In the same way, Dr. Morey has voluntarily resigned from a small ministerial organization that was supposedly set up to “enhance fellowship among pastors.” With such an innocent description as that, Dr. Morey joined FIRE. He only attended one meeting, and that was it.

The Board of FIRE recently became involved in the internal employee affairs of Faith Community Church, the church Dr. Morey pastored, without that church asking them to do so. The issue was regarding an ex-employee whose resignation statement admitted his non-compliance. Thus they had no biblical warrant to deal with the internal employee affairs of this church.

Once Dr. Morey demonstrated from Scripture that FIRE had no right to interfere with the internal operations of any independent church, they secretly switched the issue to ad hominem attacks on his character. They now wanted to “kill the messenger.”

In their slander campaign, they claim to have “evidence.”   “Evidence” of what nature? We don’t know! Evidence from whom? We don’t know. Even after we asked for a copy of the so-called evidence, FIRE refused to send us a copy of the so-called “evidence” so we could answer it.

Dr. Morey demonstrated from Scripture that, if the accusations do not involve doctrine or morals, they had no right to sit in judgment of any church or pastor. Internal issues such as church discipline should not be judged by other churches.

Dr. Morey demonstrated from Scripture that FIRE is forbidden to “receive” any accusations that do not meet the standards set forth in Deut. 19, Mat. 18 and 1 Tim. 5:19. Any “single witness” accusation or hearsay evidence was not admissible. FIRE tried and convicted him without ever sending him the accusations! Amazing! See Acts 25:16.

The FIRE smear campaign referred to “abuse of pastoral authority.” Thus the issue is not doctrine or morals. It concerns church discipline administered by the elders of a local church in conformity to the Bible and their constitutions and creed. When it became obvious that FIRE was in clear violation of Scripture, Dr. Morey admonished them for being so gullible and then resigned his membership.

We are sad to say that FIRE has refused to send Dr. Morey’s resignation letter to its membership. FIRE should let the membership hear from Dr. Morey as to why he resigned since they sent an email to all their members accusing Dr. Morey of the erroneous accusations.

In this light, we have made Dr. Morey’s resignation statement public for all to read. Anyone with a Bible and a brain will see why he resigned from FIRE.

No further response will be forthcoming from us concerning this issue. Dr. Morey resigned in order to avoid wasting any more time on unbiblical nonsense.

final-fire-answer

pastors_guide_to_handling_accusations1

Just before Walter Martin died, he had been scheduled to speak at a conference on apologetics in Rockford, Illinois. The conference organizers asked me to take his place and give a main lecture on “The Cost of Discernment.”

In that message, I demonstrated from Scripture that “being sensitive” and doing your best to avoid “hurting people’s feelings” are vices, not virtues. If getting people mad, making them cry, and hurting their feelings were sins, then hell is the greatest sin God commits! God does not give a rip about your feelings. He wants you to be holy, not happy. Walter had been condemned as mean, rude, and offensive by the lampooned cultists and occultists. He was my friend for 27 years and, believe me, he used satire a lot. It was part of his appeal to those who had not bowed the knee before the idol of sensitivity training. Those of you who love apologetics now understand why you are accused of “poor taste,” “meanness,” etc. Spineless evanjellyfish are everywhere condemning us…

The rest of the article along with the free audio lecture can be accessed here.

I. The doctrine of the atonement is exclusively a subject of special revelation and thus we are entirely dependent upon the Scriptures.

Christianity is unique and singular in its concept of the atonement. We will search history in vain to find another religion which developed the concept of God becoming man to die as the sinner’s substitute. False religion always views man as seeking God and providing for his own salvation while Christianity views God as seeking man and providing salvation for him. The Scriptures view men as guilty rebellious sinners who are running from God as fast as they can (Rom. 1:18).

Thus we cannot look to man’s reason, feelings or experiences to tell us the truth about salvation. We will trust only in the infallible Written Word of God for “all Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). “To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to the word it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20).

II. Approach the doctrine of the atonement as the solution to your problems and not as the problem itself.

The saving work of Christ is God’s answer to man’s greatest questions. How can a man be just before God? How can sins be forgiven? How can spiritually dead sinners be made alive? How can we escape the just punishment of eternal perdition? Who takes the initiative in salvation? Is salvation all of God or does it involve the works of man? The answers to such questions are found in the Biblical doctrine of the atonement.

Perhaps a word could be said here to theological students. Beware of being “problem-centered.” Too often theological studies are designed to give as many problems to the student as possible. He is taught “the problem of the existence of God,” “the problem of the inspiration and text of the Bible,” “the problem of preaching,” “the problem of evil,” etc. It is apparent that some seminary and Bible college professors are excellent in presenting problems but weak in giving solutions! This results in weak, undecided ministers who can’t say anything dogmatically to their people. The people in turn are not doctrinally strong and are soon “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming” (Eph. 4:14).

Don’t be sold short in your theological education by being problem centered. Seek the Biblical solution to each issue. Study until you are convinced that you know what the Word of God teaches. Then preach and teach it with the boldness of the Holy Spirit. Never rest until you have an answer to your questions.

III. Approach the doctrine of the atonement in an experimental manner.

We must not be content with a mere intellectual grasp of the atonement. If our study of this precious truth of God’s Word does not spiritually profit us in terms of salvation or sanctification, we have missed the underlying purpose of the study. We are dealing with the suffering and death of the Son of God. We should visualize afresh the bleeding sacrifice made on our behalf.

The test of our understanding is to measure our love to Christ. Experimentally we should grow in our devotion and love to Christ as a result of this study.

IV. To see the true nature of sin, look to the cross of Christ.

To see sin as it really is, contemplate what it cost to remove it. If we had fallen into a deep pit, we could tell how deep we had fallen by the length of the rope let down to save us. In the same way, we can only understand the depths of depravity into which sin has brought us by the lengths to which God must go to redeem us.

God Himself had to die a bloody death at the hands of wicked sinners. To see the awful suffering and to hear the awful cry, “My God, my God, why have Thou forsaken Me?” reveals how awful sin must be in the sight of God. Don’t look at sin to see sin’s true nature. Look at what it did to Christ on the cross. Experimentally, we should grow in our hatred of sin as a result of the study.

Ye who think of sin but lightly,

Nor suppose the evil great

Here may view its nature rightly,

Here its guilt may estimate.

Mark the sacrifice appointed

See who bears the awful loss;

Tis the Word, the Lord’s anointed,

Son of Man and Son of God.^*

V. Take the simple step of faith with each new understanding of the atonement.

True Biblical faith involves assent and trust as well as knowledge. It is not enough to know about the atonement, you must assent to and trust in the saving work of Christ. A new or deepened understanding of every aspect of the atonement should be followed by the affirmation of the heart, “Lord, I believe.” The doctrine of the atonement should provide much fuel for praise and many arguments to be used in prayer. Seek to appropriate and to use your Biblical knowledge in your life everyday.

With these basic principles in mind, we can now begin our study of the saving work of Christ.

Honest questions deserve an honest answer. Therefore, we will attempt to answer them without offending anyone. Given the emotional nature of some of the issues and questions, we hope the reader will remember that what we say is said in love.

Philosophical Questions

Question: Isn’t the taking of a human life always wrong regardless of the circumstances?

