A Biblical defense of the just use of force

[Pict]

I’m a Baptist pastor/missionary currently serving in Brazil. This is something I wrote a number of years ago for another board. I’ve never seen a board dedicated to the Christian Warrior so I figured it would be a good fit here. I’m sure these things have been debated here before. I add this as my contribution to the subject. It’s too long for one post so I’ll divide it into three parts.

The Biblical Basis for Self-Defense

I'll try to refrain from too much commentary here and let the scriptures speak for themselves. There are a few concepts I'd like to address before I start quoting chapter and verse.

The revelation of truth in scripture is progressive. The Bible was written over a period of about 1500 years. Concepts get refined as further truth is revealed. Keep in mind that a principle revealed stands as is until further revelation modifies it or abolishes it. For instance, Christians don't sacrifice animals. Animal sacrifice was a picture, looking forward towards the sacrifice of Christ. "Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the World!" John 1:29

The biblical writers had very specific messages. The bible has to be interpreted in light of who was doing the writing, the historical backdrop etc. Context is all-important. The world-view of the bible is one in which the spiritual and the material interact and influence each other. It is imperative to determine what a verse is referring to or its meaning will be lost. Verses of scripture rarely retain their full meaning outside of the greater context of the passage in which they were written.

The bible itself teaches us how it should be interpreted. Many biblical authors quote other portions of the bible and they universally use the historical literary method of interpretation. One such example is Luke 4:17 – 21.

The biblical texts dealing with the concept of the use of force are straightforward and concrete. This is not an abstract spiritual concept communicated in figurative language. The use of force is not a major teaching or theme in the bible; very few texts deal directly with the subject itself. Most of the time the reader will have to draw conclusions based on how force was applied and the reasoning behind it.

With this in mind we start with the Old Testament to establish the Jewish concept of the just use of force; then we have to examine the New Testament to see if this concept has been modified, changed or abolished. Scripture quotes are taken from the New International Version.

The just use of force first appears in scripture as a command from God to enforce capital punishment. Genesis 9:5-6 "And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. 6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."

The first record of the just use of force in war occurs a few chapters later. Genesis 14:14 "When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan." In the context, he wins and is this is attributed to the blessing of God on the endeavor.

The best story in the bible to link concealed carry and the just use of force is found in Judges 3:12-23. This passage shows what God thinks of tyrants. As far as I know this passage has never been made into a flannel-graph, Sunday-School lesson, or kiddy song and a quick perusal will show you why.

Joshua 5:13-15 is certainly an interesting passage. “Now when Joshua was near Jericho he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for your enemies?” “Neither”, He replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?” The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you now stand is holy.” And Joshua did so.” Apparently the concepts of warfare, drawn swords, and holiness are not mutually exclusive.

1 Sam 17:47, "All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give all of you into our hands.” This passage is often used to say that Christians should not fight in war because the battle is the Lord’s. This is rather easy to refute even within the verse itself. David said that the Lord would give the entire Philistine Army into the HANDS of the army of ISRAEL. The “hands” here are very important because it was hands that did the killing. In other instances Israel had no HAND in their defense as in the destruction of the army of Pharaoh. It all depended on God’s purpose at the time.

In the same light, what did David do right after he uttered this verse? He slammed Goliath in the head with a single round of 500 gr. hardball. If he had said that verse and Goliath fell over dead, struck down by God, maybe the verse could stand-alone. The picture here is one of an absurd disparity of force between a teenager wielding a shepherds sling and a massive trained warrior with magnum caliber weapons. The whole point of the encounter is that David could not have won had not the Lord caused him to win. This is a case of God using that tiny portion of His own strength, invested in David, to defeat the enemy of His people. If we allow that verse to stand out of context then the entire army of Israel would need to be disbanded.

Psalm 127:1 is a perfect example "Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain." Does this mean the guards can all sleep at home and nobody man the walls? Of course not, it means that a city guarded by God will have guards that notice the enemy far off and that the defense will be successful. In all of this there is Divine/human cooperation with responsibilities on both sides. The work we do for the Lord is not in vain.

