No New Testament justification for war or killing?

I have not been able to find any justification in the New Testament for a disciple of Christ Jesus to physically take up arms with an intent to use deadly force in self-defense, protecting the innocent, or even going to war.

Are there any NT scriptures to that end (before Christ Jesus physically returns again), and I’m just missing them?

Of course the Old Testament is replete with stories of the children of God obeying his voice to kill pagans, that is not what I’m asking about.

Hey Caleb-

What do you think Jesus would have done if he had come upon a man sexually abusing a child? Or even physically abusing a child?

TMK,

What is your answer to that question?

Speculations like these are what lead men to idolatry. We begin to formulate our opinions about what God does, or would do, rather than form our views based on God as He has revealed Himself, and as He actually is.

I am genuinely curious about how your answer that question however.

Rhetorical questions shouldn’t require an answer.

Let’s just say He wouldn’t have turned and walked the other way.

I do know what He did when he saw men abusing His Father’s house.

TMK said:
"Let’s just say He wouldn’t have turned and walked the other way."

What would he have done (not rhetorical)?

A teacher was asked by his students, "What does it mean to love my neighbor as myself." The teacher replied to them this way;

There was a woman going downtown on Broadway to Times Square, when she was attacked by a rapist. He stripped her of her clothes, and he began abusing her. A church-going man happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw what was happening he passed by on the other side. Then , a businessman happened to be going by that way , and when he saw what was happening he passed by on the other side as well. Then a skeptic was traveling by that way, and when he saw what was happening , he had pity on the woman, grabbed the rapist and threw him off of her. His head hit the curb and he laid there unconscious. The skeptic then covered up the woman and brought her to the hospital. He paid the hospital bill in full for her
to be treated and cared for. The next day it was reported that a man was found dead on the side of the road due to a head injury.

Which of these three men do you think illustrates the meaning of "love your neighbor as yourself?" The students replied, "The one who rescued her from the perpetrator.”

"Go and do likewise”, the teacher said.

Thank you for the replies brothers. Todd, that is a very common question I get when discussing this. People go to the extreme "what would you do if?" scenarios.

While I've not come upon someone sexually abusing a child "in the moment", one of our children has been sexually abused by a relative. You can imagine the range of emotions we experienced when we learned about this. We are still dealing with the fall out too. It is excruciating on so many levels.

Savannah, thank you for that parable. Very well written. I see the compassion of the one who came to the rescue of the victim, and hope that I would do the same. Still, it would sadden me if the perpetrator died apart from Christ Jesus, heinous though their crime is. But I must have faith that God will always do what is right and perfectly just with each precious soul He creates. I must admit, it does seem as though justice was served in that parable, with the perpetrator reaping what they sowed.

As for no new testament scriptures supporting disciples of Christ Jesus using deadly force for self-defense, protecting the innocent, or fighting in war, I am not surprised.

May all disciples of Christ Jesus on earth unite in walking as he walked! Lord, help us all.

Force need not be deadly. But it may have to be violent. I agree that we would not want to kill someone in 99% of circumstances. Well we would never *want* to. And 99% of us (not in military or police type jobs) would ever be faced with such scenarios. I think God created us to protect when possible. It would not be godly to allow evil men to rape or kill loved ones or innocents.

What was to be done when the menace of Communist, Nazi, and Japanese expansionism put millions in danger along with their countries?

I'm not thinking you have no God given right to right to self defense if you are being threatenend with bodily harm or death. And as the God appointed head of the home, I believe it would be a man's responsibility to protect his family if say his home were broken into and everyone was being threatened.

Turning the other cheek etc. is when you are being insulted, not when you are being threatened with great bodily harm.

Meanwhile, I don't have all the answers. Just sort of thinking out loud here.

It would not be godly to allow evil men to rape or kill loved ones or innocents.

I hear you brother.

And yet God allows it to happen.

And Paul exhorts us to not be overcome by evil, but to overcome evil with good, leaving room for God’s wrath and vengeance.

And Jesus commands us to love our enemies.

I am with you in not wanting to allow evil acts if we come upon them happening in real time, but I trust the Spirit would lead us in the moment to take the appropriate inspired action.

As for the military and police, as disciples of Christ Jesus, I see no caveat or exemption to act with physical violence. Yet for the professing Christian men and women I’ve known that have served in both capacities, I do not judge them. Each person will answer to God.

I will say that it grieves me when I come across professing Christian’s that have militant spirits wanting to act violently against people they are angry with. That is not the Holy Spirit that I know.

All that said, and this is where I am often conflicted, there are countless times I have felt a deep sense of respect and appreciation for law enforcement officers or members of the military.

It is so mysterious to me how God clearly appoints people to those positions of authority, who He seems to use at times to enact what I perceive are righteous judgements and justice, and yet I am called to be a man of peace.

Then of course there are other times when I’m grieved by those same authorities abusing their power.

Ultimately Christ Jesus is the answer to solving every problem.

I’m just working through a lot right now.

Thank you for the conversation everyone.

I'm not thinking you have no God given right to right to self defense if you are being threatenend with bodily harm or death. And as the God appointed head of the home, I believe it would be a man's responsibility to protect his family if say his home were broken into and everyone was being threatened.

This is really a tough one brother and I know what you mean. Yet Jesus provided the perfect example for us regarding what to do when threatened with bodily harm. At times he slipped away and escaped, and we know what sacrifice he ultimately made. Likewise history recalls many saints who have been martyred without defending themselves.

As for the head of the home argument, we live in inner city Minneapolis and have been robbed multiple times on our own property. We were blocks from the riots that broke out after George Floyd died. People have been shot on our block and on the block next over from us. Two cars have been stolen from right in front of our home recently. Yet in my spirit I still do not have peace owning a firearm, much less using one to stop someone. I have really questioned the Lord on all of this asking for his guidance and leadership. How ought we to live in this neighborhood? Or is it time to move?

I have also searched the scriptures extensively on the matter, and see no other way than that of prayer, peace and loving our enemies.

It seems so counterintuitive to instinctive manhood though.

Thus far, my sense is that Christ Jesus within my heart has led me to this place of peacemaking and non-(physical) violence.

There is a deep settledness in my spirit that God is our defender and protector and that He has preserved our families lives thus far, and will for as long as He wills. We might move, but nothing is imminent. Lord knows we talk about it and have prayed about it a lot.

Yet the violence continues and seems to only increase.

I am clinging to passages like this one, longing for effectual warfare….but groaning in the meantime, as it seems like the darkness grows.

2 Corinthians 10:3-4
For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.

Much grace is needed here for the divine power to destroy strongholds. I sure hope that it’s happening, even if I can’t perceive it or see it at this point in time.

