Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
(Romans 12:17-21 NASB)
Introduction
One of the most common issues of debate in Christian theology is that of pacifism vs. the just war theory. It is an issue that not even Thomas Aquinas, Dietrich Bonheoffer, David Lipscomb or Martin Luther King could come to an agreement on. Instead of going into detail on each of these views, the basic interpretations will be provided followed by an extensive look at what the Scriptures represent. There is an extensive list of arguments for and against pacifism in the church today, however the ultimate question that needs to be answered is: does God share, with any human being, His divine right to punish evil? With the proper understanding of justice and mercy throughout the Biblical texts it can be confidently argued that He does.
Pacifism & Just War
What is pacifism? While there are many views of pacifism in the world today, John Howard Yoder explains the most general view that there can never be a warrant to destroy human life or that the likelihood of such a warrant being clear is so slight that for all catechetical and institutional purposes no grounds exist that justify preparing for such an eventuality.[1] Most commonly opposing the pacifist belief is the view that there are justifiable circumstances in which violence can be used; this is generally referred to as the Just War Theory. Without going through the traditional criteria of a “just war” the view can be regarded as simply as a belief in God ordained violence that brings about justice in our broken world. A frequently asked question at this point is “ordained?!? How can violence ever be ordained?” If God is loving and merciful and He wants what is best for all of His children, then how could an act of violence ever be a directive from God? This principle is believed to be true for two reasons: because it is in the Word of God where humans are to punish the wrongdoing of other humans and because it is done in a way that is not contradictory of the call to mercy.
The Five Ordained Spheres of Justification
Looking to the scriptures for the answer, there are 5 easily identifiable circumstances in which humans join with God in bringing retribution to the world; these include parenting, educating, business, the church, and civil authority.[2] All five of these are found in scripture to be God ordained institutions in which we are to function. Very few parents would deny that raising a child is an enduring task. Biblically there is instruction not to withhold discipline from our children (Pro 23:13) and “he who spares the rod” is one who “hates his own son” (Pro 13:24). However, it is not the hate and deceit of a parent that gives punishment. In fact these scriptures are saying quite the opposite; it is hateful for a parent to do nothing while their child continues in undisciplined and sinful behaviour. Paul echoes this same principle in Ephesians 6:4 and it is clear that no child is to be spoiled in their sin. Turning the other cheek is not a biblically applicable principle in these circumstances. Scripture does not say to bless your child’s sinful behaviour; it says that while being just and because you love your child, “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4).
The next two spheres fall closely in line with each other, the call to punish wrongdoings in education and in business. A wrong answer does not warrant good grades, the performance of someone in learning is done justly. Just as bad performance in the business world does not mean a raise and a new office. These are offices that are established by God and should be used for His glory by the promotion of justice and discipline of wrong behaviour. Two examples of this are in 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 and James 5:4. In 2 Thessalonians Paul is rebuking the people for not working according to their wages, “if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat” (2Th 3:10) and in James 5:4 it is clear that withheld wages cry out and are heard by the Lord.
The fourth ordained institution of God is the church. Church discipline is not a popular topic in contemporary society, but it remains a biblical truth. There are many instances in which Paul gives instruction to discipline members of the church who are intentionally and persistently living a sinful lifestyle. In 1 Corinthians 5:5 there is a case of immorality where Paul states that he has delivered “such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh.” Near the end of 1 Corinthians chapter 5 Paul instructs the church not to associate with the “immoral person, or covetous, or idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler.” Again in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 Paul instructs the church to “put to shame” those who do not obey instruction.
The fifth and final sphere is the most commonly debated among Christian theologians because there is the possibility of lethal action taken by civil authorities. The most famous example of this is in Romans 13 where Paul clearly indicates in verse four that our civil authorities are “a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection” (Rom 13:4-5). Once again we find biblical authority in a situation where turning the other cheek is not the only applicable characteristic of God. It is quite clear that in bearing the sword they are acting as “a minister of God” to ensure justice.