Answer: While the above question is a clear expression of a sincere belief, sincerity is not enough to establish its truthfulness. Merely stating something does not prove it.

When we turn to the Scriptures we find that God himself takes human life (1 Sam. 2:6). God’s taking of human life can be on a massive scale, as with the Flood, or as individual judgment (Acts 5:1-11).

As the image-bearer of God, man is called upon to take human life in certain circumstances such as a punishment for murder (Ex. 21:12; Luke 20:9-16).

Since human life is a gift of God, it can be withdrawn by God’s command. In the Bible, God has directed the taking of human life in such circumstances as criminal justice or war. Those who take human life in such circumstances are merely acting as the agents of God. This is why the government officials who use the sword to punish evildoers are called the “ministers of God” in Rom. 13:4.

Question: Isn’t human life sacred? Then it would be wrong to destroy it.

Answer: Human life is not sacred in and of itself. Only in reference to God and His Word is human life elevated above animal life. Because man is created in the image of God, the sin of murder must result in the greatest punishment possible, which is the just taking of the murderer’s life. Thus, the sacredness of life forms the basis of capital punishment (Gen. 9:6).

Question: While a case can be made for some wars in the past being just, how can nuclear war which will annihilate all life ever be justified?

Answer: First, if one admits that wars in the past were fought for valid and just reasons, then these same reasons may well justify war which involves nuclear weapons. What is moral and right in principle does not change because of circumstances.

Second, the real underlying argument goes like this: If nuclear war will destroy all life on the earth, then this kind of war is not just because it is not winnable or survivable. It would be better to surrender to the Soviets and live as a slave under tyranny than to participate in such a war.

Christians need to understand that there is not conclusive scientific evidence that all life would be destroyed on this planet if nuclear war broke out. Since this question concerns a future possibility that has never happened before, it is pure speculation that all life would end.

One of the recent arguments that has been used by Carl Sagan and other pacifists is the idea of a “nuclear winter” in which the temperature of earth would remain below freezing for 200 years because the dust and ash in the atmosphere after nuclear explosions would prevent the sun from warming up the earth. Of course, all life on earth would be destroyed.

The National Academy of Sciences decided to look into this theory and found that the worst that would happen after nuclear war would be a brief drop in temperature for at most twenty weeks. If this happened in July, the temperature would drop to 55° in Kansas. This is a far cry from the 200 years of freezing temperature claimed by the pacifists. The so-called “nuclear winter” is just another “better red than dead” scare tactic.¹

As a matter of historical record, the “doomsday myth” was invented to scare people into a “better red than dead” position. The pacifist literature is filled with the use of such scare tactics as a propaganda tool.

Many scientists believe that nuclear war is not only survivable but winnable. Every person who has been frightened by the doomsday myth should read Nuclear War Survival Skills² in order to hear both sides of the issue.

If speculating about the future is a valid way to prove your position, then we would like to offer a proposition. If the Free World disarmed and surrendered to the Communists, given the fact that they have killed over 150 million people in this century, and have recently slaughtered half the population of Cambodia, then more deaths would probably result after the Communists took over than would die in a nuclear war! The holocaust of death which would follow disarmament would no doubt exceed any horror that any war ever produced.

Another vital point, God’s Word guarantees that humanity will not be annihilated by wars of its own making. Jesus said that the earth would continue to experience wars until He returned to judge the wicked. (Matt. 24:6).

In this light, it is shameful for Christian pacifists to use the doomsday myth as a “scare tactic” to convert people to pacifism. Contradicting the Word of the God they claim to believe in, they tell us the only choices before us are either nuclear war, which will destroy “all life on the planet,” or giving up our “anti-communism and myopic anti-Sovietism” by surrendering to the tyranny of the Soviets.³ This is the tactic used in such popular pacifist books as Ron Sider’s Nuclear Holocaust & Christian Hope and Perspectives In Peacemaking.

Some leaders have begun to push openly for a “Better red than dead” ideology. We cannot help but recall those theologians who unwittingly helped the Third Reich in its military conquests because of their “Better Nazi than dead” ideology. The millions who died in battle and in the death camps demonstrate where such thinking leads.

We should also recognize that the Soviet’s entire military strategy is built upon the concept of a winnable nuclear war.⁴ Since they view nuclear war as something they could not only survive but win, the only realistic position the West can take is to approach it in the same way.

Question: Would not pacifism and nonviolent forms of resistance best safeguard our lives? Shouldn’t we give peace a chance by signing disarmament agreements with the Soviets?

Answer: Historical evidence rises up against such an idea. For example, the European Jews’ attachment to pacifism and nonviolent resistance made them easy targets for acts of violence for centuries. This reached its climax with the death of six million Jews in Nazi concentration camps.

Modern Jews have learned this lesson well. Their cry “Never Again!” is eloquent testimony that while pacifism can provoke violence, military strength will deter it.

The pacifist model was historically tried out by the Jews. It ended in staggering death tolls over the centuries, probably much higher than would have resulted if they had taken up arms to defend themselves.

At the cost of over one million dollars, a team of historians examined all the disarmament agreements that have occurred in the last one thousand years of Western history. They found that in every recorded instance, the disarmament agreements led to war.

The “honest” side that actually disarmed was without exception attacked by the “dishonest” side, and usually conquered. In the past, disarmament agreements have always given aggressors military superiority while placing peaceseeking nations in a state of fatal weakness.⁵

Historical Questions

Question: Isn’t it true that all the early Christians were pacifists until Constantine?

Answer: Many pacifists assume that the early church was pacifist. Ron Sider in Perspectives on Peacemaking states with dogmatism:

Until the time of Constantine in the fourth century, all Christian writing reflects the belief that Jesus clearly and explicitly forbade Christians to participate in war and capital punishment. (p. 140)

What is astounding to us is that Sider does not give us any proof for his position that “all” the writers in the early church openly spoke out against war, military participation and capital punishment!

Mr. Sider and others like him do not attempt to document their position by citations from the early Fathers because such citations do not exist. If “all” the writings of the early church “clearly” and “explicitly” taught pacifism, there should be hundreds of citations in support of this. Why has no one ever found them?

We demonstrated in Chapter 4 that the early Christian Fathers never uttered one word of condemnation of war per se, and the majority of the Fathers had no problems with Christians participating in just wars or capital punishment. Sider and other pacifists have ignored the historical evidence and have overstated their case.

Question: Didn’t the horrors of the Thirty Years’ War during the Reformation reveal that pacifism would have been a better way?

Answer: There is not a single example of a Protestant church which survived during the Reformation that did not require taking up arms to defend its religious freedom. Even the early Anabaptists took up arms when they were in the majority, as in The Peasants’ War.⁶

Foxes’ Book of Martyrs records the annihilation of those churches which did, not defend themselves or have someone else defend them.

The “peace” churches exist today because of the military victory of the reformers. The Pope’s armies would not have left the Anabaptists in peace once they had defeated the reformers in battle. A holocaust of death would have surely followed.

When Cromwell’s diplomatic efforts to lessen the persecution of Protestants in Catholic countries such as Italy and France failed, he threatened to invade Europe with his army of godly psalm-singing puritans to punish the Catholics for murdering Protestants. Persecution ceased in many places.⁷

Question: What about Gandhi’s successful use of nonviolent resistance?