Increase my faith, dear Lord!

I sure don’t have all of the answers either dear brother David. Well, actually, we do. KING JESUS! 🙌👑 Hah! But I know what you mean brother.

Caleb, firstly thank you for your humble and relatable treatment of what will inevitably be a sensitive topic due to the personal nature and current circumstances in the world, it clearly shows your kindheartedness and empathy, not to mention your commitment to the cause of Christ and remaining true to your faith 🙏🏻

Secondly, and I’m writing with a huge smile on my face, because my general perspective is that the scriptural structure is basically a military operation. One that’s repeated until completion. Not to say by way of violence of any kind, but operationally, the structure of the 5 fold is (for me) very much akin to a military operation, albeit a spiritual one, with the Church as its base and the Holy Spirit is the commanding officer of us all.
The scripture in 2 Tim 2 comes to mind…
3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier

There are different analogies both literal and prophetic and I’d say even typographic. Joshua 9 & 10 come to mind where I see these events typographically to foreshadow Christs triumphant return and the subsequent death and destruction that follows Him. The judgement of the earth in physical form 😳 it’s something I honestly can’t even begin to comprehend tho I’ve tried.

Having said all this, and more to your point or question- (for me) it’s literally the opposite question 🤷🏽”â™‚️ which is to say, is there a New Covenant scripture that says I should not defend my wife or children or that I can’t ?
Again, for me it’s presumed that anyone, everyone everywhere throughout the span of history has an obligation to defend not only others but also themselves. This is evident even in the animal kingdom, where a momma of most species will defend her offspring. So it would be presumed to be the established norm, as a basic feature of life, even plants defend themselves when they can and sometimes through the most amazing ways (I’m a nerd). Point being is that our God, the one true and living God the Father of our Lord and savior Jesus of Nazareth, is the very one who gave us all the inclination to protect and preserve, which would inevitably include defending due to the fact that we live in a fallen world where sin and violence abound.
I do concede however that this is an individual issue, just how Timothy was far more timid than Paul, and as such would have different boundaries… unlike Stephen who went into the Synagog under the influence of the Holy Ghost and picked a fight on their territory, where for him to defend himself in that context would be contrary to the faith.

I hope that helps to make sense out of why I think like I do 🙏🏻

This article was written iin 2000 and the author was in fellowship with Rousas Rushdoony and the Chalcedon Foundation. I think they were dominoinist and perhpas post-millennial. At any rate, naturally you don't have to agree with everything he wrote. I'm not sure I do, but he raises some interesting points and insight in my opinion. For what is may be worth,see below.

(BEGIN)

WAR,THE BIBLE, AND THE STATE

That the Jehovah God is inherently opposed to war is a pacifist fiction. Israel's wars of extermination, outlined vividly in the Old Testament, refute the suggestion that God is opposed to war at all times and under all conditions. It is essential, however, to understand the objective of and context within which those wars were to be waged. In a unique dispensation, God granted Israel the land of Canaan. The tribes and nations occupying it at the time were blatantly heathen, and their sins were particularly repellant (Dt. 9:1-5). Israel as God's covenant people were called to expel these nations from a land rightfully Israel's own. In essence, they were defending their own property.

War and the State

This is a key element in the Biblical justification for war, and it relates directly to the Biblical role of the state. According to the Bible, the state is a legitimate institution, but its scope is severely limited. In Romans 13, St. Paul makes clear that it exists to punish external evildoers. By what standard? By the standard of God's written law.1 In large measure, this reduces to a defense of what the early Americans considered that great trio of "rights," life, liberty, and property. It employs the force of coercion to protect against murder, rape, pillage, kidnapping, and so forth. It does not exist to redistribute wealth. It does not exist to furnish education. It does not exist to guarantee medical and retirement benefits or any "social security." In fact, according to the Bible, the state is a greatly decentralized institution, growing out of the family (Dt. 1:13-17). Local magistrates are charged with "keeping the peace," and families authorize their role. In modern terms, we may say that the strongest politician in the country should be your local sheriff. His sole job is to suppress external evildoing ”” defined according to Biblical law.

Protection from Foreign Invasion

But if he is called to protect life, liberty, and property, he must protect it not only from domestic offenders, but also from alien offenders ”” foreign invasion. The Biblical state protects against tyranny from within (crime) and tyranny from without (invasion). There is no Biblical justification for war except to protect against tyranny from without ”” invasion. This means, in modern terms, that the state must be a "dove" when contemplating the invasion of any other nation's borders and a "hawk" when protecting its own border.

The Tyranny of the "Nation-State"

The fundamental flaw of almost all modern ideas of war is that they are undergirded by a fallacious view of the state. Today the state is almost always seen in terms of the "nation-state." It is a mammoth, maternalistic entity depicting itself in virtual organic terms (this began in earnest during the European nationalism of the nineteenth century). In blatant violation of God's law, the modern state extorts an excess of property from its citizens in the form of taxation, conscripts its citizens to fight illegitimate wars, and employs coercion to guarantee its own bloated bureaucracy (1 Sam. 8). The modern state is really nothing more than a legalized cartel. These legalized cartels ”” whether fascist, communist, Nazi, or Western "democratic" - have developed a habit of bullying their wishes on other nations. This is the cause of the vast majority of wars in human history though, in the last 200 years, this cause has been dressed up by appeal to certain ideologies, "defending human rights," "preventing ethnic cleansing," and so on. Hitler's totalitarian perversion was more straightforward ”” we Aryan racists need more land. Stalin's justification for his totalitarian perversion was more high-sounding though no less horrifying: we must free the world's workers from capitalistic exploitation. Hitler and Stalin were both monsters at the head of legalized cartels, though Stalin was by far the more destructive of the two. Western democrats more readily accept justification for murder under the guise of protection against capitalist exploitation than murder under the guise of protection against polluting the master race's gene pool. Both are godless and abhorrent, though Western democrats are more inclined to accept godlessness and abhorrence when it salves their envy and hatred for the accumulation of property, rather than their envy and hatred of some other race. The recent American wars against Iraq and Serbia are not materially different from Hitler's invasion of Poland and Stalin's invasion of Eastern Europe. All three employed the power of coercion ”” of a legalized cartel ”” to impose its will on another nation. Both Saddam Hussan and Slobodan Milosevic are in fact little tin-pot dictators who routinely deprive their citizens of life, liberty, and property ”” as all legalized cartels tend to do. But the American bombing missions did not solve this problem ”” it only deprived many more people of life, liberty, and property.

