Pacifism and the Sword in the New Testament - By James M. Arlandson

8/4/2019 Pacifism and the Sword in the New Testament - By James M. Arlandson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pacifism-and-the-sword-in-the-new-testament-by-james-m-arlandson 1/44

Pacifism and the Sword in the New Testament

James M. Arlandson

Part One: Jesus, Pacifism, and the Sword

Are Christians permitted to carry the sword (or modern weapons)? What should the Church¶s

policy be on war and peace? Should it counsel the State to turn the other cheek? Are

Christians permitted to join the police force and the military? How can they "love their

enemies" but may have to kill some of them?

The Scriptural truth that answers those questions divides the world into two realms. On theone hand, we have the kingdom of Caesar, and on the other the kingdom of God. A failure to

distinguish between the two will produce confusion about the New Testament¶s teaching on

the sword and peace²confusion that is rampant throughout the Church and the larger society

in this time of global conflicts that are continuing, regardless of who wins political elections.

On the other hand, once we separate the two realms, all of the Biblical passages on peace and

the sword will fall into place. This article is the first in a series on pacifism and the sword in

the New Testament. I hope it clarifies the issues.

Old Testament Background

To analyze the New Testament properly, it is imperative to understand the Old Testament.

The New Testament grows organically out of the older sacred text, but also transforms somemain themes.

This revered ancient source teaches a theocracy, merging religion and politics. The Law of Moses was thundered from on high, shaking Mt. Sinai and echoing across the Middle East

and eventually around the world. The plan was for the ancient Hebrews, the people of God, to

separate themselves from surrounding kingdoms and their pagan religions, and to worship the

true and living God, following carefully prescribed laws. These laws were designed to guide

them towards righteousness.

Further, God permitted ancient Israel to wage war on pagan inhabitants that were polluting a

small and specific land called Canaan. (He did not command his people to wage wars of

worldwide conquests.) The Israelites alternated between success and failure in cleansing the

land. But this bedrock principle can be learned from these (admittedly) severe decrees: God is

not opposed, in principle, to warfare, if necessary.

However, the people were unable or unwilling to follow God¶s decrees, except a remnant. So

God ordained a new path of following his righteousness, the gift of the Spirit. The prophet

Joel predicted, as follows:

28 I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old

men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men

and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days. (Joel 2:28-29, emphasis added)



God expands the horizon to involve all peoples. The Spirit is not automatically put ineveryone at birth, but anyone can receive the Spirit, if he asks God for him in the name of

Jesus.

The following questions from the short Bible survey are relevant to the New Testament.

Should the wars in the Old Testament be transferred forward to the ministry of Jesus and the

Church? If so, how? What about to secular governments? Jesus, a Jew, lived in a theocracy,though under Roman occupation, prior to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 by the

Roman general Titus, son of the Emperor Vespasian (ruled 69-79), and Titus later ruled 79-

81.

Would Jesus carry on the earthly theocratic kingdom established by God in ancient Israel? A

hint of the answer, discussed shortly: if Jesus were to reestablish another religious-political

theocracy in a small land, it would not succeed, for God ordained something new that relates

to all peoples. Joel 2:28-29 prophesies, and Peter the lead Apostle applies the prophecy to the

birth of the Church in Acts 2.

We do not have time to discuss God¶s foreknowledge of national Israel¶s rejection of the

kingdom of God as Jesus proclaimed and lived it. For our purposes it is best to realize thatJesus did not reestablish the theocratic kingdom of Israel as some sort of military Son of

David (or in any other earthly way), the most powerful and righteous king (though not

sinless) in Israel¶s history. See Matt. 22:41-46 for Jesus¶ correction of the popular belief

about the Son of David.

For more articles on the complex and rich interrelations between the Old and New

Testaments, please see these articles:

How Jesus Christ Fulfills the Old Testament

How Christian Benefit from the Old Testament

God¶s Wars and Allah¶s Wars (scroll down to a Christian perspective)

Go here for an image of the Arch of Titus, and look for the Jewish Menorah sculpted on the

Arch, taken as booty from Jerusalem.

Two kingdoms

In his teachings and pronouncements, Jesus divides the kingdom of Caesar from the kingdom

of God. Though the phrases "kingdom of heaven" or "kingdom of God" are used over a

hundred times in the Four Gospels, we look at three examples that put the kingdom in action.

First, at the beginning of Jesus¶ ministry, he was tempted or tested (the Greek word can be

translated either way) by Satan to take all of the kingdoms of the world. Matthew 4:5-8 says:

5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instance all the kingdoms of the

world. 6 And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been

given me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 So if you worship me, it will be yours." 8

Jesus answered, "It is written, µWorship the Lord your God and serve him only.¶" (Luke 4:5-

7; cf. Deut. 6:13)

In divine cooperation between Jesus and the Spirit, they allowed Satan to lead Jesus up to a

high place and show him all the kingdoms of this world²their glory and political authority



("exousia" in Greek means political authority; cf. Luke 4:6 and 12:11, 20:20, 23:7). Inaddition, "kingdom" at the time of Christ includes material resources, backed by a strong

military. However, Jesus raises his followers¶ vision to a spiritual transformation of theworld, one soul at a time, without robbing people by bloods hed or killing them. Then,

following his example, his disciples went north, south, east, and west, transforming the world

only by preaching a simple message and by praying.

Second, Jesus makes his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:18-44). He had predicted

his own death²he was sent to die, after all (Luke 9:22, 43-45; 12:50; 13:32-33; 18:31-34).

Now the hostility of the Jewish leadership heats up against him. It is in this context that the

teachers of the law and the chief priests keep a close watch on him to catch him in

committing treason against Rome or in breaking the law, so they could arrest him and turn

him over to "the power and authority of the governor" (Luke 20:20).

Some leaders ask him whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. Apparently, they saw him

as a political revolutionary who opposed Roman occupation. Would he endorse the taxation

of his fellow Jews for the benefit of unclean Gentiles? He replied with famous words that are

often quoted, though people may not know the exact reference and context. He speaks first in

this passage.

24 "Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?" 25 "Caesar¶s," they

replied. He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar¶s, and to God what is God¶s."

26 They were unable to trap him in what he said there in public. And astonished by his

answer, they became silent. (Luke 20:20-26; cf. Matt. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17).

In that passage, the distinction between the kingdom of Caesar and the kingdom of God is

clear. If Caesar asks for taxes, then keep your focus on the kingdom of God, but pay them.

Incidentally, Jesus paid his taxes (Matt. 17:24-27). He even called a tax collector to become

one of his disciples (Matt. 9:9) and befriended them and other "sinners" (Luke 5:29 -32).

Third and finally, during his arrest, he said to Pontius Pilate, a Roman authority:

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. (John 18:36)

Upon this reply, Pilate exclaims that Jesus is a king. But Jesus spiritualizes the description of

a king. Pontius Pilate speaks first in the following verse:

"You are a king, then!" Jesus answered: "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this

reason, I was born, and for this I came into the world to testify to the truth. Everyone who is

on the side of the truth listens to me." (John 18:37)

At the birth of Jesus, the wise men call him "king of the Jews" (Matt. 2:2). In John 18:37 he

says that the purpose of his birth²as a king²is to testify to the truth. That means his

kingdom is heavenly and nonmaterial. He leads by the power of truth alone, not by worldly

pomp and glory, followed by a mighty military.

Thus, Jesus lifts his vision, and that of his disciples and ours, to a heavenly kingdom. He

separated off an earthly and theocratic kingdom²albeit established by God in ancient

Israel²from a spiritual kingdom about to be established beyond the borders of Israel to the



farthest parts of the globe, wherever the gospel of the kingdom is preached. In his ministryand actions he never carried a sword or raised a militia to attack opponents, for he intended

only to fight spiritual beings and diseases, and to clarify the best possible image of God inkingdom theology. But he permits the State to carry a sword²at least he does not condemn a

centurion as such, as we shall see in another article in the series.

K ingdom warfare

The Old Testament background brings us to the ministry and teaching of Jesus, but he wages

spiritual warfare, not a military one. Three examples represent other passages in the New

Testament.

First, one of the striking features of the Gospels is the presence of demonic beings that attack

hapless people. The Gospels take them seriously, as if they are not myths, and so does Jesus(and so should we). He waged spiritual warfare against demons, wherever he went. After the

great test (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13), many passages describe his confrontation with them,such as Matt. 12:28 and 43; Mark 1:23-26, 5:2, 7:25, 9:25-26; Luke 4:33, 8:29 and 55, 9:42,

11:24, and 13:11. It would be most unwise if rationalistic theologians were to tell us that

these verses are ancient descriptions of mental illness. Most unwise indeed.

Second, he waged spiritual warfare against sickness. This passage, representing other

summaries, encapsulates in a few words the healing ministry of Jesus in Israel, four decades

prior to the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70:

30 Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many

others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. 31 The people were amazed when they

saw the mute speaking, the crippled made well, the lame walking and the blind seeing. And

they praised the God of Israel. (Matt. 15:30-31)

Third and finally, he waged spiritual warfare against false and incomplete ideas by teaching

true and full ones. In the famous Sermon on the Mount he explains what the kingdom of God

really is. It is the "new thing" prophesied by Isaiah (42:9, 43:19, and 48:6). Af ter he finished

the long discourse, the people respond thus:

28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29

because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law. (Matt. 7:28-

29; 13:54 and 22:33)

These and many other passages in the Gospels demonstrate that Jesus is waging spiritual

warfare, not a military one. He is about to call his Church to do the same. He raises its vision

higher than conquering earthly kingdoms and regions. However, no Bible-educated Christian

should ever believe that the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament are different.They are not. The same God who purified the small and specific land of Canaan through

Joshua and his successors by military warfare is now purifying the whole world through Jesus

(the Hebrew name is Joshua) and his disciples by spiritual warfare, that is, only by preaching

the gospel and only by praying, not by hitting the stubborn with swords.



Conclusion

An objector may ask: Separating off the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Caesar is allwell and good for the "heavenly minded," but what about us here on earth? Wars and

conflicts erupt. How do we handle them? What about the verses in the New Testament that

talk about the sword? Or is the New Testament so spiritual that we should retreat from the

world, not to mention from conflicts?

These are excellent questions, reflecting earth-bound realities. And these questions will be

answered in the next articles in the series. Suffice it say here that the inspired New Testament

does not leave us without guidance. God ordains that the State²law enforcement and the

military²may wield the sword (Rom. 13:1-7). And individual Christians may gladly join

these honorable institutions, thus becoming servants of God. But publicly and officially, they

serve the State. Privately, they serve God in their individual relationship with him.

However, the Church as an institution (also distinct from the kingdom of God, which createsthe Church) is "pacifist" in its own actions and internal policies because it follows the dictates

of the kingdom of God, his active rule and dynamic reign. That is, following its Lord, it

wages only spiritual warfare. Therefore, church leaders in the name of the Church or of Godshould never convene a council or general assembly in order to raise an army to fight battles

and to coerce heretics and opponents to conform.

However, being salt and light, the Church may also counsel the State. And since God ordains

that the State may wield the sword (Rom. 13:1-7), the Church should not teach only pacifism

to the State, or else the Church risks plunging a nation into harm from internal criminals and

external foes. Also, teaching only pacifism contradicts Scripture, as we shall see in the next

articles in the series.

Further, understanding the separate kingdoms of God and Caesar (the State) and the fact that

Jesus never set out to rebuild the theocratic kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6-7) is essential for

grasping all of the verses in the New Testament about peace and the sword. Such verses will

fall into place once the division of kingdoms is elaborated on. But if we merge the tworealms, we will witness religious atrocities that the Church committed sometimes (not

always) in its history. May we never again see the Church raise an army or militia to attack sinners and nonconformists (as the church with the army defines them)!

The mission of the Church, rather, is to save souls, teach believers, and help the needy in

practical ways. That is the essence of the kingdom message.



Part Two: Pacifism and the Sword in the Gospels

Did Jesus endorse and encourage violence in the four Gospels, presumably a righteous kind

of violence? Did he call his original disciples to this? Did he order all of his disciples to buy

swords, really? Two verses may indicate that he did these things.

Matt. 10:34 reads:

34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword (NewInternational Version, NIV)

And Luke 22:36 reads:

36 [Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise

a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." (New Revised

Standard Version, NRSV)

Cited in isolation, those two verses suggest that swords and violence are a possibility. It

seems as if Jesus carried and wielded a sword. It seems as if all of the disciples should go out

and buy one each. After the death and burial of Jesus, they would have to face the world

alone without him, so they thought.

However, what happens to the apparent meaning of the two verses when they are not read in

isolation, but in context? Did Jesus really wield a sword and want all of the disciples to buy

one, for each?

This article is Part Two in a series on pacifism and the sword in the New Testament.

Matthew 10:34

Scripture must be read in context. As the old saying goes, a text without a context may

become a pretext. The context of Matthew 10:34 (in bold font) is quoted in full to explain themeaning of "sword":

32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my

Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before

my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the

earth, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law² 36 a man¶s enemies will be the members of his own household [Mic. 7:6]

37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone

who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who

does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his

life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

Thus the verse cannot legitimately be used as a call to a military holy war on society. The

context, rather, is family relationships. The meaning of "sword" is now clear. It indicates that



following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may"split" it up (Mic. 7:6), the precise function of a met aphorical sword . Are his disciples ready

for that?

Now we can appeal to the larger textual context. The non-literal interpretation of the sword is

confirmed by a parallel passage in the Gospel of Luke.

Luke 12:49-53 reads:

49 "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But Ihave a baptism to undergo [my death], and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51 Do

you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now onthere will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against

three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother againstdaughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-

in-law against mother-in-law."

The proper way to interpret Scripture is to let verses clarify other verses, particularly parallel

passages. And now Luke 12:49-53 confirms the non-literal interpretation of Matt. 10:34.Jesus did not endorse physical violence against one¶s own family, but he warns people about

possible family division.

For more information on Matt. 10:34, such as the cultural context, click here.

Luke 22:36

The historical context of Luke 22:36 demonstrates that for three years Jesus avoided makinga public, triumphal entry of his visits to Jerusalem because he understood that when he set

foot in the holy city in this way, he would fulfill his mission to die, in a death that looked like

one of a common criminal, just as Isaiah the prophet had predicted hundreds of years before(Is. 53:12). He needed to complete his work outside of Jerusalem.

Now, however, Jesus finally enters the city famous for killing her prophets (Luke 13:33-34),

a few days before his arrest, trial and crucifixion, all of which he predicted. Religious leaders

were spying on him and asked him trick questions, so they could incriminate him (Luke

20:20). These insincere questions, though they were also asked before he entered the city,

increased in frequency during these compacted tense days. But he answered impressively,

avoiding their traps. Despite the tension, each day Jesus taught in the temple, and crowds

gathered around him, so the authorities could not arrest him, for fear of the people. Judas

volunteered to betray him, saying that he would report back to the authorities when no crowd

was present (Luke 22:1-6).

As Passover drew near, Jesus asked some of his disciples to prepare the Last Supper (most

likely the Seder). He elevated the bread and the wine, representing his body and blood, which

was broken and shed for the sins of the world in the New Covenant (Luke 22:7-20).

However, during the meal, Judas slipped out to search for the authorities because he knew

that it was the custom of Jesus to go to the Mount of Olives to pray (Luke 21:37), and that

night would be no different.



At this point we pick up the textual context of Luke 22:36 (bold print). He is eating the LastSupper on the night he was betrayed.

Luke 22:35-38 says:

35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or

sandals, did you lack anything?"They said, "No, not a thing."

36 He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag.

And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one . 37 For I tell you, this

scripture must be fulfilled in me: µAnd he was numbered among the lawless¶; and indeed

what is written about me is being fulfilled."

38 They [the disciples] said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."

"It is enough," he replied. (NRSV)

The textual context reveals at least two truths. First, Jesus contrasts his ministry before hisarrival in Jerusalem with the tense few days in Jerusalem when spies and the authorities

themselves were seeking to trap him. Does the tension play a part in understanding why he

told his disciples to go out and buy swords? This is answered, below. Second, he says that hewould be arrested and tried as a criminal, as the prophecy in Is. 53:12 predicted. Does this

have anything to do with swords? Do criminals carry them around? This too is explained,

below. Jesus may have a deeper meaning in mind than the violent use of the swords. What is

it?

The interpretation of the verses can follow either a strictly physical direction in which swords

must be used, or a non-physical one in which swords must not be used, during Jesus¶ last

hours. The surest and clearest direction is the non-literal one, but first we analyze why the

literal one will not fit into Luke 22:34-38 and into the passage about the arrest in the Garden

of Gethsemane (Luke 22:39-53).

V iolent use of the swords

Jesus says to the disciples to buy swords, but when they show him two, Jesus says those are

enough. The first direction, the literal one, is inadequate for two reasons.

First, the obvious question is: two swords are enough for what? Are they enough for a

physical fight to resist arrest? This is hardly the case because during Jesus¶ arrest a disciple

(Peter according to John 18:10) took out his sword and cut off the ear of the servant (Malchus

according to John 18:10) of the high priest. Jesus sternly tells Peter to put away his sword,

"No more of this!" and then he heals the servant, restoring his ear (Luke 22:49-51). Resisting

arrest cannot be the purpose of the two swords.

Second, were the two swords enough for an armed rebellion to resist the authorities and to

impose the new Jesus movement in a political and military way? Jesus denounces this

purpose in Luke 22:52, as the authorities were in the process of arresting him: "Am I leading

a rebellion that you have come with swords and clubs?" The answer is no, as he is seized and

led away (v. 54).



So the physical interpretation of Luke 22:36 (the two swords were intended to be used) willnot work in the larger context. Two swords are not enough to resist arrest, to pull off a revolt

of some kind, or to fully protect themselves in the Garden of Gethsemane.

T he contextual meaning of the swords

In contrast to the literal interpretation of using swords physically, the following interpretationworks smoothly in context so that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

First, Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem(Luke 9:3; 10:1-17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because people were

friendlier, and their opposition to him was spread out over three years. Now, however, he isin Jerusalem, and he has undergone the compacted antagonism of religious leaders seeking to

trap him with self-incriminating words. When the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords²no more than that²represent

the tension. Jesus¶ mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must beware.However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, as we just saw in the

literal interpretation, above, for he is about to tell Peter to put away his sword.

Second, "For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: µAnd he was numbered among

the lawless¶" (Luke 22:37). By far the clearest purpose of the two swords is Jesus¶ reference

to Isaiah¶s prophecy (53:12). He was destined to be arrested like a criminal, put on trial like a

criminal, and even crucified like a criminal (but his arrest, trial and execution was based on

false evidence. He did nothing but good.) Yet, he was hung on the cross between two thieves,

which is also a fulfillment of Isaiah¶s prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39-43). What are criminals

known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered among criminals, Jesus must

also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough²to fulfill this

prophecy. Also, Matthew mentions fulfilling prophecy (26:54). If Peter had kept on

physically using the sword to prevent Christ¶s arrest, prophecy would not have been

accomplished smoothly and without hindrance. Jesus says that he could call on twelvelegions of angels to protect him, meaning he is destined by God to die; he is not permitted to

stop even the mighty Roman Empire from fulfilling its role (Matt. 26:53). That is why Jesustold Peter to put his sword back in its place (Matt. 26:52). And in Luke he says to Peter after

he cut off an ear, "No more of this!" (22:51).

The third and final non-literal interpretation says that Jesus frequently used physical objects(seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep and so on) to teach non-physical, universal truths,

and the same is possibly true of the two swords. This interpretation of clarification issupported by Matt. 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a

sword." As we have seen (above) in context, he does not mean a literal sword that cuts up and

bloodies the family, but a spiritual and moral one that may divide it up non-physically. And it

is precisely Luke who clarifies Jesus¶ meaning of "sword" as non-literal, as we compared thetwo parallel passages of Matt. 10:34 and Luke 12:51. If Luke does this in 12:51, then whywould he not slightly shift the meaning of sword in 22:36-38?

Early Christian history

The foregoing interpretation of the non-physical use of swords does not say that the two

swords did not exist (Luke 22:38). They are not symbols, nor were they imaginary or



invisible. Peter really did cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest with one of them(Matt. 26:50-51; Luke 22:49-51).

However, Peter¶s use of the sword is done before the formal birth of the Church at Pentecost,

when he will be filled with the Spirit in an unprecedented way (Acts 2). It would be

misguided to build church doctrine on such a reaction in the heat of the moment, during

Jesus¶ arrest at night, before Pentecost.

On the other hand, Jesus said to Peter in the Garden, "Put your sword back in its place,"

meaning, back in its scabbard or holder or in Peter¶s belt or another article of clothing. He

never said to throw the sword away, off to the side at a distance. Therefore, it is entirely

possible that some disciples carried the two weapons after the crucifixion and burial when

they lived in hostile territory, and maybe some did after the Resurrection and Ascension.

Therefore, I do not deny that an individual Christian may own a firearm to defend his home,

for example. But he must obey the law and avoid vices like over-inflated egos andrecklessness. Also, he does not officially represent the Church as an institution. He owns a

weapon privately, as a citizen of society. It is best to keep the kingdom of God (which creates

the Church) and the kingdom of Caesar separate. Then we will have clarity. On the other hand, if Christians do not choose to own a firearm, then they are free not to do this. The New

Testament offers choices and therefore freedom. They will be (or should be) protected by the

kingdom of Caesar (the State), if they are attacked by criminals.

However, it is imperative to understand that later reliable tradition says that none of the

apostles fought or even tried to fight their way out of fiery trials with swords, as some sort of

misguided, twisted, violent martyrs. Instead, tradition says that all of the apostles but John

were martyred as a direct result of persecution (John died from natural causes in old age).

Evidently, the example of Jesus throughout his life and in the Garden of Gethsemane made an

impression on them.

Though part of this is an argument from silence (drawing conclusions from what a text does

not say), it is a significant silence of the historical records that speaks volumes. As we shallsee in future articles, this silence will have the support of words.

Summary

As I concluded in the earlier article in the series, Jesus teaches that the kingdom of God and

the kingdom of Caesar are different and distinct. He did not purpose to reestablish the

theocratic kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6-7). Jesus waged kingdom or spiritual warfare,

preaching the kingdom message.

This article confirms that separation and message. The events in the Garden of Gethsemaneand the commands of Jesus there teach the apostles nonaggression. He said to Peter: "For all

who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52). Peter and the others heard those

words that clarify the use of swords. Also, Matt. 10:34 cannot legitimately be used to justify a

physical fight. The sword appears in the context of family relations. The way of Jesus may

divide a family, morally, spiritually and relationally, but not violently. Therefore, a lifestyle

of the sword must not be part of the disciples¶ new walk with the resurrected Christ, as they

preached his message of hope.



Thus, the Church must follow its Lord in waging only spiritual warfare and preaching onlythe kingdom message (2 Cor. 10:4-6 and Eph. 6:1-10). So this much is bedrock: the

Church²as an institution²is never permitted to spread the gospel or to impose personalrighteousness by the sword, for Christ¶s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). So only in

this sense is the Church²as the Church²a "pacifist" body, for it follows the dictates of the

kingdom of God, which creates the church. That is, ecclesiastical leaders should not convene

a special council and general assembly to vote on raising an army or militia in order to wagewar. Thus, the Church and the State must never be fused together.

Yet, the Church, by its nature and purpose, is commanded to exhort, teach, guide, and

counsel the government about the ways of God. The Church proclaims peace, or it may

counsel a just war, depending on the circumstances. If the Church were to teach only

pacifism, it would violate its own Scriptures (Rom. 13:1-7). But the Church and the

government are not the same.

Rather, the Church exists to save souls, teach believers, and help the needy in practical ways,

not to bloody and kill people with swords. And it continues its true mission to this day,

turning the world right side up.

So if the Church as an institution is not permitted to have an army and to wage war, are

individual Christians permitted to join the military and law enforcement of the State,

according to the New Testament? Yes, and that complex question is answered more fully in

future articles in the series. For now, applying Matthew 26:52 is sufficient. "All who draw the

sword will die by the sword." Clearly, that timeless truth in context refers to criminals, rebels,

and revolutionaries. Whether the cause of revolutionaries is just or unjust, they (and criminals

and rebels) use weapons, so they are at risk of dying by such weapons.

However, lawful soldiers and police officers also place themselves at a higher risk, more so

than average, law-abiding citizens, who do not have to use weapons. This does not mean that

lawful soldiers and police officers are on the same level as criminals, rebels, or revolutionaries²far from it. But the servants of the State, working in the two God-ordained

institutions of the military and law enforcement (Rom. 13:1-7), must be forewarned early onin their careers of the inherent danger that comes from using weapons.



Part Three: Officers soldiers and God

According to the New Testament, is it possible to be honored by God and be a weapon-

carrying soldier or law enforcement officer, at the same time? Does God approve of soldiers

and officers of the State? Does he condemn the military? If not, may individual Christians

serve, Scripturally speaking, in law enforcement and the military?

This article, Part 3 in the series on pacifism and the sword in the New Testament, discusses

lawful military and civil officers of the State. Some were soldiers who seek repentance fromJohn the Baptist (Luke 3:7-14). Jesus meets a highly respected centurion who needed help

(Matthew 8:5-13). Another centurion named Cornelius, serving in the Italian Regiment,receives a strange, divine visit (Acts 10). Finally, a sword-carrying jailer who worked for the

civil government of the Roman colony of Philippi carried out his duty to imprison theApostle Paul (Acts 16:16-40).

Here are their stories in the Greek East of the Roman Empire. The lesson for police officers

and military personnel today will become obvious as we go.

John the Baptist and soldiers

According to the New Testament, John the Baptist, coming in the spirit of Elijah, was the

forerunner of Christ. John preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Oneday, during the short life of John the Baptist²short because Herod the tetrarch beheaded him

(Matthew 14:1-12 and Mark 6:14-29)²some soldiers, likely Jews serving the government inJerusalem, traveled out to the Jordan River to see him. While they were listening, he told a

large crowd that they must bring forth fruit (character and actions) worthy of repentance, not just get wet at their baptism (Luke 3:8). After different classes of people ask what fruit they

must produce, the soldiers ask a pertinent question about their own careers.

14 Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extortmoney and don't accuse people falsely²be content with your pay." (Luke 3:14)

It seems, then, that the soldiers were deeper than curiosity seekers. They asked aboutrepentance. It is important to note what John says and does not say. He tells them to follow

after justice. Apparently, it was common knowledge that soldiers generally used their power and authority to intimidate people. He also tells them to be content with their wages;

logically, this implies that they may remain in the military as soldiers. That is what he said.But what he does not say is that they should quit the army.

The silence is significant. John never denounced them as soldiers, exactly at the moment

when the fiery preacher could have done so. One of the requirements of their repentance did

not involve walking away from their career. They could repent of their sins and belong to themilitary. They did not have to repent for carrying weapons or belonging to the military. This

also implies, historically, that they could use their weapons, if necessary.

Jesus and a centurion

The following story in the ministry of Jesus is moving (to me, at least). Centurions in Israelwere mostly recruited from outside Galilee, not necessarily from Rome or Italy, but they

came from such regions as Lebanon and Syria. Centurions were the backbone of the army,



keeping the peace and issuing executive orders. They commanded a lot of power. Whathappens when a centurion and Jesus meet?

Matthew 8:5-13 is long, but I encourage the readers to take the time to read it.

5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 "Lord," he

said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." 7 Jesus said to him, "I willgo and heal him." 8 The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under

my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under

authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and

he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." 10 When Jesus heard this, he was

astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in

Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west,

and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of

heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the dar kness, where

there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will

be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

(Matthew 8:5-13; see Luke 7:1-10)

We can learn at least five truths from this inspiring episode.

First, the centurion was kindhearted, for he cared for one of his servants. The centurion

asking help for a servant indicates desperation as if he were a moral father, perhaps. He

certainly was a caring head of household and commander. Also, the parallel passage in Luke

says that some elders of the Jews encouraged Jesus to help the soldier, pleading, "This man

deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue" (Luke

7:4-5).

What is the timeless truth drawn from this first point? It is fitting for a soldier to be helpful to

a nation that he enters. The (local) elders of the Jews praise this gentile who built their

synagogue. It is possible to be godly and to serve in the military, wielding a sword.

Second, the centurion shows some humility. He tells the Lord that he is not worthy of Jesus

coming under his roof. This wins the heart of Jesus, catching his attention. Such humility is

doubly important for persons in command. Sometimes power corrupts good character,

causing us to become arrogant (which is different from confidence, a virtue).

Third, the centurion understands the chain of command. If he tells a soldier to do something,

then the soldier does it. In a similar, but spiritual way, if Jesus tells the disease to depart, it

will obey. The centurion recognizes that Jesus has spiritual authority that transcends time and

place. Jesus does not have to be on location to heal, so the centurion wisely discerns. This is

truly a remarkable insight.

Fourth, it is now important to note what Jesus says and does, and what he does not say or do.

He honors the centurion¶s request and heals his servant. Next, he praises the centurion to high

heaven for his insight, using superlative language: "I tell you the truth, I have not found

anyone in Israel with such great faith" (verse 10), not as great as the gentile commander¶s

faith. What does Jesus not say or do? He does not denounce the centurion as a military

servant of Rome. He never says, "Leave the army, for it is corrupt and intrinsically evil! If

you don¶t, I¶ll never heal your servant!" As a moral example and teacher, if he wanted to



point out behavior and practices that harm the people doing them, then he would have doneso. But he didn¶t.

Fifth and finally, we civilians must honor soldiers and other military personnel. If they need

help in practical ways, then let¶s pitch in and help. Let¶s bring healing not only to a soldier

himself or herself, but to his or her household, as well. If Jesus did this, then why should we

ignore his example?

Peter and Cornelius, a centurion

Doesn¶t a Roman centurion deserve divine censure on the face of it? After all, we¶re reading

the New Testament that teaches nothing but "peace and love," right? Note God¶s assessmentof the commander:

1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the

Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously tothose in need and prayed to God regularly. 3 One day at about three in the afternoon he had a

vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, "Cornelius!" 4

Cornelius stared at him in fear. "What is it, Lord?" he asked. The angel answered, "Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. (Acts 10:1-4)

Apparently, Cornelius¶ godliness positively influenced his family²not an easy task since

often the family can see the hypocrisy in the head of household more clearly than outsiders

see it. The end of the story, one of divine coincidences, is happy. Cornelius and his family

convert, are filled with the Spirit, and are baptized (verses 44-48). He is a military man and

the first gentile convert to the Church.

The same analysis that was applied to John¶s counsel to soldiers and Jesus¶ praise of a

centurion in the previous two sections fits here as well. Neither God himself nor the leadApostle Peter tells the centurion to leave the army or give up his weapons. Further, no one

knows if Cornelius ever killed an enemy, but if he rose to the rank of centurion, then he

probably served for a long time, as a career. And if he served for a long time, then he

probably saw some action. If he saw some action, then he probably killed an enemy, or

ordered his men to kill. Yet, it is possible to be blessed of God while serving in the military

and possibly killing an enemy in battle or in law enforcement. Most important, Cornelius

shows that soldiers should develop good and godly characters as they serve the State.

Paul and a jailer

Paul was constantly persecuted just for preaching the gospel, not for committing acts of

"righteous" violence. In this case he expelled a demon from a hapless girl, so he waged

spiritual warfare, just as we saw Jesus do, in the first article. In the Roman colony of Philippihe and his traveling companion Silas were "severely flogged" and jailed in the inner cell of

prison, which was probably stinky, damp, insect- and rat-infested. Their feet fastened in

stocks, they were singing hymns to God, but then an earthquake in the middle of the night

loosed their bonds and opened the prison doors.

27 The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was

about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul shouted,

"Don't harm yourself! We are all here!" 29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell



trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must Ido to be saved?" 31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved²you

and your household." 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others inhis house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then

immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house

and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God²

he and his whole family. (Acts 16:27-34)

Being filled with joy, the jailer and his family convert to Christ. However, Paul never tells the

jailer to abandon his career. In fact, the jailer is seen fulfilling his duties in an official

capacity the next day (vv. 35-36). The jailer carried his sword after his conversion.

Conclusion

As we have seen in the first two parts in the series, Jesus teaches that the kingdom of God and

the kingdom of Caesar are different and distinct. Also, he did not set out to reestablish thetheocratic kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6-7). This present study confirms the distinctions. That

is, all of these passages show individual converts in the military and law enforcement in the

kingdom of Caesar (the Jerusalem government submitted to Rome). The texts do not suggestthat the Church as an institution should become militant. The stories are about individuals

serving as lawful agents of the State, not in a Christian institution. They were qualified agents

of Caesar, not amateurs, so these examples do not demonstrate that the Church is permitted to

assign weapons to anyone at all.

Parts of the lessons drawn from these passages are based on an argument from silence (what a

text or history does not say). However, this is not a problem. Biblical narrative is compressed;

that is, it does not go into intricate detail as Greco-Roman texts do, such as the histories of

Thucydides and Livy. Silence in the Bible can often (but not always) be significant. Thus, the

main characters, followers of God, are teachers or preachers. They are never short of words.

If they had something to say about disassociating from the military or from law enforcement,they would have said it. But they didn¶t.

In addition, the logic of history requires us to assume that in the Roman Empire at that time

soldiers and law enforcement officers may have to kill an enemy. It is completely certain thatJesus and the New Testament authors assumed this. They lived in the Roman Empire, and

Jesus predicted his own death by the authorities. In any case, surely there were other kindhearted and generous men²but not part of the military²whom God could have honored

with his blessings recorded in the New Testament. Instead, God chose to help and callmilitary men and a law enforcement officer.

Further, each of the passages speaks loudly enough. By means of positive actions, God

honors each soldier or law officer with conversion or healing or wise counsel. Apparently,God did not condemn them as soldiers or as a law enforcement officer, demanding them torepent of their involvement in the (alleged) anti-God institutions (what he did not say or do).

Instead, he blessed them just as they were (what he did), leaving the issue of weapons at that.Evidently remaining in the military and law enforcement, each one carried his weapons after

receiving a divine blessing or conversion.

In a future article, we will see Peter (1 Peter 2:13-14, 20; 4:15) and Paul (Romans 13:1-7) saythat God ordains governing authorities to keep the peace. In the Roman Empire, this entailed



wielding the sword, if necessary. So why would Peter or Paul tell the centurion or the jailer togive up their careers or weapons in the Book of Acts? The Apostles were acting consistently

with their theology in their epistles. So here we have more positive evidence.

Also, not every one in the military or law enforcement is blessed automatically; sometimes

individuals may become corrupt. They must be prosecuted. On the other side, these soldiers

and officers (studied above) showed godliness, repentance, and humility. This caught God¶sattention.

All of these passages, especially the last two, demonstrate that devout Christians may

certainly and gladly join the military and law enforcement, without thinking twice about it, if

they feel called to those two honorable institutions. If they have to use the sword on

evildoers, then so be it, provided the officers and soldiers follow the law. Officially and

publicly, they are servants of the State and act in that capacity, so they should have no angst

about using force, if necessary and lawful.

However, as noted in the previous articles, the Church as an institution (also distinct from the

kingdom of God, which creates the Church) is "pacifist" in its own actions and internal

policies because it follows the commands of the kingdom and its heavenly King; his kingdomis his active rule and dynamic reign today. That is, church leaders in the name of the Church

or of God should never convene a council or general assembly in order to raise an army to

fight battles and to coerce heretics and sinners to conform.

Rather, the mission of the Church, waging only spiritual warfare, is to save souls, teach

believers, and help the needy in practical ways, not to bloody opponents with swords.



Part Four: Church and State²and the Sword

Confusion too often prevails over discussions on the relation between the Church and the

State. Things get even more complicated when the sword²military and law enforcement²is

brought into the debate.

Should the Church be a State of sorts, as it has in some parts of its history? Should theChurch wield the sword in the name of God? We have already seen in previous articles that

Jesus separates the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Caesar, but what are the teachingsand practices of the early church? Do they hint that the New Testament church took a slightly

different path?

This article, Part Four in a series on pacifism and the sword in the New Testament, aims toanswer these questions, examining passages in the Epistles.

Background

The Epistles were primarily written to explain pressing, practical needs, as well as to

introduce new Christian theology. In the Mediterranean world, while Christians traveled, they

were sometimes subjected to violence that everyone also suffered from, such as banditry (2Corinthians 11:26). This was a pressing, practical need. But no ecclesiastical policy of

carrying swords can be found in the New Testament documents. Though the motive and needexisted to write such a policy, the New Testament authors do not take that opportunity.

Additionally, swords, even small ones, were expensive, so how could the fledgling Church

buy them for the fast-growing number of disciples? Leaders needed to take care of the poor with food distribution (Acts 6:1-7). But is it conceivable that some prosperous recent converts

to the new Jesus movement owned swords? Yes. However, the enemies of the Church wouldhave accused it of violence if it had ever used swords regularly or as a policy.

By analogy, history says that the early Christians were (falsely) accused of cannibalism, adeliberate distortion of the Eucharist in which they spiritually partook of the blood and body

of Christ. Why would not their enemies accuse them of putting society in danger, if manyChristians carried swords and killed their persecutors, especially as a matter of ecclesiastical

policy? On the contrary, Christians were sometimes persecuted and even martyred by unjustcivil authorities.

Though the background to the epistles is, in part, an argument from silence (what a text or

history does not say), the silence is significant. The logic of history requires us to assume thatif the early Christians had an opportunity and a motive to retaliate with violence as a matter

of church policy, but the records demonstrate that they did not do this, then we can be certain

that they in fact followed the path of peace and nonviolence.

Peter

As noted in Part Two, on the night Jesus was betrayed and arrested, Jesus told the disciples tosell their cloak and buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Then the disciples show him two swords, and

he said the two were enough. Part Two explains why Jesus never intended that the twoswords (no more than that) should be used during the events in the Garden of Gethsemane

where he was arrested. There his commands teach the Apostles nonaggression. He said to



Peter: "For all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Peter and theothers heard those words.

However, Jesus also said to Peter in the Garden, "Put your sword back in its place," meaning,

back in its scabbard or holder or in Peter¶s belt or another article of clothing. He never said to

throw the sword away, off to the side at a distance. So it is entirely possible that he and

another disciple carried the two swords after the crucifixion and burial when they lived inhostile territory, and maybe some did after the Resurrection and Ascension.

Therefore, I would not deny that an individual Christian today may own a weapon to defend

his home, for example. But he must obey the law and avoid vices like machismo and

recklessness. Also, he owns a weapon privately. He does not officially represent the Church

as an institution. In his ownership, he is a citizen of society. We must follow the New

Testament teaching on the separate kingdoms of God and of Caesar. Then we will have

clarity. Alternatively, a Christian is certainly free not to own a weapon. The New Testament

offers a choice and therefore freedom. But this must be emphasized: Christians who opt to

own a firearm must follow the law.

It is important to understand that later reliable tradition says that none of the Apostles foughtor even tried to fight their way out of fiery trials with swords, as some sort of misguided,

twisted, violent martyrs. Instead, tradition says that all of the original Apostles but John were

martyred as a direct result of persecution (John died from natural causes in old age, but even

he was heavily persecuted). In fact, Peter was martyred in Rome. He requested that he should

be hung upside down, since he was unworthy to be crucified "properly," as Jesus was²right

side up. Therefore, a lifestyle of the sword was never part of the disciples¶ new walk with the

resurrected Christ, as they preached his message of hope. Evidently, the example of Jesus

throughout his life and in the Garden of Gethsemane made an impression on them.

In the previous section, it was noted that the silence of a text or of history may be significant,

and the same can be applied here. The records do not show a widespread policy of violence inthe Church, as Christians moved about in the Roman Empire, preaching the message of God's

love. Peter used the sword only once, but this was before Pentecost when the Church wasformally born (Acts 2). And Jesus rebuked him in the Garden of Gethsemane. Therefore, it

would be misguided to build an entire church policy on this one action by a man in the heatof the moment.

Paul confirms this nonviolent policy with positive evidence.

Paul

His Second Epistle to the Corinthians reports on his own trials during ministry, which led to

"beatings, imprisonment, and riots." Even though he suffered much unjust violence from his persecutors, he does not lash out with swords, raising a small militia or sending anassassination hit squad. Per contra, he speaks of these weapons:

"Weapons of rig hteousness in the right hand and in the left" (2 Corinthians 6:7, emphasis

added).

Physical weapons do not occupy either hand. To strengthen this interpretation of hands empty

of physical weapons, he also says in the same epistle:



3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons wefight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to

demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself upagainst the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to

Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

In these two passages Paul seems glad to contrast divine and moral weapons with physicaland worldly ones. He explicitly denies worldly weapons and explicitly affirms divine or

moral ones in his ministry. Jesus set the example, and Paul followed him, or perhaps he

followed the policy commonly practiced among other leaders in the church who knew Jesus.

This indicates that the widespread use of swords in the Church never took root.

In Paul¶s Epistle to the Ephesians he repeats the notion that the Christian¶s weapons are not

physical, but spiritual. Paul borrows from the image of the Roman soldier and explicitly says

that the true sword is the Word of God (cf. Hebrews 4:12). Paul writes:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God so

that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 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. 13 Therefore put on the

full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground,

and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth

buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your

feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this,

take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil

one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

(Ephesians 6:10-17)

Paul completely agrees with the kingdom message of Jesus, which involves spiritual warfare,

such as fighting Satan (who is a real spirit being, contrary to the assertions of rationalistictheologians). Also, his Epistle to the Ephesians was probably an encyclical, meaning it was

intended for several churches. This confirms, again, that the use of physical weapons was notwidespread in the early church, according to apostolic teaching.

The State

Though neither Peter nor Paul endorse the sword for the Church as a policy after Pentecost

(and Paul openly disconfirms its use), they teach that God endorses agents of the State, who

carry the sword and who bring peace and justice to the world. Paul assumes that the military

is part of t hi s world system (1 Cor. 9:7, 14:8; 2 Tim. 2:4), and so does Jesus, incidentally

(Matt. 22:7; Luke 11:21-22, 14:31-32, 19:27). But we now look at passages in the Epistles

more carefully.

To begin with, Peter writes that civil authorities may punish those who do wrong:

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to

the king, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those

who do wrong and to commend those who do right. (1 Peter 2:13-14; cf. Paul's similar

declaration in Titus 3:1-2)



15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or evenas a meddler. (1 Peter 4:15)

Significantly, Peter also teaches in his epistle, near those two passages, that the State can go

awry and persecute Christians, even though they may live a godly life. So the State does not

receive unquestioned, unchallenged permission to do what it likes. Since the State does not

receive direct revelations from God nor is it drenched in the revelations of a theocrat, thismeans that we can use reason to shape the State. Of course, the Church should offer its

guidance, but ultimately the State does not have to listen to it. It would be wise, however, if

the State recognized that it receives its ultimate ordination from God, so it should not oppress

people.

Be that as it may, Paul, agreeing with Peter, writes that God establishes, in general terms,

civil authorities who are God's servants and who bear the sword:

1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority exceptthat which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2

Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has

instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the

one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant

to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.

He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it

is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also

because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's

servants, who give their full time to governing. (Romans 13:1-6)

All of these passages are full of truths, but five stand out for our purposes.

First, God ordains the State to impose order on the world, even by the sword. But the State

must follow justice, not excessive policies that oppress religious or political freedom.

Second, the believer and unbeliever alike should submit to the governing authorities so the

citizens can enjoy a peaceful life. This is especially incumbent on Christians who have to

maintain their witness to the world, living a godly life.

Third, the agents of the State punish the wrongdoer and commend the good. Historically,

punishing criminals was harsh in the Roman Empire (too harsh by today¶s standards), but we

can use reason to craft the State to follow justice. Regardless of the particulars, the timeless

principle behind the history and the text says that punishment of wrongdoers is a God-

ordained option.

Fourth, the words "judgment," "sword," "terror" (= "fear" in Greek), "wrath" and

"punishment" are found in Romans 13:2-4. In the Old Testament, God does not shy away

from executing justice on the surface of his planet, against his highest creation, humans.

Thus, the so-called "God of the New Testament," so wrongly separated from the "God of the

Old Testament," does not teach only peace and love²though that is the main message. With

that said, in the New Covenant God uses primarily the State to bring about justice and

judgment here on earth.



The interrelationship between the Old and New Testaments is complex, and readers may gohere to study this topic more thoroughly.

Fifth, if a Christian becomes a soldier or a police officer, then he off ici ally and publ icly

serves the State. But his private faith and religion will make him a better servant because he

strives to act with integrity. Ultimately, the Christian soldier or officer serves a just and

loving God, so he follows and obeys justice and love (not one without the other). All of thisdepends on fluctuating circumstances. The soldier or officer must exercise wisdom as to

when and how to apply love and justice. This is why he must stay in Christian fellowship, so

he can ask for counsel from the body of believers. Fellowship is so essential that it is a matter

of life and death²spiritually mainly, but also physically. He must also know the law, which

provides a lot of guidance in difficult situations.

Public and Private

However, it may be objected that the distinction between the public and private is toocomplicated. After all, the agent of the State works in a God-ordained institution and

becomes a servant of God. So how can the two be separated? The reply is simple.

First, Christians are in the world, but not of it (John 17). Every one of us Christians feels the

two-sided pull in our minds, between a good conscience and the Spirit on one side, and the

world, the flesh, and the devil, on the other. Christian servants of the State, because they

wield extra power, feel the internal struggle more strongly.

Second, related to the first point, the Christian¶s allegiance is first to the Lord and to God¶s

Church, and sometimes the internal tug-of-war is hard in the fallen world. For example, if a

Christian serving in the State sees any corruption, he must take appropriate action, especially

if the corruption hurts people. He may have to pay a price for his integrity, but he will be

rewarded by God, if only with a good conscience and divine gratitude at the end of his life

(but hopefully with human gratitude down here on earth also). He did the right thing,

regardless of the rewards.

Third, God ordains the government as a whole institution, but that does not mean that it

receives direct revelations from God. Sometimes parts or all of it can go astray (e.g. a

tyranny). So only in an indirect sense or in the big picture are members of law enforcement

and the military servants of God (members of other religions working in law enforcement and

the military also become servants of God). But Christians should not believe that these

institutions are infallible. Therefore, in a direct and more significant sense Christians are

servants of the Lord in their personal walk with him.

Fourth, to blend the two spheres of private and public, Christians witnessing about the gospel

while they are on duty should do this discreetly, tactfully, and wisely. Boasting of their statusas God¶s servants or excessively sharing their faith is wrong. As the old saying goes²shareyour faith, and use words only if you have to. That is, actions speak louder than words. Only

by their good conduct do Christians earn the right to be heard.

Thus, in private, Christians working in law enforcement and the military serve the Lord (as

all Christians do at any job). In public, the ones who serve in law enforcement and the

military have a higher responsibility due to more power than their fellow Christians who



work at ordinary jobs. So it is best and less complicated to maintain the difference betweenthe public and the private while serving in the State.

Summary

To answer the question in the Introduction, the early church did not take "a slightly different

path" from the kingdom message of Jesus.

Neither Peter nor Paul, the two main leaders of the early church, bloodied people with swords

af ter Pentecost, the formal creation of the Church (Acts 2). It would be unwise to build anentire doctrine of violence on one action of a man in the heat of the moment, during Jesus¶

arrest before Pentecost. At least, this study shows that sword use does not become a church-wide policy. So the New Testament church followed the path of Jesus who proclaimed the

kingdom of God. But both Apostles write that the State is ordained by God to use swords, inaccordance with justice.

The following is the main idea threaded throughout the series, and the evidence brought

forward in this article confirms it. Jesus separated the kingdom of God from the kingdom of

Caesar. Also, he did not try to reestablish the theocratic kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6-7). Peter and Paul follow Jesus.

This implies that the Church is not the State, and neither is the State the Church. The two

must be kept separate in their roles in society. This is the wisdom of God, because when the

two institutions were fused or confused, trouble erupted sometimes (not always) in church

history. Seeing itself as a State of sorts, it sometimes became arrogant and resorted to

violence to stamp out enemies and nonconformists. On the other side, too often the State

encroached on Church jurisdiction, interfering in appointments of leaders and even attacking

the Pope, more than once in church history (e.g. the Avignon Papacy and the sack of Rome in

1527). The Church and State were not adequately separated in history

From the Age of Enlightenment to the present, the United States has learned that hard lesson

of separation, and that hard-learned lesson explains why its citizens enjoy religious freedom

and tolerance. The government must not impose one or any religion or denomination on the

people. And the Church must not force itself on the government. However, the Church by its

very nature and purpose may counsel and guide government leaders and advocate policies,

but the leaders are not obligated to obey the Church. It may even peacefully protest when the

government passes unjust legislation. But may we never again see a church denomination

raise a militia to attack, torture, or execute dissidents and nonconformists!

Therefore, the Church as an institution (also distinct from the kingdom of God, which creates

the Church) is "pacifist" only in its own actions and internal policies, because it follows the

dictates of the kingdom of God, his active rule and dynamic reign. And Jesus the King wagedonly spiritual warfare, and the Apostles followed this path in early church history. But theChurch violates its own Scriptures if it transfers this kingdom policy (only pacifism within

itself) to the State, because the New Testament ordains that (only) the State may use thesword, if necessary and lawful. However, church leaders in the name of the Church or of God

should never convene a council or general assembly in order to raise an army to fight battlesand to coerce heretics and sinners to conform.



Part Five: Should the State turn the other cheek?

I have often heard confusing and confused uses of "turn the other cheek." The saying seems

so imbalanced and out of touch with reality, as it circulates around the world, out of context

and isolated. Someone gets punched, and he is told to turn the other cheek. I also hear

pacifists say this to the government when it is about to respond to an attack. "Jesus said toµturn the other cheek.¶ So how can we commit an act of violence in response?"

It¶s that last application I¶m concerned about. At first glance, the clause seems to teach

universal pacifism. But where exactly does the high standard come from in the Gospels?What happens if we examine the verse in context? To whom should it apply? To the kingdom

of Caesar (the State) or to the followers of Christ in the kingdom of God?

Let¶s find out what the famous saying means through three possible interpretations and see if the saying itself and any of the interpretations are relevant to the State.

Rhetorical interpretation

One interpretation says that the clause is rhetorical. It is a hyperbole or an obvious andintentional exaggeration, not to be taken literally. For example, Matt. 7:3-5 shows Jesus¶ use

of this time-honored and effective rhetorical device, in which he says to pull a "plank" out of our eye before we judge. Obviously, we cannot literally have a plank in our eye. So the

rhetorical interpretation of "turn the other cheek" is plausible. It protects the clause from being distorted and misapplied beyond recognition when it is interpreted too literally and too

far.

Thus, it is a little known and little appreciated fact that Jesus replied to his critics as theyinsulted him. He was not literally slapped until his arrest and trial, and at that time he was

submitting to God¶s plan to die for the sins of the world. However, before then, during histhree-year ministry, he did not stand there meek and mild and silent, looking down at the

ground wishing for the verbal assaults to finish. Rather, he confronted the insults and the

insulters (see almost the entire chapters of Matt. 12, Luke 20, and John 8 for examples), or he

walked away. So we should not drive "turn the other cheek" into absurd directions of absolute

passivity.

However, let¶s take the clause as if it should be put into practice, not only as a rhetoricaldevice. Many scholars believe that taking it as written explains it more clearly, as it was

originally intended. Thus, at least two other main interpretations of the verse are possible: thehistorical (legal) and the eschatological (the end times), which can overlap. Our focus is on

them for the rest of the article.

Historical interpretation

Here is the verse quoted in the famous Sermon on the Mount. Matt. 5:38-39 says:

38 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 check, turn to him the other also." (Matt. 5:38-39)



So it appears in the context of the law of retaliation between neighbors or in a small dispute,not a national crisis. There are four parts to the historical (legal) interpretation.

First, Jesus ministered in Israel four decades before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

And at that time the law of retaliation appears in a legal context, in a courtroom, not in a

dispute that was settled by private vendettas. The Mishnah, an early source of commentary on

the Torah, was finalized in its written form at the end of the second century or beginning of the third century AD, but the traditions were transmitted orally long before that. Though

caution should be observed in using the Mishnah for New Testament studies due to the

chronological gap (first to third centuries), the Rabbinic rulings may hint at the ethos or

general character of the first century, especially when relative unanimity among the Rabbis

prevailed. Jesus could not fail to know this ethos.

The following passage from the Mishnah, seen in the context of bodily injuries, says that all

disputes of this kind must be heard in a court:

Assessment [of injury] in money or money¶s worth must be made before a court of law . . . .

(Baba Kamma 1.3)

At this time in Judaism, bodily injuries could be compensated for with money. Also, Matt.

5:40 confirms a legal context: "if someone wants to sue you." Finally, Matt. 5:25 exhorts

Jesus¶ disciples to be reconciled with an adversary who is taking them to court, again a legal

context.

Second, the word "strike" can mean to hit with the palm of the hand, the assailant doing this

deliberately, not in a brawl (A. B. Bruce, T he E xpositor¶s Greek T estament , vol. 1, p. 112).

Also, if a hand strikes the right cheek, and the assailant is right-handed, then this means that it

is the back of the hand that makes contact, further indicating formality and deepening the

insult (D. A. Carson, T he E xpositor¶s Bible C ommentary:M atthew, vol. 8, p. 156; Mishnah

Baba Kamma 8:6). In addition, the Greek word for "strike" is found in Matt. 26:67, Mark

14:65, John 18:22 and 19:3, all of which speak of a legal context, after the trial of Jesus. This

indicates formality and a ritual. So the offended party who follows Jesus should not retaliatewhen formally opposed or insulted.

Third, the command not to resist "evil" or an "evil or bad one" (person) should be clarified.

Evil is an abstraction until it is embodied in people. So in my opinion it is best to see the

meaning of the word as an "evil person" in its historical context. The Judaism of Jesus¶ time

is first concerned with social guidelines, not abstract theology. Matt. 5:25-26 says to settle a

dispute peacefully on the way to court, when an opponent has something against the follower

of Jesus. But in Matt. 5:38-39, the follower has a grievance against a neighbor. Either way,

Jesus is merely saying that it is better either to pursue peace (vv. 25-26) or to let the offense

go (vv. 38-39), rather than drag the offender into court and rather than let the opponent dragthe Christian into court. Instead of the disciples of Christ taking an adversarial position, hecounsels them to see the "evil person" as a future friend and brother outside of a court of law,

while they love their enemy and pray for him (vv. 43-48). This is sound advice to hisfollowers who are called to lead in a new and higher way, rather than demand their rights in a

court of law.

Fourth, the verse must be interpreted in its literary context, or the verses surrounding thetarget verse. One commentator paraphrases Christ¶s central idea according to the entire



context of the key verse in this way: "Though the judge must give redress when demanded,you are not bound to ask it, and if you take My advice you will not" (Bruce, p. 112). In other

words, Christ does not deny that anyone has the legal freedom to sue for an offense, becausehe understood and respected the Torah, which allows for it. For example, 1 Cor. 6:1-8

discusses setting up Christian courts of arbitration. So the Scriptures do not forbid entirely

settling disputes in a court of law. Jesus¶ main point is the following in a legal context: his

disciples should not retaliate, but obey Lev. 19:18 and Matt. 5:42-45, which exhort them notto bear a grudge or seek revenge, but to love their neighbor. He shows us a higher way:

forgiveness and reconciliation.

It should be pointed out before leaving this section that some interpreters see Matt. 5:38-39 as

legal and also eschatological (Carson, p. 156). Both interpretations may be true at the same

time. But it is to this last one that we now turn.

Eschatological interpretation

"Eschatology" means "the study of the last or end times." In the context of Jesus¶ ministry,

this means that he is ushering in a new way of living for his followers. He is about to send the

Spirit so his followers can walk in his new call of the kingdom of God.

This is the context of Luke 6:29, the parallel passage of Matt. 5:39. Luke 6:29 (bold font)

reads:

27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless

those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone strikes you on one

cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking

your tunic. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do

not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:27-31)

Now the clause appears in a context other than a legal one. (Anyone who has taught for any

length of time knows that familiar and favorite ideas are given in different forums and to

different audiences.) And this context talks about kingdom believers as individuals or as a

community (e.g. a church) loving enemies, blessing and praying for them, and doing good to

them. These high commands can be done only after the coming of the Spirit in a New Age

and within the kingdom of God.

A commentator on this passage writes that "turn the other cheek" means the "ritual slap on

the cheek given a Christian µheretic¶ in the synagogue" (E. E. Ellis, quoted in Walter W.

Wessel, T he E xpositor¶s Bible C ommentary: Luke, p. 893). This analysis fits perfectly with

Jesus¶ prediction that some of his early followers, in sharing their faith in their own Jewish

setting, may be flogged, which is worse than a slap on the face (Matt. 10:17). Christians will

also suffer persecution in the larger gentile world (v. 18). So Jesus¶ counsel to them is thatwherever and whenever they are persecuted, they must not take revenge, such as sending outan assassination hit squad to kill the accuser or the judge in revenge for unjust persecution

(assassinations were not uncommon in the ancient world). Instead, the disciples are to walk out of the village, town, or city, shaking the dust off their feet and going elsewhere (v. 23;

Luke 10:10).

I have a friend (call him Joe) who in his early twenties worked at a summer job with a bully.

He did not literally slap Joe (which may have been done formally in the ancient world, but



not today, in the same way). Rather, the bully mocked Joe¶s faith and made his employmentunpleasant. However, Joe would only look the bully in the eye, say his name, and then tell

him, "Jesus loves you!" (or words like that). Joe did not take him to court on harassmentcharges. At the end of the summer the bully converted to Christ. He was overpowered by the

kingdom message of the love of God. Years later, the ex-bully was a guest speaker at a

Christian retreat that Joe led and I attended. It seems Joe followed the example of Jesus in

replying to a critic (see Rhetorical interpretation, above). I have heard of similar stories.

I would not apply Joe¶s solution to every situation that the reader may know about. For

example, a reader¶s life may be threatened, which is different from a formal "slap" on the

cheek, so he should report the danger to the appropriate authorities. Also, domestic violence

should not be tolerated because a divine covenant is being broken between the couple who

had become one flesh, so the battered does not have to turn the other cheek. The domestic

violence may escalate and threaten the life of the battered who should seek help. Neither

example has anything to do with a rhetorical device, a legal context in settling a dispute

between neighbors, or an outside enemy insulting the kingdom believer. The original contexts

of "turn the other cheek" must be maintained, instead of applying carelessly the clauseeverywhere and anywhere.

However, Joe¶s kingdom action in his own context is what an eschatological interpretation

embodies. He turned the other cheek or did not retaliate and then turned an enemy into afriend. The commands of the kingdom of God may be difficult, but the new community can

do them only through Christ. It is the kindness of God expressed by his followers duringinsults that may win people to repentance (Rom. 2:4). Jesus Christ is the ultimate example

during his arrest, trial, and crucifixion. The king¶s sacrifice and kingdom action have beencalling enemies for two thousand years, all over the globe, turning them into friends of God

before the great judgment (the heavenly legal context) is called into session on the last day.

Conclusion

The key to understanding this series on pacifism and the sword in the New Testament is

found in the first article. There Jesus separated the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Caesar. The early church followed his wisdom. The results of this study support that two-

kingdom theology.

Thus, in addition to the rhetorical interpretation, we have two other main ones, the historical(legal) and the eschatological. But whichever one an individual Christian or believing

community chooses (or a combination of the three), none of t he inter pret ati ons direct ly

apply t o t he S t ate. "Turn the other cheek," appearing in the context of the Sermon on the

Mount and then the Sermon on the Plain, is addressed to the new kingdom community who

heeds the call to a new way of life. The kingdom of Caesar has to deal with life-and-death

danger, not a rhetorical device, a formal slap on the face between neighbors in a legalcontext, or a per sonal , eschatological context of insults. To be accurate and faithful to theverse, it says nothing about a national attack or criminal activity, which the kingdom of

Caesar has to deal with.

Therefore, certain extra-pious church leaders must be careful not to wrench out of context averse meant for kingdom Christians and apply it to the State as if the State is part of that

kingdom. The two kingdoms of God and of Caesar must not be fused together.



Further, the two passages in Matthew and Luke should not be misinterpreted to ignore thehelpless. It is one thing to let go of an offense if it happens personally to you as an individual

Christian. But it is quite another to walk away if the insult happens to someone else. In thatcase, no one who can offer help should ignore the plight of the weak and persecuted.

Therefore, it is unwise to force "turn the other cheek" on to the military and police officers

that have to protect the weak and persecuted. As organizations, they do not live under the

same demands as eschatological believers do, though there may be some who work in the twohonorable, God-ordained institutions (Rom. 13:1-7).

As noted in Part Four , the New Testament permits the State to respond to crime or an attack,

even with a sword. True, a government may negotiate when attacked, for it does not have to

go to war or respond in kind every time. But no government official should feel bound by

"turning the other cheek."

In contrast to the State, the Church as an institution is "pacifist" only in its own actions and

internal policies, because it follows the dictates of the kingdom of God, his active rule and

dynamic reign. And Jesus the resurrected king waged only spiritual warfare, and the Apostles

followed this path in early church history. Therefore, the Church²as the Church²should

never convene a council or general assembly to raise a militia to fight battles or coercedissidents and heretics to conform. But the Church violates its own Scriptures if it transfers

this kingdom policy (only pacifism within itself) to the State.

Therefore, if the State does not respond, even with the sword, to a national attack or criminal

activity, then such passivity and inaction becomes immoral and negligent²even vile. This

violates the full teaching of the New Testament. The general population must be protected

immediately, even if the State has to swing the sword (Rom. 13:1-7).



Part Six: Questions and answers on pacifism and the sword

Christians are commanded to love their enemies, so are Christian soldiers and police officers

permitted to kill them? How can they maintain their witness about God when they may have

to pull the trigger? Wasn¶t Jesus a pacifist? Wouldn¶t revelations guide the State better than

reason?

This is Part Six in a series on pacifism and the sword in the New Testament, asking and

answering questions that were not covered in the earlier articles.

1. Are the Church and the kingdom of God the same?

Basic New Testament theology says they are different. I cannot improve on George Eldon

Ladd¶s book A T heology of the N ew T estament , rev. ed. (Eerdmans, 1974, 1993). He writes:

The Kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign or kingly rule of God, and derivatively, the

sphere in which the rule is experienced. In biblical idiom, the Kingdom is not identified with

its subjects. They are the people of God¶s rule who enter it, live under it, and are governed by

it. The church is the community of the Kingdom but never the Kingdom itself. Jesus¶

disciples belong to the Kingdom as the Kingdom belongs to them; but they are not theKingdom. The Kingdom is the rule of God; the church is a soci ety of women and men. (p.

109)

Explaining Scripture, Ladd goes on to say that the kingdom creates the Church, not the other way round. The Church testifies about the kingdom. The Church is the instrument of the

kingdom. And the Church is the custodian of the kingdom (pp. 109-17).

I have been careful in this series not to fuse the Church and the kingdom of God together.

However, if a church denomination were to teach that the kingdom and the Church are

identical, then the New Testament still does not permit the two (fused as one) to wagemilitary war. Jesus separates the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Caesar. That is themain point of the series.

2. Why did the Medieval Church wage war so often?

The words "so often" in the question reflect the popular view, but the Church enjoyed long

stretches of peace. Also, Protestants attacked each other and Catholics in the Thirty YearsWar (1618-1648), for example. So we should not see the Medieval Church as the only one

that wandered off from the New Testament. Incidentally, it is simplistic and inaccurate to callthe entire Medieval Age the "Dark Ages." For centuries huge cathedrals were built and many

universities sprang up, so the society had to be prosperous (the birth of capitalism and the rise

of the middle class), and people had to be smart to accomplish those things. It was not oneday after another of violence, any more than for other societies.

With that said, we consider the ideal and the real.

Ideally, the proper response for the Church (Catholic and Protestant) throughout its history

would have been to ask the State, such as the kings of Europe and the "Holy RomanEmperor," to fight the battles. Indeed the Church did this, but confusion of the two realms

often won out. They were not adequately separated.



Now for the real. It is too easy to condemn every policy of the Medieval Church and later times. The Church faced hard reality. Both Protestants and Catholics had to confront, for

example, the aggressive, invasive armies of Islam, which were taking vast territories. TheChurch was doing the best it could with the light it had, under difficult circumstances. For me

to look back now and only criticize it is too easy, though there is much to criticize.

In any case, to follow the New Testament properly, the Church should fulfill its mission of saving souls, teaching believers, and helping the needy. It should not raise armies and wage

wars. That¶s the job of the kingdom of Caesar that is permitted to carry the sword (Rom.

13:1-7). The US (and other nations), thankfully, follows this divine order. That is why we

enjoy religious tolerance and peace.

This article tracks the timeline of the Islamic invasions long before the Church declared its

first Crusade. Also go here, here and here for other timelines.

Go to these two articles (What Islamic Science and Philosophy? and Islam and the Problemof Rationality) to see how Western philosophy in the Medieval Age had to refute and get

away from Islamic philosophy, which was bogged down in occasionalism, which is defined

in the articles. These two articles (Hyping Islam¶s Role in the History of Science and The Not-So-Golden Age of Islamic Philosophy) balances out the picture that says Islam embraced

the cultures it conquered. Rather, numerous Christians and Jews who did not convert to Islam

are the ones who transmitted classical culture as they lived under their Islamic overlords. This

article (Islam, Christianity, Classical Civilization, and Modernity) discusses how the

Medieval West advanced in philosophy, and Islam got stuck in itself.

Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that Islam sustained the West during the entire Medieval

Age. The full and complete story must be told.

3. What does "forcefully advancing" mean in Matthew 11:12?

One of the more difficult passages in the Gospels is Matthew 11:12, which reads, according

to the most accurate translation of the Greek:

12 From the time of John the Baptist . . . until now, the kingdom of heaven has been

forcefully advancing; and violent and rapacious men have been trying . . . to plunder it. (D.

A. Carson, E xpositor¶s Bible C ommentary: M atthew, Zondervan, p. 267)

In his commentary, Carson summarizes various interpretations of the verse. But then he

formulates the best one (which seems right to me and others, too). John is the forerunner of

Christ, announcing repentance. Then God transfers the call of the kingdom from John to

Jesus. Consequently, the reason why the kingdom is depicted as advancing forcefully is that it

had never before been revealed with such energy and power. Jesus¶ miracles and assaults ondemonic strongholds and false ideas had never before been so striking. John the Baptist, in

prison, heard of the miracles and asked Jesus if he was the Promised One. Jesus answers

affirmatively, citing the miracles (Matthew 11:1-6).

In addition, "violent and rapacious men have been trying to plunder it" means, as follows:

Herod¶s imprisonment of John . . . the attacks by Jewish leaders now intensifying (Matt. 9:34;

12:22-24), the materialism that craves a political Messiah and the prosperity he would bring



but not righteousness (Matt. 12:2-24). Already Jesus has warned his disciples of persecutionand suffering (Matt. 10:16-42); the opposition was rising and would get worse . . . . (Carson,

pp. 267-68)

Thus, the kingdom was and is advancing forcefully, and it does not include swords or

military holy wars. This interpretation of Matthew 11:12 fits the grammar and vocabulary of

the verse as well as the entire sweep of the Gospels and even the whole New Testament. Thisseries of articles on pacifism and the sword confirms it, as well.

4. Christians are commanded to love their enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-36). So

are Christian soldiers and police officers permitted to kill them?

That is a great question, for it summarizes the objection some pacifists may have concerning

Christians who join the State that God ordains to wield the sword. What if the State requiresits agents²including Christians²to kill in some circumstances? The reply is fivefold.

First, the easy answer²too easy in fact²is to teach that Christians should withdraw from

any "messy" involvement in the State. However, I have always thought that it is the lowest

form of ingratitude when the Church asks the State to do the "dirty work" of protectingChristians, but they do not pull their fair share.

If Christians have an extra-sensitive conscience about harming anyone in any circumstance,

but they still want to serve in law enforcement and the military, then it is sound advice for

them to work behind the scenes. However, when an enemy mortally threatens citizens, and

the Christian police officers or soldiers have no other choice than to use lethal force, then

they should not feel an ounce of guilt about it, provided they follow the law. There is nothing

wrong if Bible-educated Christians²who therefore do not have to suffer from an extra-

sensitive conscience²fight on the frontlines with all the risks that entails. No one has to be

poisoned with hatred in his heart as he pulls the trigger.

Second, in Scriptural context, the command to love our enemies requires doing good to them

(see Part Five and Luke 6:27-31). It is not merely a gooey feeling. I have heard first-hand

stories about soldiers who have done good to an enemy immediately after he threatened them

with mortal danger. As soon as he dropped his weapon, the soldiers treated his wounds so he

would not die. That is goodness in action; therefore, that is "love your enemy" in practice.

True stories like that abound, but they never make the news in the mainstream media.

Third, as we saw in Part Three, Jesus and the Apostles Peter and Paul endorsed weapon-

carrying soldiers and officers who did not have to leave their careers, after they encountered

the kingdom of God, two of them converting. There is no Scriptural evidence that they stayed

only and always behind the frontlines. This may be, strictly speaking, an argument from

silence, but the logic of history requires us to assume that Roman soldiers may have to kill anenemy. It is completely certain that Jesus and the New Testament authors assumed this aboutthe Roman military. They lived in the Empire, and Jesus predicted his own death by those

authorities. And God chose to help and call military men and a law enforcement officer, andas new-born Christians they may have had to kill an enemy. So we must balance parts of

Scripture with all of Scripture.

Fourth, other themes besides love are found in the Four Gospels, such as justice (Matthew

12:18, 20; 23:23; Luke 18:7-8). In fact, Jesus explicitly juxtaposes the justice and the love of



God. Pronouncing woes on certain self-righteous Pharisees, he says: "But you neglect justiceand the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone"

(Luke 12:42). He says love and justice complement, not oppose each other.

And sometimes justice is hard; in extreme circumstances it includes using physical force on

lawbreakers and perpetrators of violence, domestic or foreign. Such protection expresses the

justice of God and the love of God to peaceful citizens. Jesus helped a military officer. Andthe first gentile convert to Christianity was a military officer, not a civilian (see Part Three for

details). Jesus assumed that the military was part of life in this world (Matt. 22:7; Luke

11:21-22, 14:31-32, 19:27). And Christians may join that part, if they feel called.

Therefore, it is misguided to impose one verse or theme ("love your enemy") on everyone

who protects us, even by force, as if that one verse or theme represents the only one in the

Bible. Unbalanced idealism obsessed over by utopians can lead to absurd conclusions, in at

least a few difficult circumstances. Paradoxically, these extreme idealists appeal to Jesus, but

they go way beyond all of his teachings. See these verses on the judgment of God on his

enemies: Luke 11:50-51; 12:20, 51-53, 57-59; 13:1-9, 22-30; 16:19-31; 17:26-37.

Fifth and finally, blessed are the flexible and the teachable. As I noted in Part Four , if aChristian becomes a soldier or a police officer, then he off ici ally and publ icly serves the

State. But his private faith and religion will make him a better servant because he strives to

act with integrity. Ultimately, the Christian soldier or officer serves a just and loving God, so

he follows and obeys justice and love (not one without the other). All of this depends on

fluctuating circumstances. The soldier or officer must exercise wisdom as to when and how

to apply love and justice. This is why he must stay in Christian fellowship, so he can ask for

counsel from the body of believers. He must also know the law, which provides a lot of

guidance in difficult situations.

5. You write that individual Christians may own a firearm. But you have concluded

repeatedly that theC

hurch is pacifist. Yet it is made up of individualC

hristians whomay own a firearm. Would you clarify this?

That concern is easy to answer. I have written again and again:

Church leaders in the name of the Church or of God should never convene a council or

general assembly in order to raise an army to fight battles and to coerce heretics and sinners

to conform.

It is best to distinguish between the kingdom of Caesar (the State) and the kingdom of God,

which creates the Church. Christians have a dual citizenship, one foot in the world system

that is doomed to perish, and one foot in the kingdom of God (1 Pet. 1:17; 2:9). To apply this

essential two-kingdom theology specifically, Christians should not email each other in order to form a militia of firearm-carrying friends for the Church. None of them should proclaim, "Iown my firearm in the name of my Church!" Neither should they say: "As a parachurch

organization, we own our firearms in the name of the Lord!" That misguided notion is toostrange for words, for it blurs the distinction between the two kingdoms. An individual

Christian may own a firearm as a citizen of society, not as an official or even unofficialrepresentative of the Church. And neither should church leaders call an assembly of its

weapon-carrying members with the express purpose of "taking care" of their perceivedenemies or for any purpose.



It is imperative to maintain the two-kingdom theology, and then there will be no confusion.Thus, the Church as an instituti on is pacifist within itself, for it follows the dictates of the

kingdom of God ushered in by Jesus. And he waged only spiritual and moral warfare, not amilitary one. Individual Christians may own a firearm as citizens of society. To illustrate

further the difference between the secular-social and the ecclesiastical, if they enter a society

that forbids any kind of private ownership of a firearm, then they should not break its laws in

the name of the Lord or the Church, demanding their God-given right. The very idea isrepugnant, for not only are they citizens of the kingdom of God, but also of the kingdom of

Caesar. If we keep the two kingdoms separate, especially in the debate over the sword, then

we will enjoy clarity.

6. How can Christian soldiers or policemen maintain their witness about God (Matthew

28:18-20), when they may have to kill?

Many of the answers provided in Question Four apply here; nonetheless, I take slightly

different directions in my reply now.

Ideally, we should witness about God to everyone. In America, the message of the gospel is

everywhere: on television, radio, and the street corner. Even church buildings bring anawareness of the gospel. Nothing stops a criminal from repenting of his sins in one of them.

In fact, through advanced media technology the gospel is penetrating into the remotest

corners of the globe. Witnessing takes many forms. So who is to say that a criminal or enemy

soldier against whom deadly force is used never had his chance to hear the gospel? He may

have heard and rejected it.

Further, even in times of peace, average Christian citizens who do not carry weapons may

never reach some people. Not everyone will convert, as the Scripture affirms everywhere.

Therefore, if not everyone will convert in times of peace, then how much more will no

conversions be a possibility in times of conflict? Conversely, maybe in hard times people are

more open to hear the gospel. In that case, doors may open to share one¶s faith. Whatever thecase, Christians do not know (or rarely know) in advance who is convertible. Often the

unconvertible are model citizens, but sometimes they are violent criminals and enemies. Butwhen they threaten citizens and agents of the State with immediate, mortal danger, the

Christian soldier or policeman may have to use deadly force, for he does not have time to ask whether such violent suspects and enemies have heard the gospel.

As noted in the answer to Question Four, it is misguided to impose only one theme in the

Bible onto anyone, let alone Christian soldiers and officers who are God-ordained to exercise,sometimes, justice that requires lethal force. The Scriptures teach the love of God, witnessed

to in the gospel, and the justice of God, also a part of the same gospel.

If pacifists believe that Christians using lethal force according to the law is a bad witness tothe gospel, then the pacifists do not understand the full teaching of the New Testament.

7. What if a Christian lives under an unjust government? Should he join the military or

law enforcement?

That question reflects a sad reality around the globe. If a Christian lives under an oppressive

regime, such as a bloodthirsty dictatorship or communism, then he must take extra-special

care about working for the State in the institutions that require weapons and killing. He may



be propping up injustice in an irredeemable system. But if he is in a position to bring aboutreform or carry out peace and justice, purging out oppression, then in this (extremely) rare

case he may stay in the institutions. He needs to pray for wisdom each day, if he is forced toremain in law enforcement or the military under an oppressive regime. Maybe he can work

behind the scenes.

However, Christians living under a democracy have an easier decision in working for theState. If such a privileged Christian joins the military, but concludes that a military operation

is unjust, then he has a heavy burden of proof to make his case, especially when the majority

of the lawmakers supported the action (never mind later backpedaling by these same

lawmakers just to score political points). Maybe a compromise can be reached for the

objector. Perhaps he can work behind the scenes, but still in the military. But he may have to

pay a heavy price for prematurely quitting or escaping from the military that is overseen by

democratic institutions following the law.

8. You say that we can use reason to craft the State. But reason has often failed (e.g. the

Nazi regime). Isn¶t it better to use revelations to guide the State?

Your wall between revelation and reason is shaky. Brilliant persons like Aquinas benefitedfrom revelation (e.g. the Bible) and did not abandon their reason. In fact, this entire series is

based on the two areas, not one without the other. We have discovered reasonable truths and

revelations from the New Testament that expresses the wisdom of God for society.

To reply to your main point, however, Aristotle teaches us, wisely, that extreme actions and

policies are indicators that reason is not being followed (see his N icomachean E thic s and

Politic s; incidentally, I do not endorse everything Aristotle says, but his wisdom far

outweighs his blind spots).

In any case, it is clear that the Nazi regime went to extremes, more than any in history. The

same is true of the old Soviet Union (and its story has not been finally written yet), China,

North Korea, Cuba, Iraq under Saddam, and others. It is true that these extreme human rights

abusers had their own internal logic that gave the appearance of reason, but they could notsee that their starting point or foundation for their own logic within their heads and cadre of

leaders was murderous, greedy, and bloodthirsty, as seen in Hitler¶s M ein K am pf .

Thus, extreme vice is no evidence of sound reason²but of the exact opposite. For people to

live in maximum peace, governments must adopt moderate policies that ensure basic

freedoms, in such areas as religion and speech. People must be free to worship as they want

and to criticize all governments and all religions.

Plus, the answer depends on what you mean by "revelations." States that depend on them also

oppress their people, such as imprisoning or killing them if they leave the State religion. It isa sad reality that "revelations" themselves maymteach violence and brutality and humanrights abuses²after Jesus came and showed us a better way. Also, the Church must truly

follow its sacred Scriptures; then it will not make foolish and deadly errors like starting theReich Church in Nazi Germany. If the German Church had followed the New Testament

closely, it would never have fused itself into Nazi ideology and endorsed or looked the other way as the Nazis oppressed and mass-murdered people. But the Confessing Church opposed

both the Reich Church and Nazi ideology. (See the Confessing Church¶s BarmenDeclaration.)



Thus, the Church, interpreting its Scriptures properly, may guide the State, but the two shallnot become one. If they do, we will witness a repeat of religious atrocities perpetrated by the

Church sometimes in its history.

In addition to the new and revolutionary teaching of Jesus, God-given reason (apart from

direct revelations) confirms that it is best to keep the kingdom of God separated from the

kingdom of Caesar. Enlightenment thinkers also figured that out, as they looked back onhistory, especially church history. Birthed in the Enlightenment and Christian revivals, the

US has learned that hard lesson of separation, and now its citizens live in religious peace. The

State should never impose religion, and the Church should keep its distance from controlling

the government. Power corrupts. Corrupted power may lead to violence. Religious violence is

especially repugnant to all clear reasoners. Thus, anyone should be permitted to leave his

religion or to worship as he likes (or not at all) and not be harassed by religious "brown

shirts" or "goon squads."

9. So what¶s the bottom line? Was Jesus himself a pacifist or not?

That question is direct enough, but it is framed misleadingly. Jesus never carried a sword and

bloodied or killed people with it. However, the Gospels do not teach only pacifism, as the previous answers and the first three articles explain. He praises a centurion, not condemns

him (Matt. 8:5-13). As noted, he assumes that the military was part of this life and this world

system, again separating the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Caesar (Matt. 22:7; Luke

11:21-22, 14:31-32, 19:27).

But Jesus was involved in a special kind of warfare, a spiritual one that would solve the

world¶s problems if only people would open their eyes. He was ushering in the kingdom of

God in an unprecedented way. He confronted the powers of darkness that actually harassed

people. He was working miracles so people could be free of their ailments. He was parrying

the verbal thrusts of his enemies. He was teaching his disciples who often misunderstood

basic ideas. The crowds clamored so much for him that sometimes he told his disciples to goapart for some rest. But no one should see him as a retreatist. He crisscrossed Israel preaching

and ministering the deeds of the kingdom of God, knowing that it would spread around theglobe. The kingdom started as small as a mustard seed, and its plant grew surprisingly large,

much larger than the seed would indicate. Eventually, however, he was killed for his servicesrendered, but then he was resurrected, vindicated. That¶s the kind of warfare he waged.

May the Church follow him fully!



Part Seven: Summary

This article is the conclusion of the seven-part series on pacifism and the sword in the New

Testament. The purpose of the series has been to bring clarity to many contradictory and

confusing opinions circulating around the web and in the print media.

Part One is the key to the entire series. It demonstrates that Jesus separates the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Caesar. And he did not intend to reestablish the theocratic kingdom

of Israel (Acts 1:6-7), which fused together religious and civil law with a military in the OldTestament. Instead, he does a new thing (Isaiah 42:9; 43:19; 48:6) throughout the globe,

establishing the kingdom of God that breaks down all barriers. It is a remarkable (andmiraculous) fact that his movement has and is succeeding, for it indeed goes around the

world. His prediction that it would do this has been and is being fulfilled (Matt. 13:31-32;28:18-20).

Following the key theme of two kingdoms, I hypothesized in the Introduction and Conclusion

of the first article that all of the verses in the New Testament on pacifism and the sword

would fall into place and receive clarification. I wrote (slightly edited):

. . . Understanding the separate kingdoms of God and Caesar (the State) . . . is essential for grasping all of the verses in the New Testament about peace and the sword. Such verses will

fall into place once the division of kingdoms is elaborated on.

The entire series confirms that hypothesis. The two-kingdom theology means that thekingdom of God does not wield a sword. Rather, the spiritual kingdom wages only spiritual

warfare. The New Testament hands the literal sword over to the kingdom of Caesar.

Before proceeding, I should point out that I did not deal with two topics: the doctrine of justwar and the Book of Revelation. A study of just war would demand an even longer series.

Plus, if we cannot sort out what the New Testament says, then we cannot move past the preliminaries, for the New Testament is the foundation for hundreds of millions of believers.

The Book of Revelation describes events in the End Times that only God has control of, and

he will judge his planet in his way and in his time. It would have been difficult to build

doctrine on that book. But nothing in it contradicts this series. In fact, the sacred book

confirms it, particularly the doctrine of divine judgment.

Part Two in the series reveals that at first glance the Gospels seem to permit the disciples towield a sword. Matthew 10:34 says that Jesus came to bring a sword, not peace. However,

this verse is found in the context of family division, not a military holy war. He never commanded his followers to use a sword against a stubborn family member. In fact, just the

opposite: a violent family member may become hostile against a new convert to the Jesus

movement. His disciples have to be ready for that.

Next, in Luke 22:36 Jesus told his disciples on the night he was betrayed and arrested that

they should sell their cloak and buy a sword, each. The disciples then show him two swords,

and he said that the two were enough. However, when Peter actually used one of the swords

in the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus was about to be seized and led away, he rebuked

Peter. "No more of this!" And then: "Put your sword back in its place! He who draws the

sword shall die by the sword!" Parts Two and Four demonstrate that this one act of violence

happened before the formal creation of the Church (Acts 2). Sword use was never a church-



wide and regular policy. The disciples turned the world right side up with preaching and praying alone²following their Lord and waging only spiritual warfare.

In Part Three we see that God honors soldiers and officers with blessings. Two of them even

converted. Each one remained in the military, and each one carried his weapons after

receiving a divine blessing or conversion. However, we should balance that out with the truth

that the New Testament texts do not suggest that the Church as an institution should becomemilitant. The stories are about individuals serving as lawful agents of the State, not in a

Christian institution. They are trained agents of Caesar. This fits the two-kingdom theology

so clearly spelled out in the entire New Testament, confirming the theme of the series as well.

Part Four shows that God ordains that the State may wield the sword to enforce justice on the

earth, which brings about peace (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-16 and 4:15). This part in the

series demonstrates, once again, that the two kingdoms are separate, which expresses the

wisdom of God. There are four implications of Part Four, as follows:

First, the State does not receive direct revelations from God. We can therefore use reason to

shape it and to establish, for example, democratic institutions. We do not have to follow the

dictates of any theocrat throughout history. But the Church should counsel the State towardsrighteous policies, avoiding religious or secular oppression and intolerance. And it would be

beneficial if the State were to realize that it receives its ultimate ordination from God.

Second, the United States has learned the lesson of separation. The Founders of our nation

write the First Amendment of the Constitution thus, in its entirety:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people

peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

After learning the hard lesson of keeping the State and the Church separate, the US is

following the divine order revealed in the New Testament. That is why its citizens living

under this law enjoy God-ordained religious freedom and tolerance.

Third, the lawful agents of the State are called "servants" of God (Romans 13:4). As I

observed in Parts Four and Six (slightly edited):

. . . If a Christian becomes a soldier or a police officer, then he off ici ally and publ icly serves

the State. But his private faith and religion will make him a better servant because he strives

to act with integrity. Ultimately, the Christian soldier or officer serves a just and loving God,

so he follows and obeys justice and love (not one without the other). All of this depends on

fluctuating circumstances. The soldier or officer must exercise wisdom as to when and how

to apply love and justice. This is why he must stay in Christian fellowship, so he can ask for counsel from the body of believers. He must also know the law, which provides a lot of

guidance in difficult situations.

Fourth and finally, the following has been another theme running throughout the series. I

have written in nearly every article:



Church leaders in the name of the Church or of God should never convene a council or general assembly in order to raise an army to fight battles and to coerce heretics and

opponents to conform.

If the Church were to do this, we would witness a repeat of its atrocities sometimes (not

always) in its history. May we never see the Church committing atrocities again! However,

since God ordains that the State may wield the sword, Christian pacifists disobey their ownScriptures if they counsel only pacifism.

Part Five argues that it would be most unwise for the Church to counsel the State to turn the

other cheek. That forces the theology of the kingdom of God on to the kingdom of Caesar.

Part Five concluded (edited):

Thus, in addition to the rhetorical interpretation, we have two other main ones, the historical(legal) and the eschatological [end times]. But whichever one an individual Christian or

believing community chooses (or a combination of the three), none of t he inter pret ati ons

direct ly apply t o t he S t ate. "Turn the other cheek," appearing in the context of the Sermon on

the Mount and then the Sermon on the Plain, is addressed to the new kingdom community

who heeds the call to a new way of life. The kingdom of Caesar has to deal with life-and-death danger, not a rhetorical device, a formal slap on the face between neighbors in a legal

context, or a per sonal , eschatological context of insults. To be accurate and faithful to the

verse, it says nothing about a national attack or criminal activity, which the kingdom of

Caesar has to deal with.

Part Six follows a Question and Answer format, covering topics not found in the previous

parts. Notably, it explores the dilemma that says that all Christians are commanded to love

their enemies, so are Christian soldiers and police officers permitted to kill them, if necessary

and lawful? The short answer is yes. Readers may click on Part Six, below, to find the

discussion.

To conclude the series, I end once again with the main foundation or theme. The kingdom of

God is distinct from the kingdom of Caesar. Briefly stated, the mission of the Church, whichis created by the kingdom of God, is to save souls, teach believers, and help the needy in

practical ways. It was not and will never be called to bloody people with swords.

May the two kingdoms never again be fused together!

And may the Church fulfill its true mission!

Thi s series i s dedicated t o all t he law en forcement and mi l it ar y per sonnel ar ound t he wor l d. Thank you for your service.

James M. Arlandson may be reached at here.



Part Eight: Addendum: Fight or Flight?

After I finished the series on Pacifism and the Sword in the New Testament, someone wrote

me these questions:

What if the Church is targeted for persecution by the government or by large groups of

extremists, but the government does not come to the aid of Christians? For example,rioting Muslims in Nigeria or Sudan attack churches on a wide scale. Can Christians

defend themselves, because the State does not come to their aid?

Those questions slide into areas that my series did not cover exactly. But the reality behindthem is deeply moving and tragic, so I decided to tackle them in public, after thinking about

them for a while.

By way of review, all of the articles in the series before this addendum are directed at a

readership that lives in relative freedom and peace under a tolerant government.

I also write in nearly every article that the Church should never convene a council or general

assembly to raise militias in the name of God or of the Church, in order to wage war or attack

nonconformists. This New Testament teaching speaks against aggression to force people toconvert or to rob their resources. This is not self-defense or the protection of the oppressed.

In Part Four I analyze Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 and 4:15, which say that God

ordains governing authorities. But in the larger context the passages assume that thegovernment does not become extreme or fall apart, so that anarchy prevails.

Finally, in Parts Two and Four I conclude from Scripture that individual Christians may own

a firearm (or not) for the protection of their home, for example.

Therefore, I do not deny that an individual Christian may own a firearm to defend his home,for example. But he must obey the law and avoid vices like over-inflated egos and

recklessness. Also, he does not officially represent the Church as an institution. He owns a

weapon privately, as a citizen of society. It is best to keep the kingdom of God (which createsthe Church) and the kingdom of Caesar separate. Then we will have clarity.

However, those questions (above) are about anarchy and self-defense and the protection of

the oppressed. The assumption is that the State no longer exists or is unable or wronglyunwilling to protect its persecuted citizens. The questions also assume forming gr ou ps for

self-defense, not only maintaining self-defense individually. All of this is a thorny challenge.

Under those extreme conditions, here are two options that a network of churches may follow,

very cautiously and wisely. The options come out of my study of the New Testamentsketched out in the entire series. I will assume that readers have carefully read each article.

Option One: Fight

It must be conceded from the outset here that this option may be the worst one for many

situations around the world. It assumes that a large region or nation is chaotic and anarchic. Itassumes that the government is unable or unwilling to come to the aid of most or all of its

persecuted citizens. We are not talking about an individual Christian getting slapped on the



cheek or church windows being broken. So the context of Option One is crucial. Readersmust not gloss over it. Also, extreme cases make bad general policies, so readers must be

careful about applying Option One out of context. Thus, no country in the West can claimsuch extremities, particularly America. That insults the truly oppressed, who are stuck, for

example, in refugee camps and are regularly attacked by thugs. We live in the freest society

in the world; therefore, neither the far right nor the far left hiding in the mountains, so to

speak, can justify violence for political ends.

With that said, Option One must be explored when real-life and extreme circumstances

rapidly develop. It serves only as a last resort. Two New Testament bedrock principles guide

the ten practical suggestions (not the Ten Commandments) that follow.

The first principle says that people have the right to defend the weak and persecuted and

themselves from attacks, according to the full teaching of the New Testament (see Part Five

in the series and especially the Conclusion). The entire ministry of Jesus was devoted to

helping the weak and harassed members of society. Fortunately, in his historical context, the

religious bullies he confronted²or to be more accurate, they confronted him²did not

destroy homes or places of worship or attack people physically on a large or small scale. But

they were not above devouring widows¶ property (Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47). Also, the entireBible is filled with references about protecting and helping the downtrodden (Ex. 23:6, 11;

Ps. 41:1; 82:3-4; Prov. 19:17, to reference only these). And we saw in the Introduction to thisaddendum that individual Christians are permitted to defend their homes, according to

Scripture, as explained in Parts Two Four . The timeless principle from these passages andJesus¶ ministry says that defending the oppressed is God-ordained, even if done in a physical

but lawful way. So we should not take "turn the other cheek" too far, according to Part Five.

The second bedrock principle says that the kingdom of God must be kept separate from the

kingdom of Caesar or the State. That is the clear teaching of the New Testament, expressing

divine wisdom. When the Church (which is created by the kingdom) was fused with the

State, the Church sometimes (not always) in its history committed unjust religious violence.Excessive religious zeal is unattractive, and religious violence coming from such zeal is

doubly repulsive. The evidence for the two-kingdom theology is brought out in the entireseries, so we have no time to cover old ground now. Readers are invited to click on Parts One

and Two at the end of this addendum to get a start.

So, under real-life extreme conditions like those in Africa, what is the best way to defend and protect the persecuted and to work towards not fusing the two realms together, in t he long

run? Here are ten practical guidelines that are based on the two bedrock principles. For

clarity and emphasis I repeat key clauses throughout this section.

(1) In extreme circumstances and as a last resort, if Christians are forced to form armed

organizations to defend themselves and to protect the needy (and organizing in this way is adangerous prospect because so many things can go wrong), then they must still fight for thefreedom of all peoples of all religions. They must be religiously neutral. In effect, they

become secular in their publ ic actions and goals, though they are Christians in their per sonal and private lives. Such organizations nobly and unselfishly seek to reestablish the State

without themselves becoming extremists and taking over the neutral government and turningit into a religious state, of sorts. The ultimate goal is to reestablish religious freedom and to

throw off religious oppression, as seen everywhere in Islamic countries (see points three, five,

and ten in this addendum, below).



To understand the importance of the public and private spheres, click on Part Four in theseries, and find the section "Public and Private." Though the distinction may be nuanced, it is

critically significant.

(2) The first point means that such armed organizations, fighting to keep the kingdom of God

separate from the State and to help the downtrodden, must not fall into the trap of becoming

thuggish Christian militias. After the pain of persecution has gone away, they may becomeviolent, suppressing religious dissidents or nonChristians. These organizations must not fall

prey to the policies and goals of the very radicals who are attacking them. State-sponsored

religious violence is especially repugnant.

(3) To fill out the second point more fully, such organizations must not copy the radical

policies of original Islam that impose religion on people and that pass anti-apostasy laws, for

example. These unjust laws²unjust because they suppress religious freedom²forbid people

to leave Islam, whether becoming atheists or Christians. "Apostates" may be imprisoned or

executed under the Islam of old and of today.

(4) These organizations taking a religiously neutral stance and becoming secular in their

publ ic practices and goals must not adopt odd names like "the Lord's Resistance Army." Thismisrepresents the essential message of the gospel. If they insist on a name, it should reflect

the purpose of gaining religious and political freedom for all people of all religions. The use

of names may seem technical, but names and purposes are important for the public that is

watching closely, especially under severe circumstances. However, see point ten (below) for

a cautionary note about radical Islam, politics, and the freedom of religion.

(5) Here are some acts (only representative samples) that such organizations must not do.

They must not exact revenge on civilians. That is, they must not attack innocent Muslims, for

example, in reprisal for radical Muslims attacking innocent Christians. The protectors of the

weak who are fighting for all people under a religiously neutral banner must not lower

themselves to the level of Muslim radicals. Proper defenders must follow justice and fairness.They fight only against the opposing militias or military. To cite more representative

examples of what not to do, they must never force children or adolescents to fight. They mustnever enslave people. They must never rape anyone. They must not rob or pillage. If

individual Christians serving in these last-resort organizations are confused about justice andfairness during conflicts, then the Geneva Conventions still has good guidelines. Leaders in

the African self-defense organizations protecting ever yone who is oppressed should study therules of the Geneva Conventions and inform their individual fighters about them.

For a contrast between modern rules of engagement and those laid out in the Quran, the

Sunnah (the example of Muhammad), and Islamic law, click on this article. It may be

difficult for readers to believe, but the Quran, the Sunnah, and Islamic law permit the rape of

women prisoners of war and the enslavement of all prisoners of war, to cite only these twoatrocities (click on the link for the evidence). Of course, the same Islamic documents andsources permit the free release of prisoners of war, but why do the founding documents of

Islam permit the atrocities in the first place? The differences between the modern era andarchaic "revelations" are clear. But Islamists want to impose an archaic age on everyone.

They must be resisted by words alone, after peace has been restored.

(6) As to purpose, after the organizations in Africa have restored order, no one should believethat shariah or Islamic law is just. Click on the link to find out why it is unjust by its very



nature. No society should yield to it, if that society values religious and political freedom. Itmust be resisted by words and legislation alone, after peace has been effectuated.

(7) After a religiously neutral government has been established, then African Christians will

be free to preach their message in an environment of peace and tolerance. That is the best

way to spread the message of the gospel²preaching alone. (It is the best way for members of

other religions to spread their message too.) Any conversion to one religion or another shouldcome out of a free conscience and a free choice, after hearing words alone. No conversion

should happen with swords (or modern weapons) in the foreground or in the background.

And no conversion to another religion should be stopped by threats of violence, "legal" or

illegal. For Christians, spreading the Word is the ultimate goal. Listeners vote with their feet.

That is, if they like the gospel, they will follow it gladly. If not, they are free to go their own

way without fear of harassment. To repeat, Christians must not copy Islam that too often

oppresses people who refuse its message.

This report says that six million African Muslims leave Islam each year. The link in point six

(above) about shariah gives us a hint as to why so many leave.

(8) To repeat and summarize the main thesis of the entire series and of this addendum, thekingdom of God must be separated from the kingdom of Caesar or the State. In the extreme

case of a State not existing either de jure or de facto, all armed African organizations in the

process of defending freedom for all must accomplish their goals as religiously neutral publ ic

organizations, though individual Christians make up the organizations. This may seem too

technical, but, again, click on Part Four in the series, finding "Public and Private."

(9) Once peace and order has been restored, keeping the two realms of the kingdom of God

and the State separate expresses the wisdom of God, according to the New Testament. (This

divine wisdom is not found in the Quran, the Sunnah, and Islamic law, as Islamic scholars

understand them, fusing together Mosque and State. Both institutions are embodied in the one

person of Muhammad.) Fighting to keep the two realms separate and even to reestablish areligiously neutral state is the highest and most virtuous goal of these religiously neutral and

last-resort organizations made up of individual Christians. They justly do this so people of allwalks of life and religions can breathe free. No citizen should ever have to come under a

church and a state that have been fused together. To judge from history, it is a sad fact thatthe two institutions (fused as one) may eventually impose a religion on everyone or require a

tax from unconverted "second-class" citizens.

This Reaction Statement by the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria strikes theright balance on the heartbreaking problem of Muslim extremists attacking Christians and

churches on a large scale. He asks the g overnment to restore order, church buildings, and

homes. If I understand his Statement correctly, he seems to value the separation of Church

and State, following the New Testament. But the Statement assumes that Nigeria still has agovernment intact; Option One does not assume this.

(10) Once lasting peace and order have been restored, the organizations defending the weak and persecuted for secular-neutral goals must disband. They should return to normal life.

They should, however, get involved in the l eg al political process. Ballots, not bullets, are the best way to ensure a lasting peace in a nation that permits free speech and free political

parties (plural or more than one).



But a word of caution. The political process must not yield to radical policies as reasonable people understand them. As noted, shariah is not moderate. It oppresses people, especially

women, by its very nature. The policies of fundamental Islam are incompatible with liberaldemocracies. To step outside of the African context only for a brief moment, Lebanon must

be careful not to surrender to shariah and fundamentalism. (It goes without saying that

terrorist groups are not invited to form political parties.) Extremists, such as Hizbullah, by

their nature are unreasonable. If given enough power, they will impose shariah, believing(wrongly) that God is leading them. And it is a fool¶s errand to t al k them out of their extreme

and barbaric goals that typically hide behind sweet words and warm smiles and are

implemented in small steps.

These ten New Testament guidelines based on two bedrock principles reflect what the

Founders of the USA worked out, for the most part. However, chaos and anarchy did not

prevail in the eighteenth century compared to situations in Africa today. Did militias in the

American War of Independence make mistakes? Yes, because all humans do. But on the

whole the early Americans followed the divine order laid out in the New Testament, whether

all of them did this with full knowledge of the sacred text or not. It is a blessed fact thatthings worked out well. Now all Americans of all backgrounds and religions enjoy a lot of

freedom and prosperity today.

All reasonable people around the globe want this kind of freedom and prosperity, except theradicals and fanatics, who are unreasonable by definition. After all promoters of true freedom

restore lasting order, the radicals and fanatics must be resisted only by words alone and bymoderate laws that ensure freedom for everyone, especially women.

Option Two: Flight

This option may be the best one during times of severe and widespread persecution,

particularly for civilians caught in the crossfire of bullets. But the option assumes that a

moderate, nonextremist government has the opportunity and the means to restore peace andfreedom, eventually.

This option depends on a brief history lesson from the early church. Saul (later known more

commonly as Paul) used to persecute the early Christians, before he had his Damascus Roadexperience and converted (Acts 9). He received this permission from the high priest and the

Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. Saul approved of Stephen¶s martyrdom in this passage. Then heseems to have ignited or been a leader of a general persecution of all believers. Acts 8:1-3

reads:

1 And Saul was there [at the stoning of Stephen], giving approval to [Stephen¶s] death. On

that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the

apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen andmourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house,he dragged off men and women and put them in prison. (Acts 8:1-3)

Though suffering greatly, the Christians did not raise a militia to defend themselves or the

weak²most of them were the weak. They did not assassinate Saul. Rather, they defendedthemselves by wisely fleeing the severe persecution.



These New Testament Christians practiced wisdom that is relevant to today. Civilian populations in our times must flee from conflict and severe persecution. If the church, in its

entirety, has the option to seek refuge away from the conflict and severe persecution, then itshould take that path. Christians may return to their homes after order has been restored by a

just government, as reasonable people understand it (see the last paragraph under Option Two

here for a minimal definition of a ³just government´). It seems that the early Christians

eventually returned to theirs, after the persecution stopped (e.g. Acts 11:1-2; 15:4).

Of course, no one needs any sacred text to tell him or her to flee persecution. But the New

Testament is important for hundred of millions of Christians who may not know it fully. So it

should be explained, for they may believe wrong things about it. For example, deliberately

seeking or fatalistically submitting to martyrdom is nowhere taught in the New Testament.

Jesus had a unique and special call to die for the sins of the world. No one else has his call.

Simply said, it is often best to walk or run away from trouble (Matthew 10:23; Luke 21:20-

21), though flight itself is a hardship. No one has to fight all the time. In fact, fighting (Option

One) is the last resort, under extreme and specific circumstances. But each conflict is

different, so churches must seek the wisdom of God in their own context.

I used the words "just government" but how does one define them? At a minimum, a just

government has these three policies: (a) freedom of religion for all individual believers,

without imposing a second-class tax on nonMuslims or members of another religion, and

without imposing anti-apostasy laws, and without imposing shariah; (b) free speech that may

criticize the government or a religion; and (c) political freedom so people may form political

parties. Any government that does not allow, at a minimum, all three is unjust.

Conclusion

The New Testament offers options and therefore freedom. Option Two may be the best in

most cases, but no church should follow rigid rules. It m

ay be possibl e t om

erge bot hopti ons, in one way or anot her , sel ectively d one. Or churches may come u p wit h t heir own

opti ons. These ten guidelines could be expanded and more could be added in; they could also be applied to other extreme cases around the globe. In each extreme situation in which the

church finds itself, leaders have plenty of discretionary choices. But I would urge all churchesto follow the clear teaching of the New Testament, particularly the separation of the Church

and the State, if they are forced, as a last resort, to form armed organizations for self-defenseand for the protection of the oppressed living under anarchy and widespread and extreme

persecution.

Next, historical events and the ideals of the New Testament may conflict, despite the best

intentions of the ones who are defending themselves and the persecuted. As terrible events

unfold rapidly, African Christians may not follow ideals. We should be careful not to judgethem too harshly (though all criminals should be prosecuted). At least with these ten

principles and with the option to flee, all Christians everywhere now have the basics of the

New Testament, which provides a lot of divine guidance.

In the long run, once lasting peace and order are restored and the refugees have returned totheir homes, voting is the best way to establish religious and political freedom for all . Ballots,

not bullets, ensure lasting peace in a nation that allows freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of political parties (plural or more than one).



Despair is to the mind what starvation is to the body. No one should live without hope. Thatis a terrible plight. The free and prosperous churches around the globe should help in

practical ways persecuted churches and all oppressed peoples, especially those stuck inrefugee camps.

Compass Direct News keeps track of the persecution of Christians around the world.

Samaritan¶s Purse, overseen by Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham), delivers materials

and food to oppressed people. I strongly recommend a donation to this organization.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide follows the plight of persecuted Christians.

And so does the Barnabas Fund.

Copyright by James Malcolm Arlandson.

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	gilbert-hanz
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Pacifism and the Sword in the New Testament - By James M. Arlandson

Documents