The next question that is asked at this point is “aren’t these teachings contradictory to Romans 17-21 (beginning quote) and Jesus’ command to love our neighbour?” No they are not. These are not man-made institutions, they exist because God wants them to and He has made their essential foundation justice. There are of course merciful exceptions but without the foundation of justice and truth these institutions would collapse and there could be no mercy. Mercy needs justice, it cannot exist without it. For example, if someone intentionally broke your window, justice would be in the repaying of the window. If there was no principle of justice and no one expected (or thought it to be right) to pay for something they intentionally broke, it would be impossible to show that person mercy. Mercy is the forgiveness of justice and while it is often the answer, the Bible is very clear that there are situations within these institutions which require justice.
Finally, these are not contradictory to Romans 12:17-21 because if you are carrying out these principles biblically then your motive remains the same as one who shows mercy: you desire to show others the character of God who is both merciful and just. It is not vengeance, it is not a craving for superiority; it is a desire for both the mercy and justice of God.
Common Pacifist Convictions
Moving forward, there are many common pacifist convictions that come from either a misunderstanding of the application of a biblical principle or by placing a literal application on a mercy principle and a “figurative” application for any that principles that might not follow along the same “law.” One of the most commonly misunderstood principles is Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.” It remains a rare point to be made from pacifists since it refers to the work of God in the Old Testament, however it remains a theological issue that is worthy of mention. What is its meaning? Does it apply to all living things or only humans? There must first be a distinction between the terms “kill” (KJV) and “murder” (NASB). For someone unfamiliar with the character of God it would be easy to look-up this text and point out that it is a direct sin against God to murder another human being, and it is. The original Hebrew word used is rawtsakh’ which is the illicit and unjust killing of another human being. After all, if God is perfect and incapable of sinning then how would He be capable of killing people throughout the Old Testament? God never kills in an iniquitous way and He never kills as a crime. The only time God takes a life is in a righteous act and it is to be the same way among men. It is important to remember that God holds human life to an extremely high value. While that may sound like a reason not to kill, Genesis 9:6 clearly states that “whoever sheds mans blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God he made man.” The Old Testament shows the diverse nature of God through the violent and powerful work of Joshua and David, to the peaceful servanthood of Joseph, Daniel and Job. One should not discount the other as they both hold true to the divine attributes of God.
Another common conviction results from a strict and inconsistent literalism of the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament. Turning the other cheek, loving our enemies and sheathing Peter’s sword are taken as both literal and universal principles to be applied as a law to our lives in all situations. Meanwhile the buying of swords in Luke 22:36, Jesus saying “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” in Matthew 10:24, the temple purge in Matthew 21, Mark 11 and Luke 19 and the later New Testament writings which suggest violence has not ended are to have no literal bearing on our lives. Beginning with the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), can strict literalism really be applied here? As Robert Morey states, the subject of war is not the context that Jesus is speaking in. Nowhere in this sermon does Jesus bring up the subject of the state or whether or not governments can protect their citizens with armed forces. He does not even mention the subject of war at any point. This is a vital point because the Sermon on the Mount has been incorrectly used at times to condemn all warfare.[3] It is clear that there is a separation between the personal ethics Jesus is talking about and the ethics of the Church and State. Every example He uses is personal and at no point does Jesus discuss national or international ethics. Also, Matthew 5:39 specifically refers to the right cheek being slapped. In today’s society this may seem insignificant; however there was a great importance of noting this distinction in Jesus’ context. A slap on the right cheek was considered to be a personal insult, not a life-threatening attack.