Godless, totalitarian regimes like those in Islamic nations and communist China can be gradually overcome by the methods Christians employed in overcoming the godless totalitarian regime known as the Roman Empire ”” self-government, personal godliness, covenant faithfulness, and patient perseverance under the lash of persecution.2 The Bible does not permit bombing missions, legalized murder, and the incineration of innocent civilians as an instrument to overturn the tyranny of evil regimes.

This general Christian approach toward war is the heritage of America's Old Right (conservatives). Murray Rothbard notes:

The Old Right applied its aversion to [civil] government to foreign policy as well as domestic. It held the increasing interventions of the American government in the affairs of other nations to be illegitimate, and even imperialist, intrusions that benefited neither the American people nor the world as a whole.3

Most pre-World War II conservatives were known as "isolationists" (really they should have been called "non-interventionists"), for, as Rothbard observes, they feared both the domestic and foreign intrusions of civil government. Most of today's conservatives have abandoned their great Christian heritage, and have adopted the rabid military internationalism of William F. Buckley, National Review, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, and other establishment Republicans. All these have joined the international militarists on the Left (i.e., Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Bill Bradley) and the great collaboration of America's legalized military cartel. Power tends to corrupt, asserted Lord Acton, that great defender of Christian liberty, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power in the hands of a legalized cartel is dangerous indeed - particularly when it is devoted to murder, pillage, and holocaust in foreign nations.

The only possible solution is a return to Biblical Christianity and its program of overcoming sin by peaceful change: the glorious gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, self-government, and godly families and churches, and a free market undergirded by moral premises.

Notes

1. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (no loc., 1973).

2. Ethelbert Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars (London, 1955).

3. Murray N. Rothbard, "The Foreign Policy of the Old Right," Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, 85.

P. Andrew Sandlin

P. Andrew Sandlin is a Christian minister, theologian, and author. He is the founder and president of the Center for Cultural Leadership in Coulterville, California. He was formerly president of the National Reform Association and executive vice president of the Chalcedon Foundation. He is a minister in the Fellowship of Mere Christianity.. He was formerly a pastor at Church of the Word in Painesville, Ohio (1984-1995) and Cornerstone Bible Church in Scotts Valley, California (2004-2014).

Btw Caleb, I live in Bemidji, MN. About 4 hours north of you. Howdy neighbor.

This is an interesting question

Even thou I do not believe in war
I do not want a Muslim caliphate in London or in my country

Matt 26:52
Then said Jesus unto him, "Put up again thy sword into his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

I also don't want to see Christians wiped out like they are in Armenia

From a biblical perspective it says flee but what happens in the world if there is no where to flee

Matthew 10:23
When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

What if you had vast hordes of people attacking you and doing what they did in the Oct massacre such as beheading people , raping women and children

As previous generations fought for our freedoms I think we have lost

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

So to answer the question concerning what God does to the rapist or abuser? Well, this is the answer. Seems foolishness to the world, and only the disciple can truly understand.

The judgment seat is God's business, and He will judge every man according to what he has done. But in this life, we are called to follow Jesus, and this is what He said.

We can offer interpretations and ask "Did God really say...", but that's the trap of Satan, dating clear back to the garden. Jesus calls us to simple obedience, and He will figure out the rest.

Amen brother Evan!

It’s so simple.

Yet it’s not easy (for us).

In fact, it’s impossible for us, apart from Christ Jesus.

We need his life lived in and through us.

In my first say 10 years of a Christian walk I would have considered myself a complete pacifist but after more study of the Bible and trying to keep the bible into practical context I think the Bible doesn't teach that when a person is converted that they have to give up their job as a Centurion or a law and order person like a police or even a military defender so to speak or a king or a magistrate or any of those types of law promoting jobs.

I don't think John the Baptist taught against the new covenant reality when he told the centurion to be happy with their wages and not to take it any further than that by extorting or doing violence I think the only thing that's good in the world is when to radical authoritarian governments and societies are actually penetrated by Christian morals and Christian thought.

The early church as it spread would have had Christians in all walks of life and I don't believe Paul the apostle taught them as gentiles that they need to leave their areas of work or areas of influence, Paul said to remain in the calling that you were in and I believe that would include whatever job that you may have had not to be concerned about it but to take the gospel take prayer take morals into that area whether you're Centurion a treasurer his thought was to get everyone converted Paul said he desires that all men all types of men may be saved so therefore pray for Kings and governors.

These types of positions were responsible for defending and were responsible for the punishment that was dealt out by the ministers of judgment as Paul put it who was sent to punish evil doers and to reward those who do good.

I actually think it's one of the biggest mistake Christians make that they pull out of society because they believe society is evil and had nothing to do with government or lawmaking magistrates or defending the vulnerable and weak through the police force or even the army.

Not to defend The corruption that has taken place within Christiandome as a whole through the Dark ages but as far as what's good in the world is thanks to Christian value system that has actually penetrated into the culture and the government and has overcome the Antichrist system of the Dark ages brought us out of living like peasants under the rule of authoritative wicked rulers where we can actually have a civilized world I think that is truly what the kingdom of God is meant to do. It was to affect the kingdoms of this world. Recall in revelations a verse that says the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ so there's a transferral of kingdom culture and morals that when it affects enough people good can come out of that.

If we can compare the governments that were raised up during the first and second great awakenings and then after that we're living in a time where we actually have more freedom to practice religion and that would be the goal and that is why Paul said pray that we may live a quite in peaceful life for God desires all types of mento be saved.

It was thanks to men who had a purified heart through out pourings of the Holy spirit and revival and awakenings and the postmilinial mindset that Satan will continue to lose ground even one person at a time, was the reason that we're not ruled completely by the Antichrist spirit that had control of many of the kings and the pope and the church itself.

Being persecuted for your faith is different from being accosted by evildoers in your home or on the street who mean to do you or loved ones harm. They are not even enemies in the true sense of the word. They are wicked thugs.

Loving my neighbour includes protecting the weak and vulnerable

Gary,

These are the areas where I feel my Bible is a completely different Bible to some people.

Jesus said things like, "If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you"; and I wonder how this fits in with politicians, military leaders, and elected offices that are based on public opinion. To be elected to political office you by necessity have to be the winner of public opinion, and Jesus said, "For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God". So how do we reconcile that the true community of Jesus, those called out from the world system, those that are hated by the world and accused of causing dissention, strife, those of the fellowship of crucified God who are hunted, boiled in oil, beheaded; those indwelt by the Holy Spirit, Whom the world cannot receive, are elected to office by popular public opinion and given places of influence in the very system that crucified our Lord?

Paul said, "We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things". John tells us further that everything that is needed to be elected into a public office is condemned. "For all that is in the world””the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life””is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever".

