“Theology in the Raw” is a Patheos blog here on the Evangelical Channel. It has an article just posted today that was written by former U.S. Marine Sergeant Dean Meadows and entitled “The Few. The Proud. The Plowshares.” Meadows says that he is a Christian and that he later came to a position of “non-violence.” I think the article is unclear largely because it does not go far enough. That is, Dean does not distinguish personal non-violence from state and civil defense in the form of military and police. Thus, it is unclear if he now opposes national defense and perhaps even civilian protection.
I am for personal non-violence except when there is bodily harm or it seems imminent. Thus, I do not think Jesus taught against self-defense. Yes, he said to his individual disciples, “if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also” (Matthew 5.39 NRSV and throughout). In the history of the interpretation of Jesus’ New Testament gospel sayings, I think that text has often been misapplied. If someone hits you on the right cheek, and you can then easily turn to that person your other cheek to allow that person to strike also, Jesus is most likely talking about being slapped in the face with an open palm. Thus, he did not have in mind being punched in the face violently with a closed fist which can do serious damage. Jesus was talking about someone doing something that only injures our pride. And most Christians know at least a little about Jesus’ teaching on pride.
Jesus also said to his apostles at his imminent arrest, when Peter had just cut off the ear of the slave of the high priest (John 18.10), “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26.52). I think many people also have misinterpreted this saying of Jesus by claiming he meant it to be applied under all circumstances. On the contrary, he meant it only for that occasion. This becomes evident when all four gospels are compared, which is what Bible students should be in the habit of doing when reading any one of them. For only John records that Jesus said, “Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18.11). Jesus meant that God’s plan is for him to now be arrested, condemned, and crucified for our sins, and neither Peter nor any of his disciples ought be trying to thwart God’s plan for Jesus’ destiny. Besides, those who think Jesus meant this command about the sword universally seem to have overlooked that he must have approved of Peter carrying a sword in that sheath, presumably strapped to his belt, in the first place.
And I don’t mean to criticize any Christian who decides not to react to violence perpetrated against him or her, loved ones, or property. I’m just saying that Jesus did not teach against doing so.
Furthermore, shortly before this incident about Peter and his sword, Jesus changed the protocol for his disciples’ future ministry in light of his soon departure to heaven. He said to them, “‘When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?’ They said, ‘No, not a thing.’ 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'” (Luke 22.35-36). Then we read, “They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied ‘It is enough'” (v. 38). So, Jesus never advocated that his disciples be unarmed. On the contrary, he now instructed them for their future itinerant ministry without his physical presence to be armed, but not excessively.
Take Moses’ example. I think he rightly defended the Hebrew slave (Exodus 2.11-12). The text is unclear whether he committed unintentional manslaughter or first degree murder. I am inclined to think it was the former. For such infractions, God later through Moses established cities of refuge. And Spirit-filled Stephen, as the first Christian martyr, approved of what Moses did by saying, “When he saw one of them [Hebrew slaves] being wronged, he defended the oppressed man and avenged him by striking down the Egyptian” (Acts 7.24).
What about civil defense and personal violence? Meadows says in his article, “the reason most Christians don’t embrace Christian non-violence is their allegiances are mixed between State and Savior.” I object to that. Yet I think its unclear what he means. Meadows says this yet neglects addressing the Apostle Paul’s important statement on this subject. Paul writes, “whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad,… for it is God’s servant for your good… for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13.2-4). This is Christian, biblical teaching, and there is no way Christians can dismiss civil government having a police force due to this Pauline injunction. And it says nothing about using self-defense or choosing to avoid it.
How about national defense? Same thing. God chose the nation of Israel and made a covenant with it to be a testimony for him to the nations. He also approved of Israel having a standing armed force, and this is constantly made evident in the Old Testament. Meadows says, “God actually did restrict Israel mightily in regards to war.” Yes, but he did not tell Israel not to have a military, which they did have. King David was a mighty warrior, and Jesus is “the son of David” who will return as a great warrior himself in delivering Israel from annihilation and then sit on David’s throne. (See my book Warrior from Heaven.)
Moreover, God sometimes is a warrior himself. In fact, he has an army of angels in heaven. So much for the nonsense about God’s angels doing nothing more than playing harps in heaven. For example, God is constantly called “LORD of hosts” in the Old Testament, in which “hosts” means angelic warriors of whom the angel Michael is their commander. The book of Revelation relates that near the end of what is our age, “war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon [Satan]. The dragon and his angels fought back, but they were defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven,” so they were “thrown down to the earth” with 3.5 years left to the end (Revelation 12.7-14).
Then at the end of the age, “The LORD goes forth like a soldier, like a warrior he stirs up his fury;… he shows himself mighty against his foes” (Isaiah 42.13; cf. Ex 15.3). He will do it through Messiah-King Jesus. For we read, “Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations” who will come against Israel to annihilate it (Zechariah 14.3). They will be “all the nations of the earth” (12.3). God says, “On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a blazing pot on a pile of wood,… they shall devour to the right and to the left all the surrounding peoples,.. the LORD will give victory to the tents of Judah” (12.3, 6-7).
I was in the U.S. Army and the Air Force. When I entered the Army, I was given a choice of my MOS. I chose being a medic because, as a Christian, I preferred to save peoples’ lives rather than destroy them. And I was given my preferred MOS. If it had not been granted me, which was not guaranteed, and been put in the infantry, I would have accepted that.
However, that was during the Viet Nam War. Knowing what we know now about the U.S. involvement in that war, I do not condemn Muhammed Ali (Cassius Clay) for being a conscious objector to it and thus serving time in prison. I did then, but I don’t now since I am more informed about that war.
But all wars are not the same. I believe in some form of just war theory. For instance, if it had not been for the United States of America rising up against Hitler and his Nazi Party, we’d all be speaking Deutsch. If ever there was a man demon-possessed, it was Adolf Hitler. Thank God for those who gave their lives to ensure our freedoms against that most evil human being.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In