“You have head that it was said, ‘an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth. ‘But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one would borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42)” This verse is one of the most famous appeals to what is called Christian pacifism. The idea is the believer is, under the directive of this verse, never to participate in any form of violence. There are two different variants of this attitude: hard and soft. The hard stance is that no Christian is to participate in any armed force, even as a police or military member. The other camp is that the officials of the state are the only ones responsible for defense of the citizen from bodily harm, and only Christians in the military and police are permitted to be armed and use force in defense of their fellow neighbors. This, however, is a grave misinterpretation of the passage, and one that is upheld out of the false assertion that the Great Commission, and this passage, forbids us, to the point of judgement, from defending ones bodily person and others. The problem here is two ideas: one that the resistance of the believer against rape, assault and battery, mugging, and even homicide impedes the gospel of Jesus Christ, and two that the death of the believer by these tragedies is necessary for the gospel to advance. The gospel’s deliverance and fulfillment is under the direction of the Holy Spirit, and fulfilled through the Spirit’s impression on unbelievers, not through the actions of believers themselves. So how does one interpret the issue? Is it wrong to own means of protection of family and friends? Is it wrong to use such means? Is the government the only entity allowed to use such means? Even the question, “Does carrying a weapon imply a lack of faith in God?”.
The first part is to breakdown the most common passage appealed to in the argument for Christian pacifism. “But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the cheek, turn him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39 ESV) The passage, taken of its own accord, would seem to give implication of condemnation for use of force or resistance of any kind. However, the previous verse gives much important background to the use of the verse. “You have heard it said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” The importance of this is the that the phrase is a throwback to the old expression in the Hammurabi code of law of equal punishment for the crime, of which was abused to extend to matters of retaliation. The key of “the one who is evil” is the surrounding persons by which the person who is evil is explored. Verse 39 “anyone slaps you on the cheek, turn him the other also.” The context comes from the Jewish culture surrounding what such a blow actually meant. A slap on the face was not a form of physical abuse; the practice was offering insult to the person receiving it. (1.) Understood in context, turning the other cheek has to do with refusing to retaliate, and letting the person who insults you condemn themselves. However, the interpretation of the verse is left ambiguous by virtue of the opening. “Do not resist through violent means of self-defense. (1.)” This is incumbent on whether the interpreter is taking Jesus’s words in response to insult and civil dispute, or taking His words in response to assault and battery, rape, and murder. If the former case, they are abiding in the context. If the latter, they have jumped ship into eisegesis. Offering ones cloak was a matter of resolving a dispute by offering the means by which even the warmth and security of the person during night was given to resolve a dispute with an enemy. (2.) Both (1.) and (2.) address the issue of Roman obligatory carry of possessions for the stretch of a mile, hence the expression “go the extra mile”, referring to giving more than was asked for. The interpretations of verse 42 are widely divergent. The first one tries to argue the beggar turned bully, from which they should not resist the evildoer. The second one interprets the passage in reference to an enemy who is now in need, not depriving them out of retaliation. Of the two interpretations, the second is the most faithful to the context of the passages subject matter. The issue of Matthew 5:38-42 is the matter of retaliation against injury and insult, not threat of death or bodily harm. The person is not condemned for defending against a stabbing or shooting of themselves or others because the context determine the meaning: no interpretations are to be impregnated on Scripture that exceed what it discusses.
Another passage commonly employed in the matter is Matthew 26:52-54, specifically 52. People take the first passage as an indictment against all use of force exempt, as Romans 13 discusses, by the state itself. This means no possession or use of arms or martial arts in personal bodily defense of self or others. A clear error in exegesis emerges from this interpretation though. The line is delivered after v.47-51, when a mob, including temple officials, came to ARREST Jesus. They had an official arrest that would have been recognized by the state, and Peter striking the slave was him attempting to thwart the ordinance of the state, which Romans 13 makes clear is the ordinance of God. The following verses of 53-54 address it in the sense of the fulfillment of Scripture and the power of Jesus to call 12 legions of angels to His defense. The fact that they were armed with swords and clubs made it clear that Jesus was, especially by healing the slaves ear, saving Peter’s skin by preventing the arrest, and possible execution, of Peter for attacking officials of the state. Those that draw on the sword will die by the sword. This proverb does not make sense in the context of a condemnation of possession of arms and personal defense because Jesus was aware of the possession of swords by His disciples by His omniscience, and Luke 22:35-38 only solidifies the matter. If Jesus was at odds with personal defense from bodily harm, he would have condemned that possession of sword among the disciples, not ignored it (though it cannot dogmatically be stated, it is fair to interpret Jesus as telling His disciples to possess swords among them for personal protection). As such, the passage is being taken out of context when people argue pacifism as a mandate for believers from this passage.