Reforming this present world is the opposite of the call of Jesus; we are called out from the world system and it's motivations. We are called to be light, walking in the midst of the world, yet citizens of another kingdom, motivated by the righteousness of God and His glory. How shall we, who by definition (ekklesia: called out ones) and by virtue of Him who calls us, than turn around and seek the approval of men? Without the approval of men there is no victory im elections, no continued support from the world system that by necessity holds up the elected officials.

The entire tenor of the new testament speaks explicitly against the social reform promoted by the kingdom now theology and it's "prophets".

As regarding violence, see my previous post in this thread. Jesus was so clear it's baffling how there is any confusion. Jesus words to Pilate clear up any misunderstanding about self defense, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin". I believe we can say those same words, and if we find ourselves in circumstances that would lead someone in the world to violence, then the disciple of Jesus shows forth their discipleship by relying on the Father and His absolute sovereignty, the earth is the Lords and everything in it.

To follow Jesus is to come out from the world system, and all of its ideals, following Jesus to Calvary. As Bonhoeffer said, "the call of Jesus is to follow Him and die", both daily in experience and more likely every day, physically as a witness (martyr in the Greek).

A man becomes our enemy the second he is against us.

If hatred is murder, how than is physical violence said to be approved by the same God that commands us to love our enemies? Is physical violence loving our enemies? The hyperbolic argument of defending the weak is ironic because you will never hear that argument from someone who is tasked to perform it. If the Father causes His sun to rise on a man who murders, are we than more righteous than Him?

These speculative debates reveal nothing more than the weakness of our faith, and how far removed this generation is from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. If self defense was a doctrine of the church, we would have no martyrs.

And again Gary, you appeal to your experience in the faith and to your advanced study of the bible. Jesus said those that obey will know if the doctrine is true. Simple, unsullied obedience to Jesus will always reveal all things, and I defy any man to perform an act of physical violence upon another human being and claim they are in obedience to Jesus. Rome tried this, Hitler tried this, Spain tried this in its conquests, and we all know the outcome and can hopefully agree that even though they claimed to be defending the will of God, and doing God service, they were not in fact doing anything of the like.

It starts with "defending the weak", and ends with blind speculation that does nothing but put us right next to the rich young ruler asking Jesus, "which commandment must we obey?" If we do that, we also will walk away from Jesus disheartened that He doesn't stoop to our level and answer our current moral dilemma. He isn't interested in our ethics, only our obedience.

Brother I do believe in all the verses that you've quoted I just don't see that believers are to just function as a church like Amish for instance which is a good example of that taken to the extreme God bless them.

Jesus made a distinction I think about the world system that is run by corruption evil and ruled by the fallen angels and the principalities and the demonic and he has called us out of that system.

In the letters of Paul we see believers in high up positions like a treasurer and in the early church we see Christianity penetrated positions of esteem and authority and they seemed to have remained in it in many cases.

I think we can clearly see also especially with the Jews that the Christians were also keeping the law , there were priests and probably temple guards and all manner of types of men were being brought to the knowledge of their Messiah I don't think the intention of becoming a Christian was to become an anarchist or lawless all to expect wicked men and the Lost pagan world to be in control over the general population's life, though beginning that is how it would have been..

I think Paul was talking about the apostles as being the scum of world and the off-scouring of all things in comparison to the believers who reigned as Kings he said.

The apostle John is talking about the sinful world system that's controlled by demons and principalities and powers and the rulers of the darkness and all that includes the lust of the flesh the lust of the eyes the pride of that life stile, it's a fallen system.

Christians were called to be the salt of the world and the light of the world, not the salt of the church the idea I believe would be as a preserving force into the world and possibly even a flavoring of salt to make those things that are bland and unacceptable as being acceptable by the power of the gospel.

And being the light of the world would dispel darkness and conquer darkness but many Christians would say we are the light of the church we're not to let our light extend into the world but I don't think Jesus had that plan and this is the reason why he said make disciples of all the nations preaching the gospel to every creature I think the plan was to overcome the evil world with the the blood of Christ, and receiving the rewards of his sufferings through accomplishing as much as possible.

I think the effect of the first and second great awakening shows what can happen when governments or people in the government get converted and godly laws and ideas and godly blessings touch those spheres of authority..

Brother I think the ideal of apostle and ecclesia actually carry with it the greek mindset of the day in which those words were used these were called out ones that carried with it the government and the authority of God to overcome all the works of Satan on the earth through the propagating of the gospel tearing down principalities and powers releasing blessing and expelling demons one by one, out of the population.

And the government will be upon his shoulders and of the increase of his government there shall be no end.

Christ is the head we are the shoulders the arms and the body of Christ in his government rests upon us and is expressed through the apostolic ministry and through the ecklisia ,the call-out onew extending the governance over the spiritual authorities that control the wicked world systems.

Jesus said all authority has been given to me in heaven and on the earth therefore go.....

In saying that I don't see the apostles giving any freedom to rebel against the government through revolutions or war as a church or as I believe but as yeast is hidden within the meal it works its way through the society and eventually the whole lump will raise up with the effect of the yeast, so rebellion is definitely condemned by the apostle Paul and Peter and I think the Jews of that day had the mindset that they were called for a war against Rome that clearly goes against scripture so I would not be anyway advocating for that type of idea.

Brother if I'm not wrong Bonhoeffer himself was advocating the killing of Hitler more than likely out of the loving belief system but that's probably a good example of him loving others and his neighbours.

This is not necessarily about self-defense this is about defense of the the weak and the vulnerable, how could anyone walk past the child that's being abducted or abused and just say God bless the perpetrators literally letting someone kill or rape or abduct someone else's child let alone our own child.

If you were my neighbour God's strengthen me I would protect your children and your wife if you were not there, and I would hope that you would do the same....🙏✝️✝️✝️ Bless you

Gary,

I had a reply all ready to address what you said, and remembered what a brother and I talked about. This forum is a lot of just people talking past each other, and this is another good example. You really didn't address anything I said, so I'll leave my initial post stand and just say that I hope you can realize one day the true hope that is in Jesus, that delivers us from the burden and bondage of this present world system, so we can walk free from it.

I certainly am glad for the full salvation of Jesus, that frees men from Satans power and world system, with all of its nefarious desires and motives.

One day Jesus will return to set up His kingdom, and it is that day, when the government will truly be on His shoulders that I look to in hopeful anticipation.

I really really really struggle with both "sides”, if there really are sides on the issue. I know these things are extremely nuanced based on a persons own journey and experience. So I don’t like to see it as "sides”.

On the one hand, when I read the Bible, it’s extremely clear that until Christ Jesus physically returns again, the earth and its inhabitants will continue its spiral toward a fiery end, save the remnant.

