occasions of ministry. You may fail the test­ing in­volved before growing into Christ’s non-violence (think of Peter cutting off Malchus’s ear in the garden: John 18:10), but God will bring us to anointed maturity over time (a much shorter time than is comfortable to rebellious and lazy flesh).

Refusing to defend oneself, in the radical way that Jesus teaches us is not at all a passive thing and does not create passive peo­ple — just the opposite.  Over­coming evil with good is an active, creative deed — far more so than yielding to fear or anger.  One can also be quite aggressive on God’s behalf while governed by this principle — just as ag­gressive as Jesus Himself was at certain times in dealing with the ungodly (e.g., Matthew 23).

This teaching makes warfare and most police work, as necessary as they may be in the world, impossible for dis­ci­ples of Jesus, and in confirmation of that, the early Church con­sis­tent­ly refused to practice or tolerate these forms of violence. Evidence of this is so numerous that it is one of the reasons why Christianity spends so little time teaching you about the first three centuries of the church’s existence!

The consistent Christian attitude toward taking part in the institutional violence of this world can be described by the description written by Origen (c. 185‑254 A.D.) who wrote his work “Against Celsus” in the last years of his life.  He had been born and raised in Alexandria and had spent the latter part of his life in Caesarea (of Palestine); but he had also tra­veled extensively through­out Asia Minor and Greece.  He was known by all around to be a very truthful and humble person, as well as an ex­cellent scholar; his descriptions of contemporary Christian practices can be believed.  When he des­cribes the pacifistic attitude as being the at­titude of Chris­tians in general, we know, by virtue of his travels, his character and his in­telligence, that he is a witness to be taken seriously.  In addition, he is responding to the criticism of the pagan Celsus, who also bore witness to what was understood as the Christian way of life.

[Celsus, the pagan critic, says] “‘..you [Christians] surely do not say that if the Romans were, in compliance with your wish, to neglect duties to gods and men and were to worship the Most High, or whatever you please to call him, that he will come down and fight for them, so that they shall need no other help than his…’  We say that … if they all unite in prayer with one ac­cord, they will be able to put to flight far more enemies than those who were discomfited by the prayer of Moses when he cried to the Lord…  But if all the Romans, according to the position of Celsus, embrace the Chris­tian faith, they will, when they pray, over­come their enemies, or rather, they will not war at all, being guarded by that divine power which promised to save five entire cities for the sake of fifty just persons.

“In the next place, Celsus urges us, ‘to help the king with all our might, and to labor with him in the maintenance of justice, to fight for him; and if he requires it, to fight under him, or lead an army along with him.’  To this our answer is, that we do when occasion requires, give help to kings, and that, so to say, a divine help, putting on the whole armor of God.  And this we do in obedience to the injunction of the apostle, ‘I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplica­tions, pray­ers, interces­sions and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority;’ and the more one excels in piety, the more effective help does he render to kings, even more than is given by soldiers, who go forth to fight and slay as many of the enemy as they can …  And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, lead us to the violation of oaths, and who disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them…  We do not indeed fight under him, although he requires it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special ar­my ‑‑ an army of piety ‑‑ by offering our prayers to God.

“Celsus also urges us to ‘take office in the govern­ment of the country, if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religions.’  But we recognize in each state the existence of another national organization, founded by the Word of God, and we exhort those who are migh­ty in word and of blame­less life to rule over Churches…  And it is not for the pur­pose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God -‑ for the sal­vation of men.”^1.

There is additional significance in the fact that Celsus wrote his attack upon Chris­tianity some seventy years earlier than Origen’s reply, and either from Rome or Alexandria.  This tells us that the pagan of Rome (or Alexandria) in 180 A.D. knew what the Christians of the eastern Medi­terranean still upheld in 250 A.D. ‑‑ that Christians refused to hold of­fice and to par­ticipate in warfare.  In his reasoning, there is no hint of say­ing “if only you freed us from the obligation to worship your gods we would be glad to rule over you and fight your wars.”  Idolatry was not the foun­dation of the reason for their refusal, although it of course added convic­tion to their refu­sal. The Christian tradi­tion of nonviolence and refusal to assume posi­tions of judgment over others was rooted in the con­viction that each Chris­tian must necessarily im­itate the way of Christ, who turned the other cheek and refused to act as a worldly judge or king.

It is quite impossible to act lovingly (as Jesus defines “love”) and self-sacrificially toward your ene­mies and kill them at the same time.  Christian involvement in secular violence is one of the effects of the wedding of Church and state that has carried over into most of modern Christendom.  Those who never committed themselves to the “impossibles” of Jesus were never converted to Jesus (at least, not to the real Jesus).  In the original churches, if you were not converted to His “impossibles” you were not allowed to be baptized.  This was because you were not yet a Christian in their faithful eyes.

In this fallen world, institutional violence is both necessary and authorized by God: “Therefore, subordinate yourselves to every human institution because of the Lord, whether to a king, as being in authority, or to governors, as being sent by him, both for punishment of evildoers and for praise of good-doers. Because such is the will of God …” (1 Peter 2:13-15).  This teaches quite clearly that institutional violence is indeed necessary for the king to carry out that mandate. “Punishing evil doers” back then was never limited to imposing jail terms.  Executions of those who attacked or rebelled against their lawful government was a part of that “punishment.”