Answer: Richard Grenier in The Gandhi Nobody Knows,⁸ Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals⁹ and George Orwell’s Reflections on Gandhi all present historical evidence that Gandhi was a pacifist only when it served his purposes.

They demonstrate that the British were not driven out by Gandhi’s hunger strikes or by peaceful demonstrations, but by the violence which attended such things. Gandhi’s so-called pacifism was successful only because he was dealing with a democratic Christian nation. Even Gandhi admitted that his tactics would not work in totalitarian states.

Biblical Questions

Question: Doesn’t the Old Testament concept of “shalom” (i.e., peace) necessarily involve the idea that all war is evil?

Answer: The Old Testament authors had no problem with gaining and preserving shalom or peace by the use of force, even by war. Thus 2 Sam. 11:7 (literal Hebrew) could speak of “the shalom of the soldiers” and “the shalom of the war.” In Josh. 21:43-44, Israel gained “rest” through military victory. It is thus biblically inaccurate to say that the Old Testament concept of shalom excludes the concept of war.

Question: The Old Testament looked forward to the time when the Messiah would cause swords to be beat into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks (Isa. 2:4). The lion and the lamb would lie down together. All wars would cease and shalom, or peace, would cover the earth.

Since this Kingdom is now established on earth by Christ, isn’t it our responsibility to resist all the use of force in all contexts? We must destroy all our weapons to fulfill the biblical prophecies.

Answer: The earthly kingdom which Christ ushers in by His literal and personal return to this world (Zech. 14:3-5) will result in a new heaven and a new earth where righteousness and shalom reign because the wicked have been removed and sent into eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46).

At that time, the effects of Adam’s sin will be removed from nature itself (Rom. 8:19-22) as the children of God are manifested by their resurrection from the dead (Rom. 8:11, 18-25).

This glorious kingdom of peace is a living “hope” according to Paul in Rom. 8:24. Since it is a “hope,” this means that we do not have it already, “for who hopes for what he already has? If we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently” (Rom. 8:24-25).

Since Christ has not yet returned and the wicked have not yet been removed, wars will continue (Matt. 24:6-8). As long as the wicked remain, governments must use force to control them. When Jesus returns and sets up His glorious kingdom, there will be no need of force for He shall reign with divine authority.

Question: The just-war theory utilizes the Old Testament as its foundation. Isn’t this wrong since Christians should base their lives on the teaching of Jesus?

Answer: The unity of the Scriptures should not be broken simply because we don’t like what they say. The New Testament authors did not hesitate to derive doctrine and ethics from principles contained in the Old Testament (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Furthermore, when pacifists think they have found something in the Old Testament to back up their position, such as “shalom,” they use it without hesitation. They end up doing what they condemn others for doing!

For example, when arguing against the just-war theory, Ron Sider states that the Old Testament proves “too much” and “too little” to be of any practical use.¹⁰ But when Sider argues for a form of socialism in which wealth is redistributed by force, he bases his argument on over 150 Old Testament quotations.¹¹

Evidently, the use of the Old Testament is valid only as long as it is used to promote socialism. But as soon as the Old Testament is used to strengthen the West’s moral resolve to defend its freedoms with force if necessary, pacifists like Sider reply that the Old Testament cannot be used. Do only socialists have the right to use the Old Testament?

Question: Since by His nonviolent life Jesus revealed that He was a pacifist, shouldn’t we follow His example? After all, He did not join the army or fight in any wars.

Answer: The money-changers in the temple would have trouble with the idea that Jesus was nonviolent. They remember His whip with which He drove them out of the temple (John 2:12-17).

Jesus’ use of divine force in self-defense to guarantee that no one could take His life except at the appointed time forever justifies self-defense (John 18:4-6; Luke 4:28-29).

Jesus did not judge sinners at His first coming because He came to accomplish salvation (John 3:17). At His second coming He will use force to inflict eternal punishment upon the wicked (Matt. 25:46).

Jesus’ unique mission of salvation excluded Him from many normal things in life, such as marriage, following a career, owning a home or fighting in a war. Obviously, we are not called to follow Jesus’ example in all these things. It is not logically valid to say that we are not to do something simply because Christ did not do it in His lifetime.

Question: Didn’t John the Baptist and Jesus teach that it was wrong to use violence?

Answer: In Luke 3:14, John the Baptist gives the soldiers three commands: “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely-be content with your pay.” Nowhere does John the Baptist condemn the occupation of soldier per se.

Nowhere did Jesus in the Gospel record tell the state to disarm, or that it is wrong for a nation to maintain a police or military force, or that Christians should not participate in political or military careers.

Question: Doesn’t the Bible say, “Thou shalt not kill”?

Answer: The Hebrew word murr in Ex. 20:13 means “murder” and not simply killing. This is why the NIV, the NKJV, the NASB and many other modern translations translate it, “You shall not murder.”

The very next chapter establishes that murderers should be put to death (Ex. 21:12). The Ten Commandments condemn the unauthorized taking of human life.

Question: Since Jesus calls us to be “peacemakers,” shouldn’t we join the modern “peace” movements?

Answer: Dr. Clarence Macartney wisely warned in his own generation:

Before Christians commit themselves to pacifist movements, they do well to ascertain whether these movements rise out of a genuine aversion to war or whether they are part of a scheme to disarm the country and render it incapable of resisting the machinations of those who would overthrow its historic institutions.¹²

There is no longer any doubt whatsoever of the truth that many of the so-called “peace” movements are either funded, directed or manipulated by the Soviet KGB. The documentation for this is so clear and overwhelming that it is found in secular sources (both liberal and conservative), such as The New York Times (4/17/1977), the Reader’s Digest (8/1982), Human Events (12/4/1983; 1/8/1983), The Wall Street Journal (5/10/1982), Newsweek (5/6/83). The evidence is also clear in Christian books, such as The Church and the Sword, Who Is for Peace? and Bad News for Modern Man..¹³

We do not feel that it is “unkind” to point out the truth just because it hurts (Gal. 4:16). Christians need to be realistic and not romantic about the modern “peace” movements. These groups will lead us into war if they disarm the Free World. They are not really for peace but actually have a “death wish” as documented in Bad News for Modern Man.

We must remember that the Nazis used the “peace” movements in their day to destabilize and disarm the West in order to secure an easy victory over the Allied powers.¹⁴

Another favorite method of the Nazis to prepare a country for easy takeover was to disarm the population by strict gun control. If the people did not have weapons in their homes, they could do nothing to resist an invasion.

Is it any wonder that gun control is a part of the agenda of the present-day “peace” movements? In West Germany alone, in one year, the Soviets gave over 30 million dollars to finance the “peace” party.¹⁵ Such evidence can no longer be waved aside by sincere pacifists, Christian or humanist.

Lenin always viewed pacifism as a weapon. He said:

When a country is selected for attack, we must first set before the youth a mental barrage which will forever prohibit the youth from being molded into an armed force to oppose our invading armies. This can most successfully be done by creating ‘war horror’ thought and by the teaching of pacificism and non-resistance.¹⁶

The Soviets still have the same method in mind. This is clear from this comment made by Aleksei Ivanovich Rykov, a past president of the Council of Commissioners of the U.S.S.R.:

It is our duty to inculcate in the minds of all nations, the theories of international friendship, pacifism, and disarmament, encouraging resistance to military appropriations and training, at the same time, however, never for one moment relaxing our efforts in the upbuilding of our military establishment.¹⁷

Moscow certainly backs demonstrations in Europe over the deployment of U.S. missiles. These so-called “peace” or “green” groups have never seen anything wrong with the Soviet deployment of missles that has been going on for years. Only N.A.T.O. is condemned for setting up a strong defense network.

