rightly dividing The Word
Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said:
Matthew 5:38-39, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
We do not believe Christ was teaching to "turn the other cheek" in virtually all circumstances. Even Christ did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (John 18:22-23), or when struck on the face by the palms of the Roman guards (Matthew 26:67-68, Mark 14:65, Luke 22:64).
The Sermon on the Mount, from which this passage is taken, deals with righteous personal conduct. In our passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper for the government—that is, taking vengeance—was also proper for an individual. The principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount is that bondservants of Christ should not retaliate when insulted or slandered (Romans 12:17-21). Such insults do not threaten a believer's personal safety. The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against a mugger, or a woman using the martial arts against a rapist.
Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace. Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, Christ used this same "Ye have heard that it hath been said" figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the time.
Contrast this to Christ’s use of the phrase "It is written" or "The Scripture saith" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil’s lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words: "it is written").
The reference to "an eye for an eye" was taken from Exodus 21:24-25, which deals with how the magistrate must deal with a crime. Namely, the punishment must fit the crime. The religious leaders of Christ’s day had twisted a passage that applied to the government and misused it as a principle of personal revenge.
Scripture distinguishes clearly between the duties of the magistrate (the government) and the duties of an individual. Namely, God has delegated to the magistrate the administration of justice. Individuals have the responsibility of protecting their lives from attackers. Christ was referring to this distinction in the Matthew 5 passage. Let us now examine in some detail what the Scriptures say about the roles of government and of individuals.
Both the Old and New Testaments teach individual self-defense, even if it means taking the assailant’s life in certain circumstances.
Exodus 22:2-3, "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
One conclusion which can be drawn from this is that a threat to our life is to be met with lethal force. After "the sun has risen" seems to refer to a different judgment than the one permitted at night. At night it is more difficult to discern whether the intruder is a thief or a murderer. Furthermore, the nighttime makes it more difficult to defend oneself and to avoid killing the thief at the same time. During the daytime, it had better be clear that one’s life was in danger, otherwise, defense becomes vengeance, and that belongs in the hand of the magistrate.
Proverbs 25:26, "...it is unseemly for a righteous man to fall before an ungodly man."
Certainly, we would be falling before the wicked if we chose to be unarmed and unable to resist an assailant who might be threatening our life. In other words, we have no right to hand over our life, which is a gift from God, to the unrighteous. It is a serious mistake to equate a civilized society with one in which the decent people are doormats for the evil to trample on.
Resisting an attack is not to be confused with taking vengeance, which is the exclusive domain of God (Romans 12:19). This has been delegated to the magistrate:
Romans 13:4, "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Private vengeance means one would stalk down a criminal after one’s life is no longer in danger as opposed to defending oneself during an attack. It is this very point that has been confused by Christian pacifists who would take the passage in the Sermon on the Mount about turning the other cheek (which prohibits private vengeance) into a command to fall before the wicked.
Let us consider also that the Sixth Commandment tells us: "Thou shall not murder." In the chapters following, God gave to Moses many of the situations which require a death penalty. God clearly has not told us never to kill. He has told us not to murder, which means we are not to take an innocent life. Consider also that the magistrate is to be a terror to those who practice evil. This passage does not, in any way, imply that the role of law enforcement is to prevent crimes or to protect individuals from criminals. The magistrate is a minister to serve as "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Romans 13:4).
This point is reflected in the legal doctrine of the United States. Repeatedly, courts have held that the government has no responsibility to provide individual security. One case (Bowers v. DeVito) put it this way: "[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
Christian pacifists may try to argue that God has changed His mind from the time that He gave the Ten Commandments. Perhaps they would want us to think that Christ canceled out the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 or the provision for justifiably killing a thief in Exodus 22. But the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that this cannot be, because "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Hebrews 13:8). In the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi records God’s words this way: "For I am the LORD, I change not;" (Malachi 3:6).
Paul was referring to the unchangeability of God’s Word when he wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Clearly, Paul viewed all Scripture, including the Old Testament, as useful for training bondservants of Christ in every area of life.