On the other hand, when I read the Bible, the disciples of Christ Jesus are extremely active (walking as Jesus walked) speaking truth, healing, loving, being salt and light amidst the darkness, wherever they are, at all times.

So I see no room for hiding away while the world burns and descends into more and more chaos. I’m not saying anyone here is saying that.

But at the same time, I see no evidence (scriptural or otherwise) that disciples of Christ Jesus are going to reform the beast system before Christ Jesus physically returns, so it seems a large distraction and waste of time to spend time and energy striving toward any political or institutional agenda of dominion here and now. I’m not saying anyone here is placing their hope in reforming the beast system either.

It really does seem to all boil down to loving God, loving our neighbors and abiding in Christ Jesus, being led by the Spirit moment by moment.

Which sounds all nice and easy to say, but living it out practically in these times is often excruciating to me. Especially when I see so little apparent fruit, from my limited vantage point.

But yeah, I’m not planning to go out guns blazing killing people that I think are evil. I don’t think anyone here wants to go out that way either, praise God.

Brother David! Ya sure you betcha my neighbor up here in da north ya know. 😁

I emailed you! ❤️

Ok I have a few questions, hoping to clear up my confusion regarding what you all are actually advocating based on your understanding of scripture…

For example when Jesus said "if you lack a sword, sell your cloak and buy one”
(I’m assuming) you have already resolved this in concordance with your position, but I can’t find another reason other than defense… how do you reconcile the words of Christ with your position?

Likewise if either of you were to come home to an intruder whom was violating your children or wife,… what are you all suggesting would be a NT response??

Also does the contextual situation, the fact Israel was occupied by Rome, much like modern day Palestine, not having a military or means to defend themselves, factor in at all?
Then what of the scriptures where God clearly commanded His servants to slaughter others,… for example when after the showdown w/prophets of Baal, God had Elijah slaughter 450 + people, spilling their blood in the river ….
I understand it’s OT but there are no NT situations where His servants weren’t effectively disarmed through occupation of a superior force- tho in most every case in the OT when Israel wasn’t occupied, He (the Lord) commanded them to fight, defend, etc….
While I understand we are under a different covenant, nonetheless God is the same and if He has repeatedly through scripture had His people kill/take life where they were in power then can we reasonably say that He couldn’t/wouldn't command a servant to do likewise today ??

I ask this because while discussing this issue a couple of years ago with an attorney friend, He asked "are you saying God would tell someone to kill?” To which I replied, " I can’t say that He wouldn’t, because He has tons of times resulting in the violent deaths of thousands if not millions, so how can I limit what God can command me to do?”

Thanks in advance for your patience 🙏🏻

Christian pacifists would have let Hitler kill every Jew on the planet.

I'm glad the Allies (of whom my grandfather was one) rescued the Jews and the entire world from the Nazis.

I'm thankful that christians like Rees Howells prayed for the Allies, and turned the tide of WW2.

I hate violence. But sometimes to protect yourself and others, it is permitted. The Jews, in ancient and modern times, have protected themselves from extermination over and over.

To pose a question to the pacifists on here: If you believe Israel still has a place in God's plan (as I do), do they have a right to defend themselves, or should they just let Hamas, Iran, and all the other terrorists ethnically cleanse them?

Also, isn't relying on others to protect you violence by proxy? I'd say it's even worse than doing it yourself, because if you think it's sin, you're dragging someone else in to it.

Being confident enough in one’s point of view in order to share it and attempt to influence or change peoples’ approach to life and, alternatively, being prepared to one day give an account for your teaching as Paul says: "being free from the blood of others” are two totally different things. The things being discussed on this post and some others rise to the highest level of scrutiny and the words "I think” or "in my experience” or "my opinion” have no place and are consequential. Intellectual kibitzing about life and death questions is quite indefensible.

And just to anticipate a possible pushback, everything I said is a paraphrase of multiple Scriptures.

I got the email. I'll get back to you soon neighbor.

I wouldn't want to be a pacifist say I have Hamas threating my house like they did in Israel

Or the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt where they wrote n on the doors of every Christian house

It is so hard a situation like this as the only thing I would do is pray

We are not allowed guns in England so we are basically dead

1Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Paul's letter to Timothy clearly contains the will of the Lord for the corrupt system, and that being that there would be conversions amongst the Noble though not many and amongst the kings that they would intact just laws to allow the Christians to practice their religion in peace.

These converted leaders were also responsible for protecting their citizens through civil law.

Dear Brother Fletcher,

Thank you for your gracious approach to this sensitive topic.

You asked a great question:

For example when Jesus said "if you lack a sword, sell your cloak and buy one”
(I’m assuming) you have already resolved this in concordance with your position, but I can’t find another reason other than defense… how do you reconcile the words of Christ with your position?

The passage that you mentioned is one that I have meditated on for quite some time, as I've heard many people use it as a proof text for taking up arms.

Here is the first part of the passage in Luke 22:35-37:

He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”

Jesus's own words interpret the command. Why did he tell the one who had no sword to buy one? Explicitly to fulfill the scriptures that said he was numbered with the transgressors. We ought to be cautious to impute any other motive, since no other reason is given.

I also find it fascinating that the apostle did not even end up having to buy a sword, because someone said "Look Lord, here are two swords, and He said them it is enough" (V38). Why was two swords enough, with 12 apostles? If the point Jesus wanted to make was "all of you acquire swords so that you can militantly use them in self-defense, protecting the innocent, or attacking evil", this is not a good passage to do it.

Think about it. Why would an apostle carrying a sword make Jesus numbered with the transgressors? We find out a few short verses later.

Luke 22:49-51 And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, "No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him."

In the apostles minds, the reason Jesus wanted them to have swords was surely to use them to defend or protect him, right? At least one apostle sure assumed so! Because before Jesus could even answer their question, he struck the servant of the high priest!

Then our glorious King Jesus shows yet again how His Kingdom is so different than Rome's (the worlds!).

With these four precious words "NO MORE OF THIS!", and then healing the ear of the servant, he showed that his apostle had acted wrongly (transgressed), which fulfilled the prophecy in that moment.

There are other passages that we are all familiar with where Jesus taught how different His Kingdom is than those of this world.

Does that help on that passage brother?

Then you asked another difficult question that I have long pondered as well:

Likewise if either of you were to come home to an intruder whom was violating your children or wife,… what are you all suggesting would be a NT response??

I cannot imagine the horror of that situation brother, but like I explained earlier, we have witnessed our share of violence, theft, and abuse pretty up close and personal. Yet in the moment, I cannot say for sure how I would act. I hope that the Holy Spirit would lead me in the moment to act in full obedience and accordance with the will of God. Here are two passages that came to my mind regarding how Jesus may view such violence against innocents.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.

and

Matthew 5:39 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.