These facts do not mean that every Christian or humanist who supports pacifism does so because Moscow orders it. Many sincere individuals, out of reasons of conscience, do not believe in the use of force. We have no problem honoring their good motives in this regard. We hope they will examine the truth of what we are saying for their own good. They need to if they wish to maintain the freedom to believe as they choose.

Question: Do you feel that America is God’s country in the same way as Israel was in the Old Testament?

Answer: It would hardly be proper to give any country status that belongs only to Israel or to the church. We are Christians first and our ultimate allegiance is to Christ’s kingdom (Phil. 3:20). America or any other nation will be blessed by God if they follow those principles in God’s Word which describe the functions of a just government. However, no nation is to be viewed as a divine theocracy on earth.

Question: Is it proper to use the Old Testament when it relates only to the theocracy of Israel?

Answer: We have sought to examine the morality of using force throughout Israel’s history in the Old Testament. This history includes the experiences of God’s people both before and after the theocracy. That which is moral will be moral in any age. Since the use of force was approved in all the ages before and after the theocracy, the use of force is not something unique to the theocratic kingdom.

Question: How can a Christian participate in war when he may be called upon to do covert activities such as spying? After all, we must tell the truth even to our enemies.

Answer: The just-war theory does not condone the idea that “anything goes” in wartime. Cromwell’s army was called “Holy Ironsides” because they did not rape and plunder like the typical armies of their day. They marched into battle under the banner of the Lord because they were “puritan” in their lives as well as in their doctrines.

John Murray discusses covert activity and the right to conceal the truth from our enemies in Principles of Conduct. He concludes that the Bible does not teach that we owe the truth to everyone at all times, including our enemies. Ethics’ experts like Erickson point out that wartime calls for special rules.¹⁸

According to Proverbs, a wise man does not tell everything he knows (Prov. 10:19; 13:3; 17:27, 28; 21:23; 29:11). Someone who tells everyone what he knows is guilty of gossip, slander, and breaking confidences.

Concealing the truth by refusing to answer someone’s questions or simply by not saying anything is perfectly proper because it is not the same as lying. To think that God would condemn concealing things from one’s enemies is absurd. This would make biblical ethics impractical and unlivable.

In the Old Testament, both Moses and Joshua sent spies into enemy territory under the direction and blessing of God (Num. 13; Josh. 2). Whatever God commands cannot be viewed as morally wrong unless one believes that God is the author of evil.

Joshua’s spies entered Jericho, where they were concealed by Rahab from enemy soldiers (Josh. 2). She is exalted as an example of courage and faith by the author of Hebrews (11:31). She is not condemned for hiding the spies.

If it were morally wrong to be involved in covert activities, why was Rahab blessed and not cursed? How can concealment be wrong when God himself planned Israel’s ambush at Ai by having Joshua conceal his troops (Josh. 8:2)?

In the New Testament, we have the example of none other than the spotless Son of God. In John 7:1-10, His half brothers taunted Him by saying that He should go up to Jerusalem and publicly demonstrate that He was the Messiah (v. 4). Jesus told them in verse 8 that He was not going up to Jerusalem. Then in verse 10, we are told that Jesus went secretly up to Jerusalem! Yet we know Jesus did not “lie” to His brothers.

Or again, when Jesus stood before the civil authorities, He refused to answer their questions because He was not under any moral obligation to tell them anything (Matt. 27:1-14). The Apostle Paul used a covert rescue operation to escape his enemies (Acts 9:25).

When we turn to church history, we find that such godly men as Calvin and Knox used false names to escape their enemies. Corrie Ten Boom and others concealed Jews from the Nazi exterminators during the war. The underground churches in Communist countries have to use covert operations just to meet for worship. If they told the KGB the names of all their fellow believers and where they met because they were under the delusion that they were bound by the Bible to tell the truth to everybody, including their enemies, millions of them would have been destroyed years ago.

The Bible is once again shown to be practical and relevant even in the “sticky” situations that international problems and war creates. God’s law never calls upon us to do what is insane or stupid. “His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3).

Conclusion

The above questions are some of the most frequently asked by our pacifist friends. We have also attempted to present those questions which are raised in the pacifist literature on the subject. We should never be afraid to ask honest questions. They will ultimately lead us to the Truth if we search the Scriptures with an open mind (John 7:17).

This is an excerpt of When is it Right to Fight? by Robert Morey

On the other hand, Protestant church historians such as Philip Schaff, Harnack, McGiffert, Moffat, Lee, Frend, and archeologists such as Sir William Ramsey have also made a special study of the early church in this regard. They have come away convinced that the pacifists have overstated their case and ignored significant evidence that Christians were involved in the military from the apostolic period to Constantine.

Protestant historians have also noted that only two, or possibly three, Church Fathers were openly opposed to Christians participating in the military. Their grounds for rejecting military life is clearly the military’s involvement with idolatry. The military required an oath and certain garments of clothing, ceremonies and symbols which were idolatrous in nature.

Protestant historians such as Philip Schaff do not see any condemnation of war per se in the writings of the early Church Fathers. There is no indication that the Church Fathers rejected a nation’s right to go to war to protect its citizens. Harnack argued this position in his Militia Christi in 1905. The argument has been brought up to date by John Helgeland in Christians and the Roman Army, a.d. 173-337.²

Roman Catholic scholars have traditionally taken a position exactly opposite the pacifists. While pacifists claim all the early writers as pacifists, the Catholics do not see any of the early writers as pacifists. This is most ably argued by Ryan in “The Rejection of Military Service by the Early Church.”³

Methodology

Having surveyed the pacifist literature on the early church, it has become increasingly clear that the pacifists’ methodology in their historical research and presentation rests on several faulty assumptions.

First, they assume that the apostolic period began with pure pacifism and that the church remained pure until Constantine. During Constantine’s reign, the church “fell” from grace. The church suddenly abandoned its pacifism and pragmatically joined the military in order to support the first Christian emperor.

This argument includes several unwarranted assumptions and ignores some important facts. Since the New Testament never condemned war per se or the Christian’s participation in the military, the Christian Church did not begin with pacifism. The New Testament carried on the Old Testament ethic of the just use of force for personal or civil defense. The apostolic age began with Christians such as Cornelius remaining in the army.

For example, none of the earliest writers, such as Polycarp (a.d. 70-155), uttered one word against war or against Christians participating in the military. There is no evidence that the issue of war or the Christian’s participation in the army ever occurred to the Church Fathers. They assumed that believers would remain in whatever calling or occupation they were employed in when converted.

Second, the supposed “fall” of the church from pacifism to approval of war with Constantine is a convenient myth which has no historical justification whatsoever. If the early church was committed to pacifism in principle, if they viewed war as intrinsically immoral and in conflict with Christ’s teaching, to think that all of them would change their convictions simply because a Christian emperor came on the scene is quite unbelievable. We must remember that these are the same believers who went bravely to their deaths rather than deny what they believed. That they would change their pacifist beliefs and convictions for a Christian emperor is as plausible as believing that all modern-day pacifists will abandon their position once a Christian is elected President or Prime Minister. Just as modern pacifists would not change their conviction because of the arrival of Christian leadership, neither would the early pacifists have changed their convictions for the same reason.

