Christian Nonviolence, and Peacemaking: A Bible Study
- Jon Sherwood
- 19 hours ago
- 27 min read
This is a small group bible study about Jesus and Christian pacifism, nonviolence, peacemaking, and enemy love.
Quick Reference
Isaiah 2:1-4 - A coming kingdom of nonviolence.
Isaiah 9:1-7 - The coming Messiah will be a “Prince of Peace”.
Isaiah 11:6-9 - No place for violence and destruction in the kingdom.
Matthew 5:1-12, 21-26, 43-48 - Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you.
Luke 11:1-4 - Your kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.
Matthew 26:36-56 - Jesus exemplified what it looks like to love your enemies.
John 18:28-40 - Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, so they don’t fight.
2 Corinthians 10:3-4 - We fight, but with different weapons.
Ephesians 6:10-20 - Our fight isn’t against other humans.
Justin Martyr, 100-165 AD.
Cyprian, 200-258 AD.
Apostolic Traditions, 170-236 AD.
Clement of Alexandria, 195 AD.
Irenaeus, 180 AD.
What about the soldiers in the NT?
What about Romans 13?
What about Jesus saying to buy a sword?
What about defending the innocent?
Purpose
It is my conviction that the issue of nonviolence and pacifism [1] has been largely lost to our “Christianized” culture, one that can often run parallel along streams of American-Christian nationalism. [2] I did not come to this conviction overnight, and as you study this topic in the Bible for yourself, and with others, it is important to try to remain faithful to what the text says, for there are a great deal of emotions attached to this topic to be sure.
Many people can be tempted to jump straight into hypothetical situations and scenarios, trying to apply human logic and reason (and sometimes the flesh), to very complicated and difficult questions around issues of Christian nonviolence, peace making, and enemy love, but do your best to stay focused on the Scriptures during your Bible study.
This has been written in a Bible study format so that it can be used easily to share with others, but of course this is meant only to be a primer and can’t do justice to such a sweeping topic in such a short space.
This bible study may not present a source of real life struggle for some, and may remain in the abstract theological idea realm. Many people can seem to embrace the idea of Jesus’ teachings to love your enemies. However, when people’s lives, and especially their vocations (particularly military and law enforcement), bring them intimately into the reality of possibly taking another human being’s life, someone who is made in the image of God (no matter how corrupted that image may be), this topic becomes extremely relevant.
Some might argue that this is a “disputable matter” (such as whether or not we can eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, cf. Rom 14), but I believe it is a central theme in the kingdom of God that Jesus came to usher in. [3] Of course I am not the judge of anyone’s eternal salvation, for God alone is the judge (1 Cor 4:1-4), but we are each called to proclaim the gospel honestly, genuinely, fearlessly, and with conviction (Eph 6:19-20; 1 Thes 1:5), to the best of our ability and understanding.
I find it interesting that most Christians would not have a problem calling certain vocations and professions to be given up in order to follow Jesus into the kingdom of God (e.g. prostitution). However, when it comes to Jesus’ teachings on killing, or loving enemies, it is often much more confusing. Now, of course I am not saying that working in the military or law enforcement is sin in the same way that lying and stealing are, but I believe it is not a role that God intends for us to fulfill in the world, because there are actions involved in these roles that are at odds with the King, and our kingdom calling. [4]
As an introduction to this sensitive topic, I offer this quote from John Howard Yoder (even though he didn't live up to his own theology),
“Christians love their enemies not because they think the enemies are wonderful people, nor because they believe that love is sure to conquer these enemies. They do not love their enemies because they fail to respect their native land or its rulers; nor because they are unconcerned for the safety of their neighbors; nor because another political or economic system may be favored. The Christian loves his or her enemies because God does, and God commands his followers to do so; that is the only reason, and that is enough.” [5]
Opening Question
What do you think of the ideas of nonviolence and loving your enemies? How does this topic make you feel?
A Peaceful Kingdom Foretold:
Isaiah 2:1-4
Isaiah Background: Isaiah was a prophet to Israel and wrote this book in the early 700’s BC. He is primarily taking up the issue (as many of the O.T. prophets do) that God is sovereignly ruling the universe and every nation of history (cf. Acts 17:26) even while his people are experiencing the dominance and oppression of the great Mesopotamian powers (Assyria then Babylon dominated the ancient Near East from about 900 BC until about 540 BC). Isaiah is one of the most quoted prophets by the New Testament writers.
It is in this context that he writes extensively about the nature of the king that will come and rule with righteousness and peace. All of the N.T. authors say Isaiah as pointing to Jesus.
In Jesus we are “taught his ways, so that we may walk in his paths” (v. 3), in order to “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks … nor will they train for war anymore” (v. 4). Isaiah prophecies of a coming kingdom that is one of nonviolence (it doesn’t even have human weaponry).
What do you think about being a part of a kingdom (the mountain of the Lord’s house) in which you don’t train for war anymore (take up arms)?
Isaiah 9:1-7
The zeal of the Lord, even from the time of Isaiah, has always desired to be rid of the warrior’s boot used in battle, and to establish a kingdom of everlasting peace. This prophecy is fulfilled in Christ as the Prince of Peace of the everlasting kingdom.
“The child’s names (‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’) were not for any Israelite king, no matter how arrogant. At the same time, this child is somehow a descendant of the human David (v. 7). Yet unlike many of the Davidic kings (especially Ahaz), he would rule “with justice and righteousness” (v. 7; see 16:5). All of these factors present conundrums that are finally satisfactorily resolved only in Jesus Christ, the true Immanuel. Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. The combination of these four titles, or throne names, in one person represents the totality of this child’s royal power. Counselor. Just as God needed no other counselor when he created the world (40:12–14) nor any other to give him plans for the nations (14:26–27), so this child is his own counselor. Mighty God. This title, which belongs to Yahweh (10:20–21), also belongs to this child. Everlasting Father. The ideal king who provides for his people and protects them, in this case forever (63:16). Prince of Peace. Unlike the princes in the pagan pantheon who were always the source of trouble and upheaval, this child will be the source of “peace,” a biblical concept that includes much more than mere absence of conflict; it speaks of wholeness and integration with no issues left unresolved (26:3; 32:17; 52:7; 66:12).” [6]
Isaiah 11:6-9
In this upside down kingdom of God that Isaiah foresees, even the animals are at peace with one another. Whether this is to be taken literally (perhaps what Paul has in mind as he says that nature will be redeemed in Rom 8:19-22?) , or poetically, the point is clear. When Jesus reigns and people in his kingdom are “filled with the knowledge of the Lord”, there is no place for violence or destruction.
Jesus’ Teachings:
Matthew 5:1-12, 21-26, 43-48
The sermon on the mount is one body of teaching (whether it was actually delivered at one time by Jesus or not is irrelevant), and has been called Jesus’ Magna Carta or Manifesto. In this body of teaching there is one central theme; love. Love for the oppressed, love for the oppressor, love for your friends, love for your enemies, love for your neighbor, and love for those that are far away. Love.
To be meek, peacemakers, merciful, persecuted, to not take revenge, to not resist an evil person, and to love your enemies [7] is the manifesto of the kingdom that Jesus ushers in.
Luke 11:1-4
Your kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven - Jesus desires for God’s peace in heaven to reign on earth through his people that live in peace.
Love Your Enemies: An Overview of Jesus’ Teachings from the Sermon on the Mount and Plain [8]
Lk 6:27 - Do good to those that hate you.
Mat 5:44; Lk 6:28 - Pray for those that persecute you or mistreat you.
Lk 6:28 - Bless those who curse you.
Lk 6:35 - Lend to them (your enemy) without expecting to get anything back.
Lk 6:36 - Be merciful as your Father in Heaven is merciful.
Lk 6:37 - Forgive them.
Mat 5:46-47 - To not love our enemies in these ways is to be just the same as everyone else and to not do the extraordinary things people in Jesus’ kingdom are called to do.
Mat 5:45; Lk 6:35 - To do these kinds of things for our enemies is to be like our Father in Heaven.
“Welcome to Jesus’ upside-down kingdom … Heads will turn as we turn our cheeks. Our inexplicable behavior will call attention to our inexplicable God. Light will beam across our dark world as we love the spouses whoo don’t love us back, keep our word when it hurts, judge ourselves rather than others, and - most shockingly - love our enemies who are harming us. When we are cursed, we bless. When we are hated, we love. When we are robbed we give. And when we are stuck, we do’t strike back with violence.” [9]
Jesus’ Actions:
Matthew 26:36-56
Perhaps the greatest of all examples, is Jesus himself dying at the hands of his enemies, willingly, and peaceably (well, I guess he knocked everyone over with his voice in Jn 18:6, so there’s that). He calls us to follow him, ultimately, even to a cross at the hands of our enemies.
Jesus said that he willingly laid down his life (cf. Jn 10:17-18), even though he had the power to resist, he chose not to (v. 53), and explicitly told his followers to do the same - not to retaliate or fight back, either to save his life, or their own (v. 51-54). I think we can understand why they all fled in that moment. [10]
John 18:28-40
In John’s gospel account we see that Jesus, to the amazement of Pilate (representing the wisdom of the world - cf. 1 Cor 1:18-31), not only doesn’t defend himself when his life is in jeopardy at the hands of his enemies, but he explains why. In v. 36 Jesus explained that his kingdom doesn’t operate like the kingdoms of the world, and he specifics the way that it is different. The subjects of his kingdom don’t fight to prevent his arrest - meaning they don’t fight or kill, even in order to save their own lives, or the lives of others.
This can only be true (much less practiced) if we believe in the king of a different kind of kingdom, one that he alone sovereignly rules over death and the grave (Rev 1:18).
Paul’s Appropriation:
2 Corinthians 10:3-4
Paul appropriates Jesus’ teachings on loving your enemies by stating that as Christians in the kingdom of God we do wage war, but not in the same way nor with the same weapons that the world does. Instead the Christian’s “weapons” are that of prayer, the Spirit, the word of God, and the fellowship of believers.
Ephesians 6:10-20
Paul continues this motif of contrasting the war and weaponry of the world with that which is used by those in the kingdom of God. There he says explicitly that our “battle is not against flesh and blood” (against other people), but rather we are engaged in spiritual warfare under a very different “commanding officer” than that of the world (cf. 2 Tim 2:1-4). [11]
Teachings in the Early Church:
There was a uniform voice through approximately the first 250 years of early Christian writings about the issues of pacifism and nonviolence in Jesus’ kingdom. [12] While of course these early writings [13] are not considered part of the inspired Christian canon, I believe they can still serve as an aid for us to get a glimpse into how early Christian leaders wrestled with these topics. [14] I only provide a brief sample here:
“We ourselves were well conversant with war, murder and everything evil, but all of us throughout the whole wide earth have traded in our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for plowshares, our Spears for farm tools. Now we cultivate the fear of God, justice, kindness, faith, and the expectation of the future given us through the Crucified One … The more we are persecuted and murdered, the more do others and ever increasing numbers become believers.” (Justin Martyr, 100-165 AD) [15]
“We are scattered over the whole earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood. And murder – which is admitted to be a crime in the case of an individual end is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for wicked deeds, not because they are guiltless – but because the quality is perpetuated on a grand scale!” (Cyprian 200-258 AD) [16]
“The professions and trades of those who are going to be accepted into the community must be examined. The nature and type of each must be established. … Anyone taking part in baptismal instruction or already baptized who wants to become a soldier shall be sent away, for he has despised God. … A soldier in the sovereign’s army should not kill or if he is ordered to kill, he should refuse. If he stops, so be it; otherwise, he should be excluded [from the fellowship of the Lord’s table].” (Apostolic Traditions) [17]
“It is not in war, but in peace, that we are trained.” (Clement of Alexandria, 195 AD) [18]
“The new covenant that brings back peace and the law that gives life have gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said; ‘For out of Zion will go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and he will rebuke many people; and they will break down their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and they will no longer learn to fight.’ … These people [Christians] formed their swords and war-lances into plowshares, … That is, into instruments used for peaceful purposes. So now, they are unaccustomed to fighting. When they are struck, they offer also the other cheek.” (Irenaeus, 180 AD) [19]
Frequently Asked Questions:
What about the soldiers who had faith?
Often the accounts of the soldiers that are commended for their faith (typically the centurion in Mat 8, and Cornelius, also a centurion, in Acts 10, and sometimes the soldiers with John the Baptist in Luke 3) are brought up as counter arguments. They are typically used as examples of soldiers who weren’t explicitly commanded to give up their jobs because of their faith in Jesus. [20] They were commended for their faith, and yet weren’t told to leave their vocation, therefore it must be ok to be in the kingdom of God and hold these types of positions, so the argument goes? [21]
While this certainly makes logical sense, not only to our minds, but also to our emotions, it is ultimately an argument from silence based on only a couple of passages. Just because the Bible doesn’t explicitly command that these soldiers give up their jobs in view of their faith in Jesus as the Messiah, of course doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t, or that they shouldn’t (we don’t know if they specifically gave up their roles and vocations either, we can't be definitive either way). We must be careful with arguments from silence when reading and interpreting the Bible, for there are many things that the Bible doesn’t explicitly say. But as we look at a particular topic through the lens of Scripture as a unified whole, rather than a few selective or obscure passages, we can arrive at a harmonious and trustworthy interpretation. [22]
The New Testament itself doesn’t make any proclamation about specific vocations as it relates to following Jesus per se (for instance Jesus didn’t tell anyone specifically to quit their vocation, but rather to repent - but it is implied that some would have to change their profession if they were to follow Jesus into his kingdom). It is my conviction that it is extremely difficult when taking the Scriptures as a whole to justify violence, or intentionally taking (or keeping) a vocational role that could require you to take another person’s life when living in Jesus’ kingdom. [23]
By way of example, I provide the Oath of Enlistment (an oath that is required for all new American military recruits):
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (italics mine). [24]
In all honestly, I find it very difficult to align this kind of oath with the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament that says we are not to defend against enemies, but rather love them and pray for them (Mat 5:43-44). That we are not to have any faith, loyalties, or allegiances above God himself (Mat 22:37-38), and that we serve a different commanding officer than those of the world (2 Tim 2:4) - though we are to pray for those in authority over the kingdoms of the world (1 Tim 2:1-4). This kind of oath or “allegiance” is actually antithetical to the gospel of Jesus’ kingdom.
What about Romans 13?
Often Romans 13 is looked to as an argument to support Christians being in the military and law enforcement etc. because “the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. … for the rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Rom 13:4, italics mine). The idea is that Paul here is supporting that Christians can be God’s servant and agents of wrath against evil. But upon closer look at the passage, we see that Paul is actually saying the opposite, that it is the pagans (not Christians) that are his agents of wrath. [25] Just before this Paul says to the Christians in Rome that they to bless those who persecute you, to not repay evil for evil, and to live at peace with everyone (as long as it is on you), and to not take revenge because it is God’s job to avenge, but on the contrary that Christians should feed their enemies when they are hungry, not exercise wrath against them to bring them punishment (Rom 12:14-21)! So to look to Romans 13 as a justification for why Christians can use violence and kill in the military (and law enforcement - for in Paul’s day the two were essentially the same entity of the state) seems to actually cut against the grain of what Paul says in Romans 12. Obviously, Paul condones the existence of governments and authorities here (he is not advocating anarchy), however he calls Christians to non-participation in those systems when it requires them to violate the teachings of Jesus, especially when it comes to killing and violence. [26]
Peter actually continues this same thought in 1 Peter 2:11-25 as he tells the Christians as “foreigners and exiles” (v. 11) to submit themselves to every human authority, even if they are wicked and evil emperors (v. 13). He also states that God sends “authorities” and “governors” to punish those who do wrong (v. 14), implying that it is not the Christians who do so. Instead the Christians are to be the ones that silence ignorant talk of foolish people because of their good behavior (v. 15), even if you are a slave of an evil and unjust slave owner (v. 18-19). I mean wow, that’s intense.
Peter also says that Jesus just didn’t come to die for us in a nonviolent way because he was the Messiah and he had to die to atone for sins somehow, but that actually the nature of his nonviolent, non-retaliatory death was an example that we are supposed to imitate and follow (v. 21-23). Peter calls our attention to why we are supposed to do this, because we, like Jesus, entrust ourselves to the one who judges justly, God himself, and him alone.
I believe this is the true crux of the matter. When we take another human beings life (whether that be after birth or before it), we are ultimately taking judgment into our own hands and deciding what and who is “evil”, and who should live or die. For those of us that live in the kingdom of God, this is simply not our judgment to make, because we completely trust God, even with our lives and the lives of others around us, who alone is the one that judges justly.
What about Jesus saying to buy a sword?
In Luke 22:36-38 Jesus tells his disciples to sell their cloaks in order to buy a sword. This is often looked to in order to promote the idea that Jesus endorses violence in some instances, otherwise why would he tell his disciples to buy a sword. Of course as first blush this makes sense, however as we look a bit closer we see that when Jesus learns that they already have two swords (one of them almost undoubtedly belonging to Simon the zealot), he says that is enough. It is obvious that Jesus is not interested in arming his ragtag group of disciples to the teeth for an armed conflict (the conflict that Jesus knows is getting ready to happen in the garden). So what do we make of the two swords being enough. I think a clue lies in the middle of the passage where Jesus says, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Lk 22:37). Apparently Jesus connects his disciples having two swords to the prophesy of Isaiah (53:12). This chapter of Isaiah is seen in the New Testament as one of the most common chapters quoted about the Messiah. Here in Luke, we see Jesus connects Isaiah’s prophecy to himself and what he is doing with his disciples and their two swords in that moment.
While it may be a bit of a curious passage, it seems as though perhaps Jesus is connecting his disciples having two swords as “numbering him with the transgressors”. This could perhaps imply that for Jesus, being a transgressor was connected with violence and “having a sword”? Either way, one thing is sure from this quizzical passage, as we see Jesus on his way to his lay down his life, there is no encouragement for the use of weapons (Lk 22:49-53).
What about defending the innocent?
In all honestly, this may be the most difficult question on this topic. It is also often the most emotionally charged and tends to hit closest to home for many people. This is where all the hypothetical examples (and real ones) enter into the conversation (in my experience, most conversations on this topic tend to start here, which is probably not most helpful). These examples include things on a global scale such as Hitler in World War II, all the way down to the most personal scale of the attacker in your home trying to kill your family. The question goes something like this, “Doesn’t loving your neighbor (whether they be your family member or another nation half way around the world) mean protecting them from harm, even if it comes down to killing as a last resort?” Granted, this is a difficult question, and of course “love always protects” (1 Cor 13:7), but does this mean that it is “okay” as citizens in God’s kingdom to protect the “innocent” by taking the “evil” person’s life?
Though this is not an easy question, it reveals the most basic, and most important, question of all on this topic; is it ok for a Christian to kill someone in any situation? Could someone selflessly love someone by protecting them and being willing to kill the person’s enemy, without hatred toward that person in their heart? While I think this kind of things makes sense and is logical, I don’t believe it squares with the teachings and life of Jesus, his disciples, or the earliest Christians. Let me sketch just a few reasons. [27]
First, when we remove the emotional elements from the arguments, we see that this logic translates as such; “we should love our enemies, feed them, cloth them, and pray for them … except if they should threaten my life, the life of my wife, children, loved ones, or the dear innocent old lady down the street in my neighborhood (or anyone else that I deem as ‘innocent’).” In fact, in this line of reasoning, we should have a moral obligation to do whatever we need to in order to stop them (if this is what it truly means to love our neighbors, and love always protects, etc.). Of course this logic can easily be extended further to the boundaries of nations and countries when they haven’t done anything wrong and are the innocent party, violent action should be taken to stop them. Of course, most soldiers in any country thinks they are the “good guys” in a conflict. And if you have a real conversation with a solider (from any country), you will find that the boundaries between good and evil, right and wrong, the “good guys and the bad guys”, are not so easily distinguished. In all honesty, while of course this kind of thinking makes perfect sense to our minds (and flesh), when we embrace this, are we really doing anything more than others (Mat 5:47)?
If we play this logic out, and it is the Christian’s moral obligation to “protect the innocent” with violence and killing when necessary, then every Christian should be armed to the teeth. If this is the case, then the pastor of Unification Sanctuary in Pennsylvania who had his congregation bring their AR-15s to church so they could pray over them and bless them after a school shooting in Florida days before, [28] would be the natural outcome of such thinking.
But Jesus teaches just the opposite. When his innocent life, and the innocent lives of his disciples were threatened by evil he entrusted himself to God (although is was not easy - Mat 26:36-46). Instead of telling his disciples to pray over their weapons in order to protect the innocent, or combat evil by killing people, he tells them to put away their weapons (Mat 26:51-56). He even amazes Pilate (the Roman commanding officer and the epitome of military might, conquest, and injustice), with his nonviolent kingdom, even as Pilate has Jesus’ life in his hands (Jn 18:36).
Second, we are making a huge assumption when we think that using violence, especially killing someone, is the most loving thing we can do in order to protect someone else. The truth is that we don’t really know that. Our understanding and judgments are too limited. When we rely on our logic and wisdom to define who is “innocent” we are often prone to err. Sometimes we think things are black and white, but we often think we are right according to human wisdom, but many times there are unintended consequences. By way of example, think about all of the civilians and “innocents” that were killed during World War II when the United States dropped atomic bombs on entire cities, killing hundreds of thousands of people almost instantly, all in order to “combat evil”. Really, it’s just not that cut and dry. God’s wisdom looks like foolishness to the world (1 Cor 1:18-31).
Third, there is just no evidence in the New Testament of Jesus, or any of his followers, defending a life by killing another. Not only do you have Jesus and his disciples in the garden who are nonviolent and do not defend themselves, but also when Jesus is confronted with a mob wanting to kill an adulterous women (who was guilty mind you). Jesus doesn’t defend her by violently attacking the mob, but rather stands between them and her, and disarms them in a unique and creative way (Jn 8:2-11). Then you have Stephen, the first Christian martyr that is recorded in Acts 7, and there is no mention of anyone trying to defend him by attacking his attackers. [29] Then you have the Christians in Pergamum being honored by Jesus because they didn’t renounce their faith in him, even when “Antipas, my faithful witness, was put to death in your city” (Rev 2:13). Jesus notably doesn’t tell them that they should take up arms and defend their lives, even in the city “where Satan lives”, but rather that they should’t renounce their faith in him (implying they should be ready to die for their faith, just like Antipas). The early Christians were willing to die for their faith, they were not willing to kill for it.
Closing Thoughts
If this is your first time wrestling with this topic, I would like to encourage you to seek God and his will through the Scriptures, not just through hypothetical situations, logic, reason, intellect, or even your “common sense”. But instead through God’s word. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, his weakness stronger than human strength. And we preach a triumphant Christ who was crucified, which is a stumbling block and foolishness to so many (1 Cor 1:23-25).
This may be jarring, it may be counter-cultural, and it may be controversial, but as we seek God through his word and the power of the Spirit, I believe he will lead us into greater faithfulness to him and his kingdom calling. As we continue to wrestle through this very difficult and often highly emotional topic, I would like to offer a closing thought to this section by quoting Preston Sprinkle, [30]
“Choosing violence over nonviolence, power over suffering, vengeance over forgiveness, or temporal justice over love, disrupts this un-Roman, counter-American, not-of-this-world narrative. The nonviolent rhythms of the cross meet the melodies of this world with dissonance. I accept the charge of being impractical. Perhaps some will think I’m weak. Maybe critics will say I’m idealistic, naive, or too heavenly minded to be of earthly good. I’ll take that. But the one thing I never want to be accused of is diminishing the cross.” [31]
Concluding Questions
What do you think, and how do you feel, about Jesus’ teachings on nonviolence and being willing to lay down your life for your enemies in order to follow him into his kingdom?
What practical implications do you think Jesus’ teachings might have on your life? Why?
Further Reading
I would encourage reading the New Testament while paying attention to the topic of violence and how it is supposed to be handled in the kingdom of God. [32]
Also see book recommendations here.
Practical Implementation
This teaching of Jesus can have radical implications on people's lives and vocations. But at the heart of the gospel is the call to be willing to give up our lives for Jesus (Lk 9:24; Jn 12:25). The application of this teaching for those specifically in the military or law enforcement occupations (or other such occupations like executioners, judges, etc. - vocations that put you in the position to potentially kill other people made in the image of God) will be sensitive and nuanced. I cannot lay down a blanket statement on how each situation must be handled, other than to say it be handled with love, care, compassion, and conviction.
For people in these types of vocations that want to come into the kingdom of God and embrace the Lordship of Jesus in their lives, it is appropriate for them to consider pursuing a different vocation that is more congruent with the teachings of Jesus (cf. Mk 10:17-31).
Bible Project Videos
Footnotes:
[1] Although the term “pacifism” represents the common idea presented here, I believe that the New Testament doesn’t teach pacifism in the sense of the word that typically means “doing nothing” under threat. There are nonviolent methods that Jesus himself told people to employ in response to threat, such as fleeing for example (Mat 10:23, 24:16). We see the apostle Paul as well employ such tactics when he calls upon his Roman citizenry to escape punishment or perhaps death (Acts 22:22-29). I believe Ewell is helpful here, “Christian pacifism is not passive because it: (1) creatively seeks alternatives to the violence of this world, (2) actively engages the powers of violence, even to the point of death, (3) is courageous enough to act like Esther and to face the earthly powers - to the point of putting one’s own life on the line, (4) takes responsibility for not killing the oppressor and for finding another way forward, and (5) presumes that prayer is an essential aspect of the Christian life” (C. Rosalee Velloso Ewell, “Isn’t Pacifism Passive?” A Faith Not Worth Fighting For, Kindle Edition, 12-17. As quoted in Jones, Kingdom 3, 158). In this brief appendix I will not attempt to parse out how to appropriate Jesus’ nonviolent kingdom teachings to every circumstance, but instead provide a rough sketch of a few common questions and simply call people to consider these issues thoroughly and prayerfully.
[2] For more on this topic see: Michael Burns, Escaping the Beast. Politics, Allegiance, and Kingdom (Illumination Publishers, 2020); John Mark Hicks (ed.), Resisting Babel. Allegiance to God and the Problem of Government (Abilene Christian University Press, 2020); Richard Bauckham, The Bible in Politics. How to Read the Bible Politically. 2nd ed. (Westminster John Knox Press, 2010); Richard T. Hughes, Christian America and the Kingdom of God (University of Illinois Press, 2009); John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 2nd ed. (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing, 1994); Tim Mackie Archives, “Lecture on the Early Church & Politics: Tim Mackie”, Aug 15, 2017, https://youtu.be/wXcSJVW8rg4.
[3] For more see: Tom A. Jones, The Kingdom of God - Volume 3: Learning War No More (Illumination Publishers, 2020). Followers of the Way, “‘It's Just War’ - Should Christians Fight? Debate,” April 20, 2014. https://youtu.be/K4xQaDDKY7k.
[4] Jones, Kingdom 3, 15, 169.
[5] John Howard Yoder, “Living the Disarmed Life,” A Matter of Faith, Sojourners’ Magazine Study Guide (January 1982). As quoted in: Jones, Kingdom, 196.
[6] D.A. Carson (Ed.), NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible (Zondervan, 2018), 1184.
[7] Notably, Jesus doesn’t say “love your enemies, except for in these particular circumstances.”
[8] Jones, Kingdom: Volume 3, 55.
[9] Preston Sprinkle, Nonviolence: The Revolutionary Way of Jesus (David C. Cook, 2021) 144.
[10] Interestingly, it was Peter who a short time before said that he was willing to “die with” Jesus (Mat 26:35), but as we come to find out he was only “willing to die” in a particular manner, a manner of his own choosing - through the vehicle of fighting. He was unwilling in that moment to willingly give up his life the way that Jesus did (c.f. Jn 13:36-38). Of course, we understand from church tradition that eventually he did end up willingly laying his life down as a martyr for his Lord.
[11] Notice how Paul uses the military metaphor in 2 Tim 2 to show how we are devoted, like a solider, to our commanding officer Jesus Christ. This occurs in the context of Paul saying to remember Jesus Christ risen from the dead (v. 8) and that we are to die and endure with him (v. 11-13).
[12] The idea of Christians participating in a “just war” (today known as Just War Theory) has seeds in Augustine of Hippo’s writings (particularly A City of God) around the time that the state of Rome began to blend with the church to become one entity in the late 4th century AD. For more see: Jones, Kingdom 3, 74-91; Sprinkle, Nonviolence, 261-75.
[13] For a good compilation and translation of these writings see: J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: The Early Christian Writings of Church Leaders Who Followed Soon After the Apostles of Jesus Christ (Christian Publishing House, 2020).
[14] For more see: David W. Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More Than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998).
[15] Bercot, Dictionary, 676. As quoted in: Jones, Kingdom 3, 63.
[16] Bercot, 680. As quoted in Jones, Kingdom 3, 64.
[17] “Most scholars believe the Apostolic Traditions was written by Hippolytus of Rome (170-236 AD), in it are listed various professions that must be ‘given up’ or ‘rejected’: keeper of a brothel, sculptor of idols, charioteer, athlete, gladiator, prostitute, sodomite, magician, and soothsayer.”Eberhard Arnold, ed., The Early Christians in Their Own Words (Plough Publishing, 1997), 90. As quoted in: Jones, Kingdom 3, 64.
[18] Bercot, Dictionary, 676.
[19] Bercot, Dictionary, 676.
[20] Interestingly, Sprinkle points out that “as a centurion, Cornelius (as well as the centurion in Matt. 8) would not only be pressured to worship foreign gods, but also be responsible for leading various ceremonies on behalf of his cohort. As a centurion, Cornelius would essentially function as a pagan priest! True, Peter doesn’t forbid Cornelius to use violence. But neither does he forbid him to perform pagan duties. Because that’s not the point of the story. Acts 10 and other solider-salvation passages highlight one basic point: the gospel pierces the hearts of unlikely people - even Roman military leaders. These passage simply don’t give us all the details about what the soldiers did after they got saved.” Sprinkle, Nonviolence, 209 (italics mine).
[21] For a more thorough development of this, as well as other frequently asked questions see: Tom A. Jones, The Kingdom of God - Volume 3: Learning War No More (Illumination Publishers, 2020). 146-50. For responses to other common questions, see specifically chapters 8-10 (p. 114-63) as well as Sprinkle, Nonviolence, chapter 12 (p. 235-53).
[22] For example, it would be unwise (and unnecessary) to try to interpret the New Testament writings one the topic of baptism through the single (and obscure) passage that Paul wrote to the Corinthians about “baptisms for the dead” (1 Cor 15:29). Of course, in that single scripture one could come to all kinds of conclusions, but I believe it is more faithful, and likely a more accurate interpretive approach, to instead interpret the obscure passage in light of the many other clear teachings on baptism in the New Testament. For more on this I highly recommend, Gordon Fee, and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth. 4th ed. (Zondervan Academic, 2014).
[23] I am indebted to Dr. Douglas Jacoby for pointing out that, “if extortion (taking someone’s property by violence) is forbidden to soldiers (Luke 3:13), the[n] taking lives would (a fortiori) [used to express a conclusion for which there is stronger evidence than for a previously accepted one] be even more prohibited.” (italics original) Douglas Jacoby, December 20, 2021, private email correspondence. Used with permission. For more on this particular question see: Jones, Kingdom 3, 118-20; Sprinkle, Nonviolence, 244-46.
[24] “Enlisting in the Military,” Today’s Military: Department of Defense, accessed December 22, 2021, https://www.todaysmilitary.com/joining-eligibility/enlisting-military.
[25] As you look closely at the meta-narrative of the Bible you see this theme consistently, that God sovereignly rules over the nations and empires of mankind for his purposes and will (i.e. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Xerxes, Artaxerxes, Pilate, etc.).
[26] I have no desire to parse out exactly which ways Christians can participate in governmental systems, other than the clear call of the New Testament for all Christians, as aliens and foreigners (meaning that their truest citizenship is to God - Phil 3:20), to submit to their governing authorities (when not in violation of God’s kingdom - Rom 13:1-5; 1 Pet 2:11-25), to pay taxes (Rom 13:6-7; Mat 22:15-22), and to pray for all leaders, that there may be peace (1 Tim 2:1-3).
[27] See: Jones, Kingdom 3, 157-63.
[28] The Associated Press, CBS News, “Hundreds gather at church for blessing ceremony featuring AR-15s,” updated February 28, 2018, accessed January 7, 2022. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hundreds-of-worshipers-gather-at-church-hosting-ceremony-featuring-ar-15s/.
[29] In fact, it seems very likely to me that Luke’s inclusion of Saul of Tarsus at this point in the story (8:1) is to highlight this very thing, that Saul was a violent man (cf. 1 Tim 1:13) who believed he was serving God by killing whom he judged to be a wicked and evil person in Stephen, only later to be brought into Jesus’ kingdom of nonviolence himself (Acts 9:1-19). Also notice how Saul is introduced here as “still breathing out murderous threats” (9:1), and what it is that Jesus converts him to: “how much he must suffer for my name” (9:16).
[30] I love the way that Sprinkle characterizes himself on the back cover, “I’m an evangelical Christian. And I’m not Amish, Quaker, or Mennonite. I own several guns and still believe that the smell of a recently fired shotgun on a crisp fall morning comes darn near close to paradise. But I’ve tried my hardest to understand God’s Word and the diverse perspectives of those who read it. And the more I study, the more I discuss, the more I’ve become convinced: Christians shouldn’t kill or use violence - not even in war” (Sprinkle, Nonviolence). While I don’t necessarily share Sprinkle’s affinity for hunting, I certainly have become convinced of Jesus’ nonviolence teachings and life as well.
[31] Sprinkle, Nonviolence, 257.
[32] It is helpful to read books as they were meant to be read (or listened to) in one sitting. So that means as much as possible, try to read the books of the NT in one sitting to be able to hear and see the over-arching themes and contours of the writing as a whole.
This has been adapted from an appendix originally published by Jon Sherwood, ONE: A Guide to Making Disciples in the 21st Century, used with permission.