Incidentally after David killed Goliath he hacked his head off (1 Sam 17:51) and carried it around for the rest of the day (1 Sam 17:54, 57). For some reason that gets left out of the flannel-graphs and kiddy songs.

David, fleeing from Saul stopped to get a weapon for his own defense. 1 Samuel 21:8-9 David asked Ahimelech, “Don't you have a spear or a sword here? I haven't brought my sword or any other weapon, because the king's business was urgent.” 9 The priest replied, “The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the Valley of Elah, is here; it is wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. If you want it, take it; there is no sword here but that one.” David said, “There is none like it; give it to me.” David, who was “a man after God’s own heart” saw no conflict between reliance on God to see him through and his own skill at arms, they were part of the same thing.

Nehemiah 4:15-23 clearly illustrates the need to prepare for self-defense. This is a longer passage that needs little commentary. Nehemiah was rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem under threat of attack. He arms his workers. This strongly presupposes the moral correctness of the just use of force model already established in scripture at this point.

Another passage that heavily presupposes the God-given right of self-defense is the story of Esther. The Jews were about to be wiped out. The grand climax of the story and the method that God used to save the Jews was the right to armed self-defense. Esther 8:11 "The king's edict granted the Jews in every city the right to assemble and protect themselves; to destroy, kill and annihilate any armed force of any nationality or province that might attack them and their women and children; and to plunder the property of their enemies."

The Law of Moses codified things further. Exodus 22:2-3a “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed." In other words you can't slay someone for stealing your property if it can be avoided. The context is this verse is property crime, not an attack on ones life.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 is a Hebrew poem, part of which reads “There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under Heaven… a time to kill and a time to heal… a time for war and a time for peace.” To the Jew success in warfare was evidence of the blessing of God.

These are a few select passages that illustrate the just use of force as opposed to murder. This concept is corroborated by dozens of other passages in the Old Testament. The phrase "delivered them into thy hands" is used about 20x in the Old Testament referring to God causing Israel to be victorious in battle.

The Jewish Scriptures freely illustrate that force is justified in capital punishment, national, and self-defense. It also stands against tyranny, murder, vengeance etc. and is full of instances where the use of force is condemned as unjust. There is a clear line between justice and injustice regarding the use of lethal force. It is this heritage that becomes the context in which the New Testament is written. THE OLD TESTAMENT CONSISTENTLY TEACHES THAT THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE IS JUSTIFIED FOR SELF DEFENSE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND NATIONAL DEFENSE.

[Pict]

This concept of the just use of force is the cultural context in which Jesus taught. The moral justification for self-defense was so well established in the Jewish mind that only direct teaching on the subject could have reversed it. It is significant that neither Jesus nor the Apostles deal directly with the subject of self-defense. The most that can be said is that Jesus sought to expose the cultural excesses of his time in regard to the use of force. The Christian must ask, “Does truth revealed in the New Testament modify the principle as it is already laid down?” I contend that it does not.

A passage of scripture commonly used by extreme pacifists comes from the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5:38-44 "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"

Examine the examples the Lord uses here: The striking of a cheek, an unjust lawsuit, being forced to carry a pack for a Roman soldier. These are insults and humiliating treatment in the context of an ongoing relationship. They in no way threaten the life of the one being ill-treated. Simply extending the logic shows that this is a limited concept. If a man wants to rape your wife, should you give him your daughter as well? If they come to hang your father, should you show them where your mother is hiding? This construct is limited in scope. There is a vast difference between a mere insult and an assault on the image of God in man (or woman).

What the Lord said here has no bearing on self-defense; it is dealing with revenge and retaliation. Not responding in kind in the face of insult eventually creates the conditions necessary for peace and restoration. Jesus is calling us to de-escalate the tension by not seeking revenge. Non-action in the face of life-threatening violence immediately creates the conditions necessary for further violence. This passage does not refer to self-defense pro or con.

What was Jesus' view on the use of force? Many times Jesus was confronted with soldiers and the job soldiers do. His reactions are worth noting.

Luke 3:14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” He addresses the improper use of authority but lets the use of force stand untouched. In telling them to be content with their pay He was also telling them to continue their employment as soldiers. If being a soldier were inherently evil as an occupation He would have to tell them to leave military service. At another point, when confronting a prostitute, He told her exactly that.

In Matt 8 he proclaims a Centurion to be a man of great faith and heals his servant, but never mentions the (supposedly evil) work of the Centurion. For someone (supposedly) preaching an extreme form of pacifism he really misses the boat when given the opportunity to address the issue directly.

His parables at times touched upon the use of force. The parable is a teaching method that uses a familiar, earthly concept to communicate a spiritual concept. In His travels Jesus often repeated the same parables to different groups. In Matt 21:33-46 He tells the parable of the tenants. The tenants of a vineyard mistreat the messengers sent to them and eventually kill the owner’s son (a reference to the Prophets and Himself). At the end He asks in verse 40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” Here Jesus is directly appealing to His Jewish listeners’ own sense of justice regarding the use of force as the earthly concept they are all familiar with. They reply “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end and He will rent the vineyard to other tenants who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.” The same parable is also recorded in Mark and Luke. Apparently Jesus also answered His own question at times “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” (Mark 12:9, Luke 20:16) His very point depends upon the Jewish concept of the just use of force in capital punishment remaining unchanged.

One passage that sheds light on Jesus' concept of the use of force for self-defense is Luke 22:35-36 "Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
The purse, bag, sandals, etc. refer to the real items in daily possession of the disciples. Jesus refers to the time he when he sent them out before (Luke 9:3-6), in that passage he forbids them to take the common items they used to cope with life. The rules of NORMAL LITERARY INTERPRETATION do not allow anyone to turn the items listed in chapter 22 into spiritual concepts no matter how much the passage rankles their pacifistic tendencies. If they were common items in the first reference (Luke 9) they are still common items in the second (Luke 22).

The disciples do an inventory and come up with two swords right away, one was owned by Peter we later learn. We don't know from the text who carried the other. When shown the swords, Jesus says, “That is enough.” What He means by this is a matter of speculation. Some translations place an exclamation point after it as if they had done something wrong or Jesus is shocked at them. First century Greek had no punctuation so this is a choice of the translator. The hour is midnight so they certainly can’t act upon his admonition to purchase swords or collect the other items they will need. Clearly Jesus is simply terminating the discussion.

In the light of the just use of force model already established in the disciple’s minds by their Jewish heritage, this passage makes perfect sense. If Jesus had been preaching an extreme form of pacifism from the beginning, why were two of his closest followers armed at the end of his ministry? Could it be that they hadn't heard anything that altered their concept of the use of force?

At Jesus’ arrest Peter attempted to use his sword and cut off a man's ear. John 18:11 Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” Matthew (26:52-54) tells us that he also said “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

Some people seize upon Jesus' statement about "drawing the sword" as a blanket condemnation on the use of force. Examine the context of the passage: Jesus had just told them they need to sell their extra garment and buy a sword, due to the midnight hour this could only be done in the coming days. He had already told them he would be crucified (by the will of God) to fulfill scripture, he tells Peter to put his sword away as opposed to get rid of it, Jesus informs Peter that he has far more military might at his disposal than a mere sword, He makes it clear that it is not God's will to rescue him from the cross. They are also outnumbered, 2 swords to possibly 50 or more not counting the fact that God Himself would be against them. Jesus' remark about drawing the sword can only be taken to refer to the specific moment - in other words "Peter if you continue you are going to die here and now by these men's hands."

Shortly after this passage Jesus is before the Roman governor and issues another "use of force" proclamation. John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” This is a conditional IF/THEN statement. IF his kingdom were an earthly one THEN his followers would fight to prevent his arrest. This statement makes no sense at all if the use of force is forbidden by Christ’s own teaching but it is in perfect keeping with the Jewish concept of national defense. IF Jesus had been teaching extreme pacifism THEN he would have to say that if his kingdom were of this world his followers would NOT fight.

Nothing Jesus said altered the concept of the just use of force already established in the Old Testament especially in light of Matt 5:17-18 – “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

[Pict]

The rest of the New Testament bears this concept out. In Acts 23 the Apostle Paul had no hesitation to appeal to the Roman authorities for protection. He was given a military escort of 400 men on foot and 70 cavalry to protect him from a radical group of 40 Jews who had planned to kill him. If Paul was a pacifist this behavior is absolutely shameless.
Paul’s own view on capital punishment is revealed in Acts 25:10-11 “Paul answered: I am now standing before Caesar’s court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving of death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!”

Paul very clearly states his belief that a man can commit a crime worthy of execution and was willing to submit himself to that justice. He in no way challenges their right to execute the condemned.

Paul later deals directly with the concept of capital punishment. Romans13:1-5 supports the Old Testament concept of the just use of force by human government to control crime. “…he does not bear the sword for nothing, he is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Rom 13:4b) God delegates the sword to the hands of human government for the exercise of justice. As an act of righteousness and justice it is not only permissible but a duty for a Christian to be involved in such activity.

One often mishandled verse is Ephesians 6:12 “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” This passage is referring to a spiritual conflict between very real demonic powers and the kingdom of God. Killing of humans will never advance the cause of Christ. Humans are not the enemy; they are the ones Christ died to save from destruction. The spiritual fight is one we are engaged in every day and is governed by a whole set of other principles rather than the just use of force. The advancement of the Kingdom of God is in the face of very real opposition by a real Satan and his workers. The psychopath in your child’s bedroom is a fight on a much lower level and will be governed by the laws of man and physics.

Paul continues here in Ephesians 6 and admonishes us to “put on the whole armor of God.” The context is still the spiritual fight, but the examples he uses were the common equipment of war in his day, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield, etc. This is hardly in keeping with the extreme pacifist view that these things are expressions of evil in and of themselves. If Paul felt that way about them why would have used them in this manner?

In II Tim 2:3-4, Paul uses the “Good Soldier” as an example of the kind of admirable character traits Timothy should seek to exemplify as a young preacher. This is a rather strange illustration of righteousness if the very concept of being a soldier is prohibited to a Christian. If Christianity teaches extreme pacifism, how then could a soldier be called good? Clearly Paul did not have a problem with it.

Hebrews 11:32-34 cinches this all down and illustrates that the Old Testament concept of the just use of force is not altered in any way… "32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies."

If the New Testament concept of the use of force has been altered he can't hold these things up as examples of Godly character.

The HISTORICAL LITERARY interpretation of the New Testament allows the Christian to participate in his own defense, law enforcement, and wars of national defense.
We are also warned in scripture not to trust in weapons alone or in our own resources for our defense. Job 40:7-14 (God speaking) "Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 8 “Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself? 9 Do you have an arm like God’s, and can your voice thunder like his? 10 Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor, and clothe yourself in honor and majesty. 11 Unleash the fury of your wrath, look at every proud man and bring him low, 12 look at every proud man and humble him, crush the wicked where they stand. 13 Bury them all in the dust together; shroud their faces in the grave. 14 Then I myself will admit to you that your own right hand can save you."

The bible presents a consistent ethic regarding the use of force from Genesis to Revelation. The Old Testament conditions placed on the proper use of force are seamlessly continued through the New Testament. Christian groups that teach against the use of force in self-defense, national defense, or law enforcement do so in spite of and in opposition to scripture. In most cases, where Christian denominations have adopted an extreme pacifist position they have done so after a shift away from biblical authority and have abandoned many other biblical teachings as well.

[Goshin]

EXCELLENT post sir! Good material and interpretations well-presented. I like the way you focus primarily on the Scriptures and the cultural context, rather than the often-dubious opinions of self-proclaimed experts.
(cut, paste...save.)

Thank you,

Goshin

[DaveJames]

Not bad, well written

[Dale Fricke]

Well-done really great job Pastor! Pastor Marshall posted one also it is worth a read.

[kenpotex]

Very good, thanks for posting this.