The pacifists’ assumption that the church “fell” with Constantine actually militates against their own position. They teach that the church changed its beliefs because there was a change of circumstances. Christians like Tertullian, who were outspoken in their rejection of Christians participating in the military, objected not because they were against war in principle or against Christians being in the military in principle, but because of the idolatrous circumstances connected with military life. As soon as Constantine changed those idolatrous circumstances, there no longer remained any reason why Christians should hesitate to be in the army.

The second methodological problem with the pacifist position is that they take statements out of context and then misapply them. For example, Polycarp applied the Old and New Testament teaching against the use of violence for personal vengeance.⁴ Some have seized upon this as proof that Polycarp was a pacifist. But nowhere in the context of the passage does Polycarp bring up the subject of war, Christians in the military, or whether the state has the right to maintain an army or a police force. General statements such as “do not render evil for evil, cursing for cursing,” etc., should not be illegitimately applied to national defense when the author does not make the application himself. We must remember that in the Old Testament the prophets could preach against taking personal vengeance against one’s enemies and, at the same time, encourage the nation of Israel to destroy the enemies of God. There is no inherent contradiction between denying personal vengeance and approving participation in just wars.

The third problem with the pacifists’ methodology is that they try to prove more than the evidence they present can bear. For example, pacifists declare that governments should disarm and reject all warfare, even defensive wars. Therefore, they have to show that the early Christians believed that force was unjust in principle and that all governments should disarm and reject warfare.

When pacifists seek to prove their position, they frequently overstate their case, as they do with Origen. Origen did not want Christians to be in the military because of his spiritual and heavenly view of the Christian life. Yet he recorded this prayer of his for us:

For those fighting in a righteous cause, and for the King who reigns righteously, that whatsoever is opposed to those who act righteously be destroyed.⁵

The same can be said of Tertullian. While it is clear that he did not want Christians to participate in the army because they would become defiled with idolatry, nowhere did Tertullian condemn the state for having an army. Neither did he condemn nations for going to war. He declared:

Without ceasing, for all our emperors, we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies….⁶

If Origen or Tertullian were against the use of force in principle at any time, by anyone, including the state, they would hardly be found praying for those involved in righteous wars, that their soldiers would be brave in the destruction of their enemies.

When modern pacifists seek to prove their position by stating that the early church taught pure pacifism, they are overstating the case. Nowhere did the early Fathers teach that the use of force is intrinsically and morally wrong. The most the pacifists can come up with is an argument that some Christians did not believe they could, for conscience sake, because of idolatry, be involved in the military.

The Evidence

Church historians claiming that Christians were indeed involved in military life before Constantine have drawn their evidence from several different sources.

First, we have archeological evidence found on Christian tombstone inscriptions which identify the person buried as a Christian who was in the military. At least eight of these inscriptions are clearly pre-Constantine.⁷

If the church was totally pacifistic, condemning all participation in military life, it seems very unlikely that the relatives of a Christian would have gone to extra work to place his rank and legion on the tombstone. If being a soldier was a mark of shame and church discipline, we would not find a Christian’s rank and the name of his legion on the tombstone.

Also, the physical presence of such Christian tombstones is undeniable evidence that Christians were involved in the army before Constantine. Sir William Ramsey, in his book Luke the Physician, comments on an inscription for a Christian soldier from Lycaonia. He argues that in a.d. 303, “it is certain that the armies of the eastern empire were largely composed of Christians.”⁸

The second line of evidence is found in the list of military martyrs prior to Constantine. In the very first church history, Eusebius recorded the history of many Christian soldiers who died for the faith.⁹

Eusebius’s list of martyrs has been expanded by Musurillo in his book The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. While some of this material is clearly questionable, most of the martyrs in the military who died before Constantine have clear historical evidence behind them.

The third source of evidence is the history of the Christian Church in Armenia. Thaddeus, one of the seventy disciples whom Jesus sent out, was the first to preach the gospel in Armenia. Later the Apostle Bartholomew himself preached there.

Under the influence of Saint Gregory, Armenia became the first Christian nation in a.d. 303. When Maxminus tried to force the Armenians to renounce Christianity in a.d. 312, the Armenians took up arms and defended their faith and freedom. They defeated the Roman army.¹⁰

Throughout Armenian history, the Christian Church has never been pacifist. They have always defended their faith with the utmost courage and steadfastness.

The fourth source of evidence is the Thundering Legion (a.d. 173). Eusebius relates that soldiers in the Melitine Legion would kneel and pray before going into battle, as was the custom of Christians.¹¹ In a particular battle with Germans, the legion was in dire thirst. Due to the prayers of the Christian soldiers, God sent rain to refresh them while he sent lightning to confuse their enemies. The legion went on to triumph against their enemies due to the influence of the Christian soldiers.

Most pacifists simply ignore this incident or dismiss it as legendary. The defense of the historicity of the Thundering Legion has been stated by Phillip Schaff,¹² J. B. Lightfoot,¹³ and by Frend.¹⁴

Since pagan Roman historians recount the same incident, it seems unlikely that Eusebius invented the story of the Thundering Legion.

The fifth line of argument comes from the apocryphal gospels. If the Christian Church was thoroughly pacifist in its view of Christ and the Christian life, why do we find so many accounts in the apocryphal gospels of Jesus using force to punish evildoers? For example, in The Gospel of Thomas,¹⁵ Jesus is pictured as striking people dead.¹⁶

These stories are clearly fictitious; nevertheless, their presence in the popular literature of the early church reveals that believers did not view Jesus as a pacifist.

Or again, in the apocryphal Acts of Paul, written in a.d. 185, we read of Christian soldiers who were martyred for the faith while Paul was still living in Rome.¹⁷ Christians living in a.d. 185 did not have any problems with believers being in the army. Such apocryphal works as Acts of Paul were widely read and enjoyed. This would never have happened if they were all pacifists.

Our last source of evidence is drawn from the theological writings of the early Church Fathers.

The pacifists have not been able to present one sentence from St. Clement (a.d. 30-100), Mathetes (a.d. 130), Polycarp (a.d. 155), Ignatius (a.d. 30-107), Papias (a.d. 70-155), Justin Martyr (a.d. 110-165), the epistles of Barnabus (a.d. 100), Ireneas (a.d. 120-202), the Shepherd of Hermas (a.d. 160), Tatian (a.d. 110-172), Athenagoras (a.d. 177), or Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 153-217), which in their respective contexts discuss whether war is justifiable or whether Christians can be involved in war.

The Fathers said many things dealing with personal ethics. When these statements are examined in their context, it is clear that the Father was not discussing war or the Christian’s attitude toward the military. None of the above Fathers has anything to say about war per se.

When we study the early Fathers, we find they clearly taught that Christians could be found in all walks of life, including the military life.