When the Sermon on the Mount is looked at in greater detail it is easy to identify that Jesus is not using strict literalism. This is not to belittle the teachings of Jesus, but rather to put them in their proper context so that they may be properly understood. If the same literal hermeneutic that says violence no longer exists were to be applied all throughout Jesus’ Sermon, there would be a great misinterpretation in the majority of the texts. Is Jesus telling us to gouge our eyes out in Matthew 5:29 when He says “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you?” Is Jesus rebuking bank accounts in Matthew 6:19 when He says “do not store up treasures for yourselves here on earth?” Is Matthew 6:34 a literal statement to be taken at face value where Jesus says “do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will care for itself?” Other passages contradict a literalist approach to these very principles which requires an examination of the text to determine its actual application. For example, the Thessalonians are too literal in their expectation of the judgement and are condemned for it (2 Th Ch. 2). Jesus says “give to him who asks of you” yet compulsion in giving is taught against (2 Cor 9:7). While the literalist view see’s Matthew 5:40, “if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also,” as a direct rejection of court systems, Paul himself uses the court systems in order to advance his ministry (Acts 25:10). After looking at these situations in the Sermon on the Mount there is the obvious conclusion that the application of these texts must be analyzed before they can be applied as an overriding law to the rest of scripture.
The final pacifist conviction that needs to be addressed is that in sheathing the sword of Peter and by His actions on the cross, Christ eliminated violence. The first point that must be noted here is that God is the same throughout the Old and the New Testament. He retains the same characteristics in His love, justice and mercy. The retaining of Gods justice is shown by example in Acts 5 when Ananias and Sapphira are confronted with their sin and struck dead. Under the new non-violent covenant you would think they would have more of a chance to repent. However, they were given absolutely no opportunity to repent. They were confronted with their sin and struck dead. While this is an example that no Christian would wish to follow, it remains in the scriptures and shows the justice of God reigning on earth even after the death of Christ on the cross.
The False Division & Jesus’ Ministry
There is a false division that commonly occurs when dealing with theological issues that must be exposed. In many theological arguments there is the insistence that you are either for or against one side of the argument, all of the time. This is an inflexible application of the morality in logic. It demands that one is either for or against war or peace. Being a non-pacifist is not synonymous with the love of war and being a pacifist is not saying that you are for the surrender of the innocent into the hands of evil. When dealing with theological issues it can be tempting to maintain the necessity to choose only one answer for all cases. However, Jesus teaches strictly against this application of biblical instruction. For example, the violation of the Sabbath was wrong; no matter what the circumstances, it was always wrong. Does this not clearly miss the intention of the Sabbath law? The Sabbath was originally intended to the rest and reflection of the people or as Jesus says in Mark 2:27 “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” The entire foundation of Jesus’ teaching was against this legalistic thinking of looking at the micro-matters of the law rather than realizing the macro law: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind; and love your neighbour as yourself. “On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets” (Mat 22:37-40). Though the Sabbath law was completely in the Will of God and was to be obeyed, there is a higher law that is able to void it. In Matthew chapter 12 Jesus cites David’s men who were in an armed struggle with Saul and went into the temple to eat the showbread. Jesus is clearly displaying here that there can be a higher law which overtakes the purpose of another.
A biblical example of this principle is found in the comparison of divorce. Divorce and war both constitute a failure in this broken world. It is also apparent in scripture that God hates divorce: “For I hate divorce,” says the Lord” (Mal 2:16). Yet the principle of divorce exists and it exists into the new covenant with a very strict application. Why is that? Apparently it is there so that a potentially innocent person in an adulterous relationship is not bound to the injustice of that. There is an evident necessity for justice to prevail above the law of divorce. This example can also be viewed as a doctor in surgery. A surgery is destructive; it causes pain and the destruction of flesh to bring about healing. Why aren’t surgeons classified as evil, pain delivering, flesh destroyers? Because it is not the amount of flesh he takes or the amount of pain he inflicts that he is judged by, but what his purpose is in doing so. Daniel Bell describes the surgeon as having faithfulness. His proposal is that faithfully enacting justice in war requires the kind of people who faithfully enact justice prior to the start of war.[4]
When this principle is grasped and applied to the pacifist context, there is a noticeable improper application of a micro law. When a micro law is taken and being applied to all situations, it is a pre-determination of the will of God; this is also known as legalism. In this case the micro law is refraining from a personal act of violence. Jesus clearly rebukes personal acts of violence in Matthew 26:52 when He demands Peter to sheath his sword. However, it needs to be determined whether this was a micro decision that Christ is applying or the new macro law.