Finally you asked:

Also does the contextual situation, the fact Israel was occupied by Rome, much like modern day Palestine, not having a military or means to defend themselves, factor in at all?......nonetheless God is the same and if He has repeatedly through scripture had His people kill-take life where they were in power then can we reasonably say that He couldn’t-wouldn't command a servant to do likewise today

This is one reason why I asked everyone about new testament scriptures supporting deadly force in self-defense, protecting the innocent, or in war. Because like you said, in the old testament it was so bloody and filled with the children of God killing so many people. But we are not living in those times. So our "testament" if you will, should read much differently, more like the new testament! All made possible by the birth, perfect life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ Jesus our Lord who promised to return once again!

For "nations" to rage in violence against each other, including Israel's violence, that is not the way of Christ Jesus, their and our Messiah. While the horrors of the atrocities on both sides is excruciating to hear about and see, there is only one hope and answer, which I know you have said yourself multiple times and in many ways, Christ Jesus!

Dom, you said in a post how it is so hard in a situation like this where all we can do is pray, and I totally feel you on that brother. It is easy to feel helpless, defenseless and disempowered with so much evil raging all around.

Yet could these not be the very circumstances ordained by God in this hour to teach us all much more about the power of prayer (like Rees Howell's type of praying!)?

The Sin-Bearing Servant
13Behold, My Servant shall [d]deal prudently;
He shall be exalted and [e]extolled and be very high.
14Just as many were astonished at you,
So His visage[f] was marred more than any man,
And His form more than the sons of men;
15So shall He [g]sprinkle many nations.
Kings shall shut their mouths at Him;
For what had not been told them they shall see,
And what they had not heard they shall consider.

These types of verses show the extent to which the gospel will penetrate the nations and convert those in positions of authority who are responsible for just recompense and upholding protecting just citizens through moral law and judicial systems that are not run on corrupt evil pagan demonic ideologies.

Today we can only communicate with one another about these glorious truths because the gospel has done its work in the nations especially since the reformation and the outpouring of the spirit in the first and second great awakenings and subsequent outpouring have greatly affected law governments some would even say capitalism and democracy to a great extent has been affected by those who believe the gospel of freedom and liberty to practice their business and religion and speech with out the eminence threat of the governments and the wicked demonic hordes.

There is still plenty of places if people feel LED and called to become martyrs and jailed for their faith they can go to places like Iran and North Korea maybe China and preach the gospel openly calling Muhammad a false prophet ECT which is true, the blood of the martyrs and the persecution of the Saints is still very much an ongoing calling for some but I would suggest if you really feel called to that then don't waste any time pastoring and shepherding flocks in western nations go to those places where you may obtain a better resurrection or may obtain the higher positions in the heavenly realms. The Blood of the martyrs in the Saints have paved the way for reformation in society and the prayers of the Saints in accordance with the letter of Timothy has brought peace and reformation and outpouring of Grace upon the nations to some extent and we should feel Graced and privilege to be able to bring up a family and live in that type of society as well 🙏✝️😊

There were also times of tremendous victory. During the Battle of Britain, in the autumn of 1940, when Britain stood alone against the enemy and our airmen were fighting desperately to withstand the enemy attacks, especially on London, Rees Howells said, ‘Christian England will never be invaded.’ The enemy offensive, intended as a preliminary to invasion, came to a climax on September 15, a day we remember again for the assurance of victory. The attack failed and the invasion did not take place.

Reese Howells supported the idea of reformation and considered Britain a Christian society so supported Christian soldiers and the likes

The Bible ASSUMES that good persons will protect their family and innocents from torture and death. That’s why there are no verses that say "if a man’s wife and children are attacked by evil men, the man may defend his family.” Any Israelite man who would not defend his family from harmwould have been shunned.

It’s obvious. It’s the way we were made. Abraham chased down and rescued his family from the kidnapping marauders. And he was rewarded with a visit from Melchizedek, who did not chastise Abrahams actions, by the way.

Turning the other cheek pertains to personal affronts, not protecting your family from harm. I repeat that any "Christian” man who would stand by and allow his family to be abused is not behaving in a godly manner and is an embarrassment.

Rahab hid the spies. She lied to protect them. She was rewarded by God for protecting them.

The midvives lied to protect the male infants. They were commended by God for protecting them.

Go figure!

God bless everyone for wanting to obey scripture 😁✝️

I still find it interesting no one has directly addressed my post, just stated their own views, absent of scripture (specifically new testament scripture), and argued from everything but the Bible.

Perhaps this thread is more revealing than some realize.

It should concern all of us when our views have to be based on implicit assumptions and personal moral feelings (the knowledge of good and evil, what satan tempts us toward).

I will stand with Jesus and the apostles. And until someone can prove from clear EXPLICIT scripture, WITHOUT moral, sentimental, hypothetical, emotional, hyperbolic, and man centered arbitrarity, I can rest comfortable in the stance I posted earlier.

An off-duty lifeguard, who was known by the whole town, was walking along the beach one day. He was approached by some townspeople who were in a frenzy. They informed him that a family member had gone for a swim, when a big wave took him under. They all ran toward the scene. He was heard screaming for help as he frantically attempted to remain above the water. The lifeguard noticed a sign at the direct spot where the man had gone into the water to go swimming. The sign read, "NO SWIMMING ALLOWED." At that moment the lifeguard turned around and walked away. The townspeople pleaded with him to rescue their family member from drowning. He refused and kept walking. The man drowned. The townspeople brought the case before a judge. The lifeguard's argument was that he was merely obeying the law which was the right thing to do.

So, was it the right thing to do?

Just as this is NOT a difficult question to answer...

It is NOT a difficult question to answer as to defending or protecting a family member from a wicked human being who is behaving like a wild animal.

The law of Christ is the law of love.

"NO SWIMMING ALLOWED", may be the mantra of some.

But Christ's law-of-love keepers mantra is
"NO _________ ALLOWED" as they rescue the drowning one from the clutches of the darkness of the roaring sea.

May we all be, "The Good Lifeguard."

ES-

Neither the NT or Jesus addressed all scenarios.

The sermon on the mount does not address all possible scenarios.

So we are left with basic principles of right and wrong, which hopefully God has instilled in each of us.

I submit it is right to protect our families with violence if necessary. You seem to feel it would be wrong, so I am not exactly sure what you would do in such a scenario.

As I said, I'll say again:

I still find it interesting no one has directly addressed my post, just stated their own views, absent of scripture (specifically new testament scripture), and argued from everything but the Bible.

Perhaps this thread is more revealing than some realize.