Clement of Alexandria wrote:

Practice husbandry, we say, if you are a husbandman; but while you till the fields, know God. Sail the sea, you who are devoted to navigation, yet call the whilst on the heavenly pilot. Has (saving) knowledge taken hold of you while engaged in military service? Listen to the commander who orders what is right. (II:200)¹⁸

If early Christians were pacifists, they surely would have stuck out in a society which used force. But the early Christian Fathers boasted that believers were not different in any way from their neighbors. In the Mathetes’ letter to Diognetus, we find:

Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity … inhabiting Greek as well as Barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has been determined and following the customs of the nations in respect of clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct. (I:26)

Since Clement assumed that Christians were in the army when he dealt with the Christian’s attitude toward various articles of clothing such as shoes, he commented:

For a man bare feet are quite in keeping, except when he is on military service. (II:267)

Before he became a heretic, Tertullian argued that Christians functioned in every level of Roman society, including the military:

We sail with you and fight with you, and till the ground with you; and in like manner we unite with you in your traffickings. (III:49)

When he was orthodox, Tertullian could pray for the armies of Rome to be brave in their protection of the empire (III:42).

Since the earliest Fathers never condemned Christians for being in the military, and they never rebuked the state for maintaining an army or a police force, the early church never condemned the use of force per se. It is no wonder that we cannot find a single instance in the early church where a Christian was refused membership or communion because he was a soldier. Nowhere do we find the teaching that Christians should desert their post.

Some view Tertullian’s and Origen’s writings as strong evidence of pacifism in the early church. Let’s take a closer look at these two men and what they wrote.

Tertullian (a.d. 160-215)

At the beginning of his ministry, Tertullian was quite orthodox in his theology. During this time he accepted the need for armies to fight righteous wars and recognized the presence of Christians in those armies (III:42, 49). After Tertullian joined the Montanist heretical movement with its ascetic view of life, Tertullian came to regard any contact with Rome as compromise with idolatry. The secular/sacred dichotomy can be found throughout Tertullian’s later works.

Fourteen years after writing the apology where he approves of Christians participating in all of life, including the military, Tertullian wrote De Corona Militis.

In De Corona Militis, Tertullian exhorted Christians to withdraw from political and military life because the clothing, wreaths, oaths, and symbols of office had their origin in idolatry. Christians were expected to withdraw from all “secular” occupations and to give themselves to spiritual works (III:93-101).

In his book on idolatry (III:73), Tertullian explains why he felt that a Christian could not be involved with Rome at any point. He preached that a Christian could not hold any public office whatsoever. It did not matter if he were the mayor of a small village or a soldier in the army. Any association with Rome was an association with Satan himself. Not once in this work or any other work does Tertullian state that war per se is evil or that governments do not have the right to maintain armies and to exercise force to protect its citizens. He is not attacking soldiers specifically. He is bitterly denouncing Christians who were involved with Rome at any point. Tertullian withdrew to a secluded monastery in Egypt and established one of the first pacifist communities.

Origen (a.d. 185-254)

Origen represented the earliest attempt to create a blend between Christianity and pagan philosophy. His many unorthodox views, such as the preexistence of the soul, led to his subsequent condemnation as a heretic by church councils.

In his reply to Celsus’ demand that Christians should fight for the emperor regardless of what idolatry may be involved, Origen answered that Christians do in fact fight for the emperor but on a heavenly and spiritual plane (IV:667, 668).

While Christians could pray and fight spiritually for the empire,

To those enemies of our faith who require us to bear arms for the Commonwealth, and to slay men, we cannot. (IV:668)

Origen believed that Christians were on a spiritual plane and should not become involved in such secular activities as war. He believed, nevertheless, that some wars were perfectly just and that it was the duty of Christians to pray that enemies of righteousness would be destroyed in such a war (IV:268). It is clear from his statements, that Origen was not a pacifist in principle because he did not believe that the use of force per se was evil.

As to Hippolytus, who said that Christians should not bear arms (V:256, Canon 14; 257, Canon 14), he did not explain why Christians should avoid military service. When he picks up the subject in his apostolic tradition (16; 10-22), he deals with it in the context of idolatry and immorality. We are not explicitly told why he felt Christians should not be involved in the military.

Cyprian made one reference that has been seized upon as proof he was a pacifist. He stated:

The hand spotted with the sword and blood should not receive communion. (V:488)

When we turn to the context for his statement concerning hands spotted with blood, we find that he was dealing with “adultery, fraud, and manslaughter.” He was discussing murder, not military service per se, or killing someone in self-defense or in a war situation.

The Councils of Arles (a.d. 314) and Nice (a.d. 325) not only produced some of the great creeds of the church such as the Nicean Creed, but they both upheld the Christian’s right to be involved in the military. They saw no controversy with believers being soldiers except when this necessarily involved idolatrous oaths or ceremonies.

St. Basil stated in a.d. 370:

Our fathers did not think that killing in war was murder. (XIV:605)

While he did not see any biblical reason or apostolic tradition for cautioning taking communion after killing in a war situation, he went on to say that perhaps it would be good for a short period to avoid communion after killing in war.

Conclusion

We have surveyed the archeological and literary evidence concerning whether Christians participated in the military before Constantine, whether or not they condemned war in principle and the state’s use of force in particular. The evidence demonstrates that Christians entered all areas of life from the beginning of the New Testament period. They did this because they viewed all areas of life as under the lordship of Christ. Christians could be found in every honorable profession from the military to that of sailors or farmers.

Only after the pagan philosophic idea of dividing life into a secular and sacred dichotomy invaded the Christian Church did we find a few writers who exhorted Christians to abandon all “secular” occupations. They felt Christians should avoid political and military life because of possible association with idolatrous practices.

Did any early Church Fathers set forth that it is intrinsically wrong for nations to use force to protect its citizens? When we turn to the evidence to see if any took this position, we find nothing. Not once is Rome called upon to disarm. Not once did Church Fathers urge nonresistance as a national policy.

Because of the idolatrous elements in the Roman army, some early Christians had a great struggle serving in the military. But once Constantine removed those idolatrous elements from military life, we do not find any other problems for Christians who desired to enter political or military professions.

This is an excerpt of When is it Right to Fight? by Robert Morey

As we approach the Gospel material, we must emphasize the necessity of not reading into the Bible ideas and issues which are uniquely related to the twentieth century. Instead, the only valid hermeneutical assumption we can make is that Jesus and the apostles will deal primarily with the issues and questions of their first-century audience. We should not expect them to deal with such things as nuclear weapons because such things did not exist in their day.

This means we cannot claim direct Gospel support for issues which could not have been of any interest in the first century, because they did not yet exist. We can easily fall into the trap of getting more out of the Bible than what is really there.

An honest reading of the Gospels reveals that neither Jesus nor His apostles ever deal directly with such modern abstract issues as the morality of war, nuclear weapons, unilateral disarmament, foreign and domestic policy, industrial pollution or urban blight. Nowhere do they directly answer such questions as:

“What is our responsibility in times of war?”

“Is it proper for a nation to go to war?”

“Should the police carry weapons?”

Once this point is understood, it becomes obvious that the only way for us to arrive at answers to some of these issues and questions is to deduce by logical inference what Jesus might have said if He had been asked about such things.

We readily admit that logical deductions can be tricky. We must be very careful not to put our words into the mouth of the Lord Jesus. All we can do is arrive at His most probable answers. We must base our research on logical inferences drawn from His sermons and the way He dealt with problems in His own day.

Once we understand that the best we can come up with is the most probable answer drawn from inference, we must be careful to avoid arguing in a circle. Many stumble into this typical violation of logic quite sincerely, and quite blindly.