Furthermore, there is not a single passage in the New Testament (let alone the Old) that would make people who had been policemen or soldiers feel sinful, in the way practitioners of theft, murder or adultery were judged.  Rather, the greatest praise that Jesus ever laid upon anyone was given to a soldier (Matthew 8:10).  Military service might attract some who were brutal, but it also was a wonderful training ground to learn to live your life for a higher goal than personal comfort, to learn the meaning of deeper obedience than most people know, and to be willing to die for your comrades.  It is just that such callings must be abandoned to live all of those things out at an even higher and eternal level, and to achieve even higher goals.

There are some things that are truly necessary among the unconverted citizens of this  world – people and systems that are ruled by the “God of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4, John 12:31, 1 John 5:19).  But some of those things work against the character that God works to create in those who have accepted Christ’s call to leave and “overcome” this world (1 John 5:4), people whose new goal is to enter into His version of the love, kindness and gentleness mentioned above in Galatians 5. Consequently, both the specific passages and the Kingdom of God attitudes described in the New Testament mitigate against the participation in such violence by those who hope for His salvation.  The attitude of post-Constantinian and modern Christianity is a man-made addition to the Kingdom of God movement that Jesus created, and that the ancient churches continued. That attitude grows out of the disastrous departure from the spirit and letter of the mind and heart of the Son of God, the judge of all the earth.

To fruitfully “believe in Jesus” requires that you also “believe Jesus,” including believing what He actually taught.  To give yourself the right to reinterpret what He actually said into what you want Him to have said, is to demonstrate the absence of the “fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1) and the “terror of Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:1), and demonstrates that you do not really “know God,” and that you run the risk of fulfilling 2 Thessalonians 1:8 (“…in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ”).

Footnote:

1. “Against Celsus,” ch.73, 75. The Ante‑Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 667-668.

SHAWN’S VIEW

My friend and I are both proceeding from a basic agreement that the Bible means what it meant and there is no ambiguity in Jesus’s choice of words. Although we both cite Old Testament references, I am not certain that we both view them as equally relevant to those of the New Testament. Certainly, we are not the first people of good will to disagree on this matter. History records that Christians have been divided on the topic practically from the time of Christ’s resurrection—particularly on the issue of what has come to be known as “just war.” Some have willingly donned the uniform of their nation state to face its enemies in armed conflict while others have chosen to reject service on moral grounds and remain pacifists. For the most part it has been a matter of conscience rather than courage. 

The apostle Paul told a young pastor, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16) Consequently, the entire Bible must be considered in a conscientious analysis of this issue. Evil and violence are coded into human DNA and God’s judgment, sometimes by human hands, is sanctioned. God used the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, to accomplish his will. If he would use a bad person to punish using violence, it stands to reason he would use a good guy with a gun to protect the innocent. He often accomplishes his sovereign will using flawed humans. 

Institutional violence or “Just War” may have begun as early as Abraham. Resulting from war involving Chedorlaomer’s coalition of kings (Genesis 14), Lot, Abraham’s nephew was captured. He may have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time when war broke out, but Abraham went after him and rescued him by force. Rather than being rebuked by God, Abraham was blessed. If Sodom and Gomorrah are any indication, God did not need Abraham or any other human, for that matter, to punish wrong doers. He permitted, even rewarded violence when Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Gideon and David were used to accomplish his will. Hebrews 11 praises Abraham, Moses and Gideon as men of faith. If war is always sinful, how could a holy God direct that it be carried out, often in a most ruthless fashion by those faithful to him? The Apostle John and King David both recorded that Jesus, himself, will return as a warrior king. If Christians accept God’s immutability, one is left to ask what changed between Joshua and the eventual return of Jesus? The counterpoint essay argues that Jesus’s teaching changed everything. My position, however, is the difference may be contextual rather than substantive.

Jesus entered a world controlled by Rome. No earthly power would be able to challenge her militarily for over 300 years. During Christ’s ministry, a sort of guerrilla force, the Zealots, also known as Sicarii (dagger men) attacked those seen to be friendly to Rome. They were seen as more of an annoyance than a threat. Jewish resistance was destined to fail, culminating in the fall of Masada in 73 AD. Advising Christians to obey those in authority was a practical matter of survival. Neither the Jewish majority nor the fledgling members of the Way posed a genuine threat to Rome. Christians also lacked the wherewithal to stand against Jewish authorities. Both the Jewish majority and Rome would eventually persecute them for their faith. There was no point in calling down fire on their own position through armed opposition. That, however, was not the rationale for Jesus’s instruction to turn the other cheek in Matthew 5:39. 