Romans 13 puts a moral imperative, and a supernatural command, from God in a specific manner. The chapter calls believers to be subjects to government under the fact that all authority is instituted by God, to where armed resistance is to resist God himself, and incur judgement accordingly. The big question comes, “If the Bible describes the power of the sword being in the hands of the state, does that mean believers should not possess arms of any variety?” The answer to that is that the term sword does not, in this case, constitute a physical sword. Rather than a literal interpretation, it is better taken in reference to what the sword represents to major society. The sword has always been a symbol of administration of judgment and judicial force, so it was a common symbol of justice. The issue of the verse concerns the power of the state to administer justice in accordance with God’s will, which puts the death any spirit of vigilantism that one can bluster. The fact that justice and judgement is excluded to the state leaves the issue squarely under the purview of the state, rather than having ground in the self-appointed judgment of the subjects. Does that mean defense of bodily person, and other people, is out of the question? By no means. Self-defense concerns preservation of life, not self-appointed executioners of it. This context, even more so, puts a moral imperative on the believer. When one is suffering the threat of death or bodily harm, believers are not to be idle and walk away? If we are to be Christ to the least of these, the bystander effect has to end. Believers do not invoke a heaven mindedness that makes them no earthly good, otherwise they affirm the common complaint of Marx that religion is the opiate of the masses (meaning an anesthetic that removes any sensation of pain and anguish at social injustice and wrong doing).
The final thing to address the ever-present “if you have a gun, knife, sword, mace, taser, or your bare fists (a la martial arts), you are putting your faith in them rather than God.” The crux of the argument is that deference to God’s Sovereignty is the absence of the exercise of human agency, and, by extension, the expectations of preparation and pro-activity. A man does not lack faith in God when he (or she if a woman is involved) puts on a seat belt while driving. Nether are they fools in their faith when they irrigate channels for their crops. Neither in acquiring a job, and laboring for their daily bread. Nor hunting animals to put food on the table. And especially not in the matter of using Xanax and Prozac for anxiety and depression respectively. So in what manner would preservation of human life through defensive, and/or deterring force, be any different? The League of Nations may have felt that appeasement and pacifism was an appropriate response to Adolf Hitler’s blitzkrieg military imperialism, but they would pay for it dearly when it really came to war with Germany when they threatened even the nations that were members of the league. As such, submitting to a city of felons only empowers evil to do evil unto others, rather than leave evil abated. Prevention of violence and crime does not hinge on the backs of military and police personnel alone; the citizen must be an active measure, and component, of this process.
So what do believers say? Are we to continue in pacifism that evil may abound? By no means. How can believers, those who have been called to bring hope and the light of Jesus, let those who could hear the gospel die at the hands of those who have hardened their hearts to the imago dei in other human beings? If believers are serious about bringing the redeeming gospel of Jesus the Christ to the world, we must be serious about the fact that life is valuable to the point it must be defended, and preserved, even to the point of the death of the one whom is, at that point, hard-hearted and impenitent. Could they come to Christ in the future if they lived? The question is invalid because it presumes another path of God’s metanarrative of history that the story may take. If God has appointed something to happen, it will happen irrespective of who is the agent, and the agency is exercised. Pursuing godliness, and love for one’s neighbor, means doing good unto all who are in need. Let God ordain events, man act in the conscience of the Holy Spirit, and let the plan unfold, whatever means God chooses to use.
(1.) Burrick, George Arthur, John Knox, Nolan B. Harmon The Interpreters Bible: New Testament Article Matthew Mark (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1951) p.301
(2.) Blum, Edwin A., Jeremy Royal Howard, Charles L. Quarles Holman Christian Standard Bible Study Bible (Nashville, Tennessee: Holman Christian Standard Bible, 2010) p.1621