For example, what if we approached the Gospels with the assumption that we already knew that Jesus was a pacifist before even picking up the Bible to see what He said? We would naturally give a biased interpretation of His words in such passages as the Sermon on the Mount.

Once we had done this, we could then argue that Jesus was a pacifist on the basis of His words. Proving in our conclusion what we had already assumed in our premise, we would end up arguing in a circle.

This equally applies to someone who uses circular reasoning to prove that Jesus was in favor of war. If the form of the argument is invalid, it is invalid no matter which position is using it.

Since we can only infer what Jesus might have said about such things as national wars, we must accept the answer which has the most evidence. We cannot make a “leap of faith” as some do and arbitrarily assume that our position is the biblical one simply because we wish it to be so.

The Most Probable Answer

At no point in Jesus’ ministry did He ever tell Israel or Rome that governments should disarm. He never condemned the just use of force as taught in the Scriptures, nor did He ever condemn the police for using force to punish criminals. Despite the clarity of the Old Testament in its divine approval of the use of force, Jesus never once preached against a nation having an army or the state maintaining a police force.

Logically, this can lead us to only one possible inference. Jesus’ silence meant that He approved of and accepted the Old Testament precedent of the valid use of force. Whenever we study the Scriptures, a biblical and historical precedent stands until directly removed by divine revelation.

The following points from the Gospels further strengthen this logical inference:

1.  Jesus spoke with obvious approval of a king who waged a just war to punish a wicked people by putting them to death (Matt. 21:33-41). While Jesus was not discussing war per se, His use of a just-war model for this parable is possible only if Jesus accepted the Old Testament concept of the just use of force.

2.  When dealing with Roman or Jewish soldiers, Jesus never told them to leave the military or that it was morally wrong to be soldiers (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 6:15). This lends further support to the inference that Jesus accepted the scriptural position of the valid use of force. If He were a pacifist and opposed in principle any violence by anyone, He would not have failed to rebuke those who were in the military. Jesus was not known for overlooking sin in the lives of those who sat under His teaching. He denounced sin wherever and in whomever He saw it.

3.  In Matt. 24:6, 7, Jesus clearly stated that wars would remain part of human experience until the end of the age. If He were a pacifist, then this would have been a perfect opportunity to condemn all wars. Jesus did not do so in this passage. This underscores the fact that although Jesus referred to the use of force in war or self-defense on many occasions, not once did He condemn such things.

4.  Since the people of God had been involved in political and military life throughout history (Abraham, Joshua and Daniel, for example), the fact that Jesus never once told His disciples that they could no longer be involved in those spheres of life is significant.

5.  One searches in vain for a secular/sacred dichotomy in Jesus’ teaching. To Him all of life was sacred. His disciples were involved in every walk of life. Jesus did not condemn governmental or military careers as being “secular” or sinful.

Once we understand that Jesus Christ is Lord of all life and all life has been sanctified by His dominion, the secular/sacred dichotomy is destroyed. There is no occupation or area in life which a child of God may not be involved in as long as it is not in violation of God’s moral law as given in Scripture.

6.  Jesus said in John 18:36 that if His church were an earthly kingdom, it would be perfectly proper for His disciples to take up weapons and fight for Him.

While Jesus is clearly, in this passage, forbidding the church as an institution to use physical force in its discipline or defense, He clearly states here that an earthly kingdom can and should fight when necessary.

7.  In His parables, Jesus often pictured rulers using valid force to punish wrongdoers (Matt. 18:23-35; 21:38-41; 22:13, etc.). While this is compatible with the teaching of the Old Testament on the just use of force, Jesus would never have given such parables if He were a pacifist. This logically implies that Jesus carried on the teaching of the Old Testament.

8.  When the Jews brought Jesus to Pilate, they claimed that Jesus was trying to overthrow the Roman government (Luke 23:1-5). While it is clear that the Jews were wrong in saying Jesus had come to start a violent revolution, it is equally clear that such an accusation could never have been used against Jesus if He had been publicly preaching pacifism.

9.  At the beginning and the end of His ministry, Jesus used just force to cleanse the temple (Matt. 21:12; John 2:15). His whip of cords and the Greek words used to describe His driving out the money-changers (drove, poured out, overthrew) cannot be legitimately interpreted to mean anything else than a forcible ejection of the money-changers. The only logical inference possible is that Jesus condoned the just use of force.

When the Apostle John described this episode in Jesus’ life, he recorded that the disciples appealed to an Old Testament passage as a justification of Christ’s use of force (John 2:17). This demonstrates beyond all doubt that the disciples were not pacifists.

10.  Throughout His ministry, Jesus spoke of His using force on the Day of Judgment to punish rebellious sinners (Matt. 25:41, 46). If the sinless Son of God is going to use force to destroy His enemies, then it is not possible to view the use of force as being intrinsically wrong or immoral. We must therefore conclude that force is right in some situations.

11.  When Jesus’ enemies tried to capture Him, He demonstrated that no one could take His life away from Him (John 10:17, 18). Jesus exercised divine force and knocked down His attackers (John 18:1-6). Since the Son of God himself exercised force in self-defense, then the use of force in self-defense should be viewed as good.

12.  Jesus told His disciples to buy weapons to arm themselves (Luke 22:36-38). While this is hardly consistent with a pacifist picture of Jesus, it does strengthen the inference that Jesus approved of the Old Testament principle of the use of weapons in self-defense. We cannot imagine a pacifist arming his disciples with weapons.

13.  After Peter had cut off Malchus’ ear, Jesus did not tell Peter to throw away his sword but to put it back in its sheath. Evidently there would be other occasions where it could be rightfully used (John 18:11).

God’s plan of salvation called for Christ to die. The disciples would have hindered God’s plan if they had risen up to fight for Christ and delivered Him from the Jews. When force is exercised to hinder God’s plan or revelation, it is unjustified violence. Such illegitimate violence will only lead to further violence (Matt. 26:52).

14.  Later during one of His trials, Jesus said He could call upon an entire army of angels to fight for Him if He wished to be delivered from death (Matt. 26:53).

Obviously, Jesus felt that the use of such force in certain circumstances would be perfectly just. But Christ had come to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies concerning His death (Matt. 26:54). This explains why Jesus did not call upon His disciples or the angels of God to fight for Him. It was not because He was a pacifist, but because He had come to die for our sins.

In the light of these fourteen points, we can logically conclude that the most probable position of Jesus according to the Gospel data is that He supported the scriptural use of force in personal or civil defense. From the beginning to the end of His ministry, Jesus spoke with approval of the just use of force. At no time did He condemn it.

The Sermon on the Mount

Of all the sermons which the Son of God preached to the multitudes, the Sermon on the Mount has always been the favorite of God’s people. Even non-Christian scholars acknowledge the amazing depth, clarity, and practicality of this sermon. Its ethical force lives on in the hearts of people all over the world.

In order for us to understand this passage of Scripture in all of its depth and beauty, we must be careful to observe the principle of context. Christ is contrasting His view of the inner spirituality of the law of God to the externalized legalistic interpretation of the law that had arisen in rabbinic Judaism.