At the time God gave his judicial rules to Moses, government as we have come to accept it did not exist, retribution was a way to obtain rational, balanced justice. God’s directive was intended to be a system of proportional punishment known as lex talionis. The purpose of God’s law was to prevent vengefulness blinded by rage—hitting back harder than one had been hit. It was intended as an official regulation for the judiciary, not freedom for the individual to take the law into his or her own hands. It also served to control excesses by the judiciary in response to public opinion or pressure. Because of the restraint it introduced, lex talionis stood as a humane, moderating influence that curbed vendettas and blood feuds resulting in unlimited retaliation.

Lex talionis characterized by the phrase “eye for eye and tooth for tooth appears three times in the Old Testament: Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20 and Deuteronomy 19:21 and was intended for literal application. God gave that instruction to avoid unreasonable or excessive punishment, not to urge humankind to insist upon it in every situation. The goal was to ensure the punishment fit the crime.

The scribes and Pharisees had distorted God’s original intent of lex talionis. We are all born with a strong desire for revenge and as the Jewish leaders sought to ingratiate themselves with the people rather than to please God by pandering to the people’s darker nature. What was supposed to be a judicial principle was turned into something bordering on individual lawlessness. Ironically, in many cases, by the time of Jesus, monetary restitution had largely replaced physical mutilation. Consequently, one is left to surmise that not only had the law been subverted, but it was being unequally applied by the religious authorities. 

In his Sermon on the Mount Jesus said that retribution, even proportional retribution, has no place in the life of a disciple. He wasn’t commenting on the appropriateness of God’s judicial rules. His intent was to teach his disciples to reject the base, animal instinct that makes us want to respond in kind to an actual or perceived offense. Retribution, not self defense or the defense of innocents, was behind his direction to turn the other cheek. During his arrest, one of Jesus’s disciples cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant and Jesus responded with, “Put your sword back in its place. . . .for all who draw the sword will die by the sword”(Matthew 26:52) He did not rebuke the disciple who had likely used a sword Jesus had instructed followers to obtain in order for him to be “numbered with the transgressors” ( Luke 22:36-37). He did not want the disciple to stand in the way of God’s plan for the salvation of humankind, nor did he wish to give the impression his message was one of rebellion or resistance.

Jesus opposes retribution and retaliation in any form. His intention is to establish a “greater righteousness,” a different understanding of how we should live as the people of God. His is an alternative set of values and his instructions are intended solely for us, not our unbelieving neighbors. Matthew 5:39 is all about how we should respond when something is done to us as individuals. It involves an essentially non-self-centered approach to ethics under the Holy Spirit’s leading, which puts the interests of others before our personal rights or possessions. Unfortunately, this passage has been used as a basis for pacifism and even prompted calls for the elimination of law enforcement. I thank that is an incorrect conclusion. It is a nation’s and an individual’s responsibility, believer or non-believer alike, to stand against evil and protect the vulnerable. As citizens we may have a role to play in that response. Until Jesus returns to establish his earthly reign, the military and the criminal justice systems are both necessary to prevent chaos and keep people safe. If our country calls us to duty, we are expected to answer.

Returning to the exhortation to turn the other cheek, we must keep in mind there is a difference between a personal slight and threat of serious injury or death. A blow to the right cheek was considered a serious insult, but certainly was not life-threatening. Slapping with the right hand was often a back-handed blow to the right cheek, which was considered insulting and retribution or reciprocation was a matter of honor. Jesus tells his disciples to forgo any benefit to which he or she may be legally entitled—to accept the insult without responding. In fact, we are told to go even further. He tells us to offer the left cheek, opening the door to a further, if more painful, insult. 

It is not an injunction against self defense, police or military service. While it is never a good idea to make an argument from silence, I believe if the Lord intended for his followers to avoid all possibilities of violence, he or Peter would have instructed the soldiers to whom they ministered to leave the army. When given the opportunity, even John the Baptist when asked specifically by soldiers what God required, failed to condemn violence in the performance of duty (Luke 3:14). Admittedly, the question was posed prior to Jesus’s ministry, but one could not ask for a more perfect scenario to introduce pacifism. Furthermore, if Jesus meant to instruct his followers to be pacifists, he probably would not have used a societal rebuke to make his case. In fact, in the passage cited from Matthew 26, above, Jesus said he could call on twelve legions of angels to fight for him if what was happening did not conform to the will of the Father.

Choosing to employ violent means is a personal decision. I cannot condone my use of violence for self-defense but would not hesitate to use it to protect others, especially those I am charge with protecting. When I was a law enforcement chaplain, during ride-alongs I would often tell the deputy that I was a good shot and if they needed me, they could count on me using their rifle to protect them, but I would not use it to protect myself. My position has not changed. On October 25, 2019 the United States Concealed Carry website ran a blog written by Rick Sapp (http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/a-personal-decision/) describing how a man of faith, Jim Ott, responded during a home invasion that included a severe, concussive blow to his head resulting in hospitalization, stitches and staples. Throughout the encounter his assailant, a known violent offender, taunted Ott to shoot him. Certainly Ott could have done so with the 9mm handgun he was carrying, but he chose not to because his tormentor eventually backed away. When asked why he did not fire, Ott responded with, “I’m a man of faith. I will not kill someone if I don’t have to.” In my mind, that is exactly what Jesus expects of his disciples.