It should concern all of us when our views have to be based on implicit assumptions and personal moral feelings (the knowledge of good and evil, what satan tempts us toward).

I will stand with Jesus and the apostles. And until someone can prove from clear EXPLICIT scripture, WITHOUT moral, sentimental, hypothetical, emotional, hyperbolic, and man centered arbitrarity, I can rest comfortable in the stance I posted earlier.

Luke 3:14 in Other Translations

14 Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages."

One of the jobs of a solder is to kill.and.defemd. and participate in war if command

20Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.

One of the jobs of a slave servant was to defend the household and their masters

And as Todd said one of the jobs for a husband was to defend his family.

To provide protection and provision as he was not created the wee
weaker vessel.

Most women I've ever met would defend their children physically and any man who's not willing to defend his children or wife is worse than an unbeliver . According to Paul

Ok I thought that might be how you approached that portion of scripture. I’ve heard/read similar renderings and (for me) the pivotal point is that there is prophecy that had to be fulfilled so for Peter to strike the man’s ear was in ignorance of the prophecy that Jesus had to be "numbered w/transgressors and arrested”.. When I read the text in Matthew 26, it seems that aspect is the focus of what Jesus says regarding the matter -

Again, my understanding is that we are (born) in a spiritual war and as such the structure is a military one. While that in itself doesn’t necessitate the need of physical violence, there would be a potential for it, especially in defensive situations.

For me, the scriptures are clear that God hates sin, and if someone seeks to commit a physically violent sin against my wife or children, I will physically render them incapable of being a threat and be thankful to God that He equipped me with the ability to protect them 🙏🏻

These are the areas where I feel my Bible is a completely different Bible to some people.

Jesus said things like, "If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you"; and I wonder how this fits in with politicians, military leaders, and elected offices that are based on public opinion. To be elected to political office you by necessity have to be the winner of public opinion, and Jesus said, "For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God". So how do we reconcile that the true community of Jesus, those called out from the world system, those that are hated by the world and accused of causing dissention, strife, those of the fellowship of crucified God who are hunted, boiled in oil, beheaded; those indwelt by the Holy Spirit, Whom the world cannot receive, are elected to office by popular public opinion and given places of influence in the very system that crucified our Lord?

Paul said, "We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things". John tells us further that everything that is needed to be elected into a public office is condemned. "For all that is in the world””the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life””is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever".

Reforming this present world is the opposite of the call of Jesus; we are called out from the world system and it's motivations. We are called to be light, walking in the midst of the world, yet citizens of another kingdom, motivated by the righteousness of God and His glory. How shall we, who by definition (ekklesia: called out ones) and by virtue of Him who calls us, than turn around and seek the approval of men? Without the approval of men there is no victory im elections, no continued support from the world system that by necessity holds up the elected officials.

The entire tenor of the new testament speaks explicitly against the social reform promoted by the kingdom now theology and it's "prophets".

As regarding violence, see my previous post in this thread. Jesus was so clear it's baffling how there is any confusion. Jesus words to Pilate clear up any misunderstanding about self defense, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin". I believe we can say those same words, and if we find ourselves in circumstances that would lead someone in the world to violence, then the disciple of Jesus shows forth their discipleship by relying on the Father and His absolute sovereignty, the earth is the Lords and everything in it.

To follow Jesus is to come out from the world system, and all of its ideals, following Jesus to Calvary. As Bonhoeffer said, "the call of Jesus is to follow Him and die", both daily in experience and more likely every day, physically as a witness (martyr in the Greek).

A man becomes our enemy the second he is against us.

If hatred is murder, how than is physical violence said to be approved by the same God that commands us to love our enemies? Is physical violence loving our enemies? The hyperbolic argument of defending the weak is ironic because you will never hear that argument from someone who is tasked to perform it. If the Father causes His sun to rise on a man who murders, are we than more righteous than Him?

These speculative debates reveal nothing more than the weakness of our faith, and how far removed this generation is from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. If self defense was a doctrine of the church, we would have no martyrs.

And again Gary, you appeal to your experience in the faith and to your advanced study of the bible. Jesus said those that obey will know if the doctrine is true. Simple, unsullied obedience to Jesus will always reveal all things, and I defy any man to perform an act of physical violence upon another human being and claim they are in obedience to Jesus. Rome tried this, Hitler tried this, Spain tried this in its conquests, and we all know the outcome and can hopefully agree that even though they claimed to be defending the will of God, and doing God service, they were not in fact doing anything of the like.

It starts with "defending the weak", and ends with blind speculation that does nothing but put us right next to the rich young ruler asking Jesus, "which commandment must we obey?" If we do that, we also will walk away from Jesus disheartened that He doesn't stoop to our level and answer our current moral dilemma. He isn't interested in our ethics, only our obedience.

You wrote "and I defy any man to perform an act of physical violence upon another human being and claim they are in obedience to Jesus”

🤔

…. so how do you square having law enforcement officers with these statements,…. are you suggesting no law enforcement officer could be an obedient Christian and or we shouldn’t have law enforcement officers,… or ??

Likewise are you suggesting that a military officer could not be an obedient Christian, or that we shouldn’t have military forces…??

The implications of your statement are substantial to say the least-

Would this also apply to animals,… if an aggressive dog had gotten lose and attacked your weaker loved o e who was being overcome by the animal… how do you find the scriptures to direct the actions of the obedient Christian ?

Perhaps it would be a fruitful effort to start at the easiest end of the debate spectrum and acknowledge that :

God doesn't allow us to take vengeance no matter what.

Second, God does call us to make decisions and take actions that put our spouses and children in real and actual danger of, or that most assuredly will result in, great harm, suffering, abuse and death to our wives and even the youngest of our children. And we, knowing that, are fully expected to expose our families to these sometimes horrible outcomes.
So much is this so, that the world will think we hate our fathers, mothers, and children. Biblical New Testament Scriptural Fact. Acts and Hebrews and church history prove that out. God knows, and those called know, that what HE calls them to do or sends them to do will result in harm to their families. Even death and abuse. It's here that we can answer "What would God do if my child was being abused ?" He hates the abuse but ordains me to take actions that actually result in it. That is just a fact that cannot be disputed. Way too many examples and principles that God has decreed and acknowledged prove that true.
God wills things to happen that result in sinful acts of others that He is fully aware of and He wills the faithful acting out our precipitating behaviors anyways.

God calls us to forgive our enemy and return a blessing and not to curse.

God calls us to turn the other cheek.

Protecting our family is commanded. Does protection extend to killing ? First, who decides whether killing was the necessary act to prevent ? Second, for the sake of argument, if killing is the only means to prevent and protect, that is then the only justifiable question in the abstract. Was Jesus able and justified in calling down a legion of angels to defend Himself and His beloved friends ? Absolutely and He should have from human wisdom and worldly interests. What did Jesus do instead ? Let it happen and thereafter He let it happen to thousands of the Father's beloved children and was actually fulfilling His Father's will in doing so. It's here that we must also acknowledge that God can intervene to protect His precious children as He did with Paul and Peter but likewise acknowledge He didn't do the same for Stephen or James when they were stoned or executed and Paul and Peter met the same fates later anyway after their time to stay on earth was completed.

So, those who object to ES' statements with some kind of noble expression of we must protect young children no matter what are actually making an inditement against God or in the alternative, they will say that God must not intervene or that God can't intervene to protect His own which is not supportable by Scripture examples in the NT. He intervened often and didn't intervene more often.

God had the power to protect His Son from being abused and didn't use it. Jesus had the power to protect Himself from being abused and He didn't do it. Jesus had the power to protect His younger brothers from being harmed while He was alive and used it. Yet, after HE left earth (and still had the power to prevent harm), He ordained the death of His closest friends and brothers. I'm glad to say that Jesus' love for them and us far exceeds our paternal instincts or responsibilities. IF we think we are wiser or have a greater responsibility to protect our earthly families than God does His own, then I think we have greater spiritual issues or misreading of the Bible than we think as ES points out.

I trust that everything I just said is Scriptural and not visceral or more graciously is "merely human" or, as Jesus said to Peter, we are more concerned about the things of man than the things of God.

I have a few questions regarding your statements…

Is there any distinction (in your understanding of scripture) between being in a position where God had called you (or family members) to be, the mission field for example, where being physically harmed or martyred is an obvious potential in contrast with being in their homes and being attacked, not for their faith in Christ but because they were an easy target ?

And I appreciate your objective of resolving this issue biblically 🙏🏻
So with that in mind, do you (or others) believe that there is no conceivable circumstance where it would be godly to defend the weak (old or young) from physical or even sexual assault? or is all physical (potentially violent) restraint of an attacker sinful?

I ask because this is what I am gathering from statements like ES has made as well as the support for such statements…

Hi Fletcher,

From the NT, I don't have a Scripture that would affirmatively require killing. Scripture would dictate that this is actually required in order to do so, so the burden is on those who think we ought. But I do have Scripture that would require me dying to protect and defend my spiritual and natural family and even the lost. My point from the foundation of Scripture is that to say with a blanket statement that Scripture demands we protect by killing no matter what can be patently discredited by Scripture and has no affirmative support in the NT which is required in order to kill. There is no blanket command to protect your family by any means necessary. That is what has been posited and that isn't true proved by the examples I gave. The second point is that it is entirely error to assert that if Jesus saw a child being abused that He would take action when in fact He sees it all the time in the world but especially amongst the lives of His Saints serving Him and He "lets" or allows it to happen even though Scripture shows He does occasionally intervene in events to so protect. So all the time, Jesus sees those He loves suffering, young and old, and sometimes He intervenes and sometimes He does not. So no blanket rule.

If Jesus rules and runs my life, I think He will tell me when to kill someone and I don't have an authority to do so from Scripture so I have to rely on His Spirit giving me that instruction rather than Scripture because Scripture is silent in the NT and thus we can't use it to justify. And left to me in my human wisdom and my God given common grace of love for my family, I would never allow such suffering even if it meant killing. I wouldn't even put them in harms way whatsoever and take them into situations where they would be harmed in all likelihood, but Jesus' heart and wisdom isn't mine unless it is.

I can further divide this question and expose the root of the heart by asking would you kill someone to protect me? I'm a spiritual child of the Father and a spiritual brother of you all and Jesus. We seem to have a deeper reaction to killing for our own natural children than we do for His and this in fact reveals what is really at the heart of this issue and ourselves.

I don’t see what the problem is with speculating. We have to speculate because scripture does not cover every instance.

ES and COG-

I have a simple question that involves speculation. If a known sex offender kidnaps my 8 year old granddaughter, what should I do, based on your understanding of scripture?

Hi Todd, the only rule from Scripture that I can respond with is lay down your life to protect her whatever it takes. If you have been walking in the Spirit then as that situation arises then I would hear from Him and move in step. That may seem unsatisfying but that would be His answer as I read truth.

Thank you, that helps me to better understand where you are coming from 🙏🏻

You wrote "If Jesus rules and runs my life, I think He will tell me when to kill someone and I don't have an authority to do so from Scripture so I have to rely on His Spirit giving me that instruction rather than Scripture because Scripture is silent in the NT and thus we can't use it to justify.”

I completely agree 🙏🏻

Considering you brought this specific point to bear, which is the crux of the matter, from your understanding of scripture, does the God of the Bible have your permission to compel you to take life or is that beyond the scope of His authority over you ?

You asked "would you kill someone to protect me?”
Not likely, but I would use my body to physically protect you even if it costs me my life…. Tho I haven’t imagined a scenario where it would be necessary, I have already conceded to Him the right to command me in any way He pleases without restriction in spite of my potential reservations.

incidentally, I’m not advocating for killing anyone and no Holy Spirit filled person desires or seeks for physical violence as a means of settling disputes nor for the purpose of vengeance. What I am advocating is that to physically restrain (possibly violently) a person from self harm or harming others is not only acceptable to God but pleasing as well. Scriptural examples have already been given in this thread by other posters so no need for redundancy.
To be clear, I am not in anyway advocating for some spiritual militia going out on physical crusades of vigilante justice, that’s Islam not my faith ….
Rather, what I am definitively advocating is that faithful sober minded Christian men become once again altogether bold and as aggressive as Jesus and the apostles were in confronting the world and even the gates of hell with the gospel of repentance and of His kingdom. This in my understanding of scripture is far more profitable to Christ than cultivating a culture that allows our wives and children to be physically abused while we debate wether it’s biblical to protect them 🤷🏽”â™‚️

In your question about what to do if physically attacked - do you resist or not?

On July 7, 2022 we were victims of a home invasion. The offender was indicted for burgurly, assault on vulnerable adults, rape , etc.

We were sleeping solid when we were attacked. We resisted. My husband worked to protect me and ended up getting beaten. I resisted this rapist where he could not accomplish his wicked goal. The upshot of it all was is that during this struggle I preached to him - hellfire and brimstone -, prayed and then I became aware I was dealing with the power of darkness and after this realization hit I was led to plead the blood of Jesus on him. Did it three times and suddenly he calmed down and acted like a civil human being. (Remember the man who lived among the tombs?)

Earlier I had read in the OT the proper response of a rape victim. If she did not cry out both were to be stoned because she would have been complicit in the act which would be adultery. The NT never altered this principle