This is important to point out because a superficial reading of the sermon might lead some to think that Christ was attacking the Old Testament Scriptures. Indeed, some commentators interpret the Sermon on the Mount as the place where Jesus contrasted His New Testament ethic of love with the Old Testament ethic of hate. They claim Jesus directly rejected the Old Testament. Marcion felt this way, too. Marcionism was one of the ancient heresies condemned by the early church. It pitted the New Testament against the Old Testament.

Marcion taught that the Old Testament was worthless so far as a Christian was concerned.¹

The early Christians condemned Marcion’s position on the Old Testament for several reasons.

1.  Christ began this sermon by assuring His audience that He had not come to destroy the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17). Indeed, this would have been impossible because the smallest stroke in the law must be fulfilled (v. 18). Furthermore, anyone who attacks the Old Testament, misinterprets its commands or encourages people to break its laws, will be least in the kingdom of heaven (v. 19).

With Christ’s disclaimer at the beginning of His sermon, it is impossible to interpret His subsequent words as an attack on the Old Testament Scriptures.

2.  In Matt. 5:20, Jesus zeroes in on what He is going to deal with in His sermon when He refers to “the righteousness of the Pharisees.” He refers to the traditions and teachings of rabbinic Judaism that had arisen during the intertestamental period. The Mishna, Midrash and Talmuds have preserved some of these traditions. (The intertestamental period is the time gap between the last book in the Old Testament and Jesus’ birth, about 400 years.)

The Pharisees had become legalistic in their devotion to the traditional interpretation of the law as given by their fathers. They had voided the meaning of God’s law through their man-made traditions. Thus Jesus and the Pharisees frequently fought over whether we should follow tradition or Scripture (see Mark 7:1-13 as an example).

3.  Since Jesus was refuting the rabbinic interpretation of the law and not the law itself, He introduced His points by saying, “You have heard that it was said to people long ago … but I tell you …” (Matt. 5:21, 27, 33).

If He had been quoting Scripture, then He would have used His usual formula: “It is written…” He was not rejecting the Old Testament, but the warped and twisted interpretation  the Pharisees used when they explained it.

4. A final proof that Jesus was dealing with rabbinic law is found in verse 21 where He said, “Anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.” This statement is not a quote from the Old Testament but from some rabbinical writing. Most modern commentators point this out clearly.²

Now that we have properly identified the context of the sermon, we can begin to make several observations on its content.

First, 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 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. Jesus never brought up such subjects. So any claims that the Sermon on the Mount calls for national or international pacifism must be rejected as exegetically erroneous.

Second, Jesus is clearly discussing personal ethics. He is describing vital inner qualities of piety and the ways in which we should respond to our neighbors when they become sources of irritation.³

That is why Jesus could talk about loving one’s neighbor, turning the other cheek and giving ones’ coat to someone. At no point in the passage does Jesus discuss national or international ethics.

This last point is very important because it would be a basic logical error to assume that personal ethics can be applied to national or international situations without modification. It is rather simplistic to assume that the rules in Matthew 5 governing personal behavior during times of peace must be followed by nations in times of peace or war.

Third, while Jesus reestablishes the Old Testament principle that individuals should not seek personal vengeance (Lev. 19:18, Matt. 5:38-42), this can hardly be applied to the church or to the state. Both are under divine obligation to punish offenders.

The church has a moral obligation to punish an offending member even to the point of excommunication (Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:4, 5).

If personal ethics must apply to the church, then the church’s use of moral, spiritual and ecclesiastical force in disciplining its members must be viewed as wrong. But if the church’s use of spiritual force in disciplining its membership is correct, then the church has a unique set of rules to guide its behavior, not the personal ethics of Matthew 5.

The state has a moral obligation to punish offenders even to the point of death (Rom. 13:1-4). While it is wrong for individuals to take the law in their hands and punish people out of personal vengeance, the Scriptures clearly teach that the state is to use the sword to punish evildoers and to protect the good. The state cannot function on the basis of personal ethics if it is to fulfill its God-given task.

Fourth, Jesus was not discussing what to do if one’s life is threatened or what to do if the life of a spouse or child is threatened. We are to avoid overreacting or exploding in anger when we receive personal insults. Don’t be so quick to respond in like manner when evil is done to you. Don’t be short-tempered but be patient and kind.

For example, in Matt. 5:39, Jesus specifically referred to the right cheek as being slapped instead of the left cheek because the slap of the right cheek by the back of the left hand was a personal insult and not an act of violence done in the context of war. Slapping the right cheek was not a life-threatening attack. It was a personal insult, like spitting in someone’s face.⁴

Fifth, let us take a close look at some of Jesus’ words which some people have mistakenly interpreted as teaching pacifism.

“Blessed are the meek” (v. 5). We must not assume that meekness means weakness. This is clear from the simple observation that Moses was described as “very meek, more than any other man on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3).

Since Moses was a man of strong, aggressive leadership and was involved in warfare, being “meek” has nothing to do with being passive toward evil or the enemies of God. The word itself carries the connotation of a quiet strength and resolution to overcome evil.

“Blessed are the peacemakers” (v 9). The Greek word “peacemaker” was one of Caesar’s titles.⁵ He was called “the peacemaker” because he won and maintained peace by the use of force. The word does not mean “peaceable” or “pacifistic” or “peace at any price.” The word meant “peace through strength.” As such, it named the head of the Roman army without contradiction.

“Do not resist him that is evil” (v. 39). When Jesus gives us the general principle that we should not be quick in returning evil for evil, His subject is dealing with your neighbor. We should personally be willing to go the second mile in enduring personal insults in order to win our neighbors to Christ.

The idea that Jesus is here saying that no resistance of any kind is to be made against evil is absurd. Even extreme pacifists resist evil by peace demonstrations, hunger strikes, not paying taxes, denying the military draft. Yet nonviolent and passive resistance are still resistance.

Equally absurd is the idea that resistance against any kind of evil whatever is condemned by Jesus. The New Testament tells us to “resist the devil” (1 Pet. 5:9; James 4:7). Didn’t Jesus resist the Pharisees (Matt. 23)? Aren’t all Christians called upon to fight for the faith (Jude 3)? Are we not called upon to resist heretics (1 Tim. 1:3-11; Titus 1:9-11)? Certain kinds of evil should be endured while other kinds of evil must be resisted.

Conclusion

Our survey of the Gospels has revealed that Jesus supported the scriptural use of force for personal or national defense.

There is no evidence in the Gospel material that Jesus taught pacifism or nonresistance. On the other hand, Jesus’ use of the just-war model as the basis for multiple parables and as the pattern for the Judgment Day revealed that He was not in any way uncomfortable with Old Testament teaching in this regard.

For Review and Discussion

1.   Did Jesus ever condemn the Old Testament’s approval of the use of force?

2.   How can we discover what Jesus might have said if He had been asked about Christians being involved in the military? Did He tell soldiers to desert their post?

3.   Would Jesus use the just-war model as the basis of some of His parables if He and His hearers were pacifists? Would a modern pacifist bring up war and capital punishment without registering some kind of protest? Did Jesus ever register such protests when He brought up such things?

4.   Did Jesus use force in cleansing the Temple, in escaping His enemies, or at His arrest?

5.   Was Jesus rejecting the Old Testament in His “Sermon on the Mount”? Was He dealing with personal ethics or international justice? Can personal ethics be applied to the church and the state, or do they follow special rules?

This is an excerpt of When is it Right to Fight? by Robert Morey