John MacArthur analyzes this issue by going through the various examples of military presence that are present in the New Testament and determining whether governmental justice is rebuked or encouraged. He goes through three major descriptions of military presence in the New Testament: the approach of soldiers to John the Baptist, the Roman Centurion in Acts 10 and the teachings of Jesus in regards to justice and mercy.[5] In Luke 3:14 there is a group of soldiers who specifically ask John the Baptist what they are to do in order to follow the law. John replies by saying “do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.” This text is especially revealing for the fact that these soldiers were specifically asking John what they were to do in following God’s will. John does not rebuke governmental justice; rather he encourages them to work justly and be content in all they do. A second specific reference to military presence is in Acts 10. Cornelius is a Roman centurion and he is described as a “devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.” Once again there is not even a hint of condemnation found on Cornelius’ occupation, which is considered by pacifists to be sinful. Cornelius is noted to be a righteous man and a Roman solider. There is a similar story found in the life of Jesus in Matthew 8:5-13 where Jesus says he “has not found such great faith with anyone in Israel.” Would Jesus really exalt someone who He believed to living a life of sin? In Luke 22:36 Jesus tells His disciples to sell their garments and buy a sword if they do not have one. The word for “sword” here is not figurative; it is a literal sword that will be needed by the disciples in the case of self-defence.
Finally, Jesus’ approach to the Pharisees is perhaps the most enlightening of His view on this issue. Jesus and his disciples were consistently being harassed and pointed out for not following a certain micro law, such as the Sabbath. A good example of this is in Matthew 12:10-12: “and a man was there whose hand was withered. And they questioned Jesus, asking, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--so that they might accuse Him. And He said to them, "What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out? “How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." Jesus is clearly violating a micro law once again to prove to the Pharisees why the law exists. It was not meant to be a binding to injustice. Jesus is saying that if you have the opportunity to save the innocent from the hands in injustice, do not be overcome by the micro laws which exist only to aid the macro law.
Conclusion
In conclusion there are immense ambiguities beyond human comprehension of how the mercy and justice of God are intermingled. That is why, ultimately, this issue is a call to Christ. There must be a willingness to search out the will of God in all situations rather than living by a list of rules. Without discerning the will of God in each decision you make, a legalistic attitude can be easily adopted. Ultimately there can be no ignorance towards either trait of God portrayed through the Holy Scriptures. Yes, God is merciful, but that’s not all He is. He is just.
Micah 6:6-6:8-
With what shall I come to the LORD And bow myself before the God on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, With yearling calves? Does the LORD take delight in thousands of rams, In ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
[1] John H. Yoder, Christian Attitudes to War, Peace, and Revolution. Theodore J. Koontz, Andy Alexis-Baker (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2009), 29.
[2] John Piper, (2005) http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/when-is-it-right-to-repay-evil-with-pain (11/24/2010).
[3] Robert A. Morey, When Is It Right to Fight?. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1985), 42.
[4] Daniel M. Bell Jr, Just War as Christian Discipleship. (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2009), 30.
[5] John MacArthur, Terrorism, Jihad, and the Bible. (Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group, 2001), 92-94.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePart 1:
ReplyDeleteRetribution is not War - this should be made clear. Your argument, in many ways, is false.
John H. Yoder is correct in saying that there can never be a warrant to destroy human life.
Violence cannot be equated with destroying human life.
Violence cannot be ordained; your argument does not give reason for justifying violence - let alone "Just War".
Destroying human life cannot be justified through an argument which consists of examples where people in the Bible punish the wrongdoing of others. Violence is contradictory to mercy.
Violence is the intention to hurt, damage, or kill.
Mercy is compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.
Disciplining a child is not intending to hurt, damage, or kill. It is to build up the child, and strengthen his character. A parent disciplining a child might be "retribution" but it is not violence. (Unless, of course the parent is intending to hurt the child - this is violence.)
Does the example of Paul saying, "if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat" contradictory to Jesus's parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matt. 20)? No, because the men Jesus had were willing to work (if only for an hour). But not giving a wage to someone who did not work is not a justification for violence. This "retribution" (justice?) is not violence.
The church is told by Paul to not associate with people who consistently sin or disobey other followers, but by no means is this a justification for violence. Retribution in this manner is not violence.
As Paul teaches, you have to deal with issues between you and your "oppressor?", then bring it to a small group, then the pastor and Church, and as a last resort to excommunicate them. To not taint the church - the church in Thessalonica delta with enormous problems, tons of sexual sins, but yes, I'm not here to defend kicking people out of the church, but I'm saying it wasn't common.
Your fifth sphere is troubling. Civil authorities are "a minister of God to you for good". What happens when you have civil authorities who don't act as ministers of God? Corrupt? The Church, in the Crusades, the Inquisition, in WW2 (on both sides), all declared themselves as "ministers of God" to ensure justice.
You are right, these teachings aren't in contrast to Christ's' teachings - because these are instances of where love and justice are in accordance with one another. I fail to see a justification for violence in these circumstances.
Are Justice and Truth in direct conflict with Mercy? (why is justice paired with Truth?) Is our God merciful when he forgives us? Or is our God Just when he forgives us? Is he both? Is Mercy a form of justice? Is there Mercy in Justice? not just the forgiveness of it? If the bible gives very clear examples of situations that required justice, who decides when justice is required now?
The examples you give are not contradictory to Romans 12:17-21. But I fail to see how feeding a hungry enemy and giving him something to drink are an argument
Pacifist convictions are not a misunderstanding of biblical principles. They are an interpretation of biblical principles - in the same way that you "properly" interpret biblical principles. (Protestants are considered heretics by Catholics - so I guess were both out to lunch).
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteWhy should warfare be justified on an industrial scale, when it cannot be justified on a personal scale?
When Jesus comes, he creates a new covenant with his people, correct? All of your arguments referring to micro Jewish law are in accordance with this.
Jesus's discussion on murder in the Sermon on the Mount tells us that not only is murder subject to judgement, but anyone who is angry with his brother or sister, or anyone who shouts "raca", or 'you fool', is subject to judgement, the court, or in danger of the fires of hell. I say this not as an argument against Just War Theory, because its not - it's a change of perspective - God's persepective. Anger is not acceptable.
Jesus does use hyperbole throughout his messages - everyone does. I'd also say that the authors of the gospels each had specific things in mind when they wrote them.
I really like the Ananias and Sapphira example, that's the first point I've actually had to think about. I will consider to ponder it.
Though I suppose if your argument is saying that some parts of scripture are not to be taken literally, then maybe the story of Ananias and Sapphira could also be figurative? We all pick an choose, don't you think?
To your point previous, the bible says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. There are plenty accounts of God changing his mind on many things throughout the Bible. Jesus has parables of a Master's who change their decisions.
I would say that Jesus was a pacifist. You are correct in saying that non-pacifists don't love war - but they aren't against it. Whereas pacifists are, as the definition of the word suggests, are against any violence (including war), that its unjustifiable in any circumstance , and all disputes should be settle by peaceful means. From the French pacifisme "pacify" - not from the word "passive". I'm very much for the creative solution of any problem, small or large.
I don't know why Luke would have described the Centurion negatively. Pacifists would consider acts of violence and war to be sinful. All Christians consider humanity to be sinful - to say "the sinful centurion" would be the same as "the sinful doctor'. (it is comical because Luke was a doctor). Jesus considers all of us to be living lives of sin, why would Jesus or pacifists consider men in the Army to be more sinful than anyone else? Cannot the tax collectors be men of "great faith"?
Overall, if you were trying just to say that God shares "His divine right to punish evil" with mankind, then you are on the right track - but I really felt that you were trying to prove that Just War is acceptable because he shares it. The idea that people in the Bible punish the wrongdoing of others and that that punishment isn't contradictory to mercy does not ordain violence.
You are very right in saying that the mercy and justice of God intermingled are incomprehensibly.
God is merciful, God is just, God is love.
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."
I think every human being knows love.
Therefore, does not everyone know God?
(That, I think, is far too universalist for myself, but it's a question to ponder nonetheless).