We must also consider what Christ told His disciples in His last hours with them: ". . . he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36). Keep in mind that the sword was the finest offensive weapon available to an individual soldier—the equivalent then of a military rifle today.
The Christian pacifist will likely object at this point that only a few hours later, Christ rebuked Peter who used a sword to cut off the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest in the company of a detachment of troops. Let us read what Christ said to Peter:
Matthew 26:52-54, "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"
In the companion passage in John 18, Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away and told him that He had to drink the cup that His Father had given Him. It was not the first time that Christ had to explain to the disciples why He had come to earth. To fulfill the Scriptures, the Son of God had to die for the sin of man, since man was incapable of paying for his own sin. These things became clear to the disciples only after Christ had died and been raised from the dead and the Spirit had come into the world at Pentecost (see John 14:26).
In terms of following Christ's example, one must remember that His personal nonresistance at the cross was intertwined with His unique calling. He did not evade His arrest because it was God's will for Him to fulfill His prophetic role as the redemptive Lamb of God (Matthew 26:52-56). During His ministry, however, He refused to be arrested because God's timing for His death had not yet come (John 8:59). Thus, Christ's unique nonresistance during his ministry does not mandate against self-protection.
While Christ told Peter to put up his sword in its place, He clearly did not say get rid of it forever. That would have contradicted what He had told the disciples only hours before. Peter’s sword was to protect his own mortal life from danger. His sword was not needed to protect the Creator of the universe and the King of kings.
Besides, Peter's use of force was not justified, because soldiers came to arrest Jesus and take him to trial, they did not come with the intent or goal of killing him and murdering him in the Garden with his apostles. There is a difference between a man immediately threatening ones life, and a man coming to arrest you. There is no justification for killing a man who has come to arrest you.
Another objection people bring up is this statement from Christ: "if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight." They claim that Christ did not want his servants to fight. However, this verse is quoted out of context. Let us read this entire verse:
John 18:36, "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."
As we can see, this was only in reference to his servants fighting to avoid Jesus being delivered to the Jews (such as what Peter tried to do). It was the will of God that Jesus (and some of us) be arrested and brought before the majistrates, His servants are not to resist. If his servants fought in this situation, Jesus could not have fulfilled scripture! This is the reason why his servants could not fight in this situation. Jesus gave a specific reason why his servants did not fight. To ignore this reason, and claim that Jesus prohibited all fighting in all situations, would be to add to scripture something that is not there.
Years after Pentecost, Paul wrote in a letter in 1 Timothy 5:8, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." This passage applies to our subject because it would be absurd to have a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one’s family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property. Likewise, it would be absurd not to take, if necessary, the life of a nighttime thief to protect the members of the family (Exodus 22:2-3). Fathers are to protect their families and the state is to protect the right to do so.
A related and even broader concept is found in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Christ had referred to the Old Testament summary of all the laws of scripture into two great commandments: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself" (Luke 10:27). When asked who was a neighbor, Christ related the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). It was the Good Samaritan who took care of the mugging victim who was a neighbor to the victim. The others who walked by and ignored the victim’s plight were not acting as neighbors to him.
In the light of all we have seen the Scriptures teach to this point, can we argue that if we were able to save another’s life from an attacker by shooting the attacker with our gun that we should "turn the other cheek instead"? Scripture speaks of no such right. It only speaks of our responsibilities in the face of an attack—as individual creatures made by God, as householders or as neighbors.
In Genesis 14, Abraham forms a militia to rescue Lot and receives the blessing of Melchizedek. Then, in Hebrews 7, this episode is repeated and God made it part of the New Testament age. There are many other passages in the Scripture and they all support our duty of self-defense. For example:
Luke 11:21-22, "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils."
Mark 3:27, "No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house."
Matthew 12:29, "Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house."
The above words are spoken by Jesus. He said when a man is armed his goods are in peace. But when he is not armed, it is easy for criminals to bind the innocent and steal their goods. If it was against God's Will to be armed, I do not believe Jesus would speak positive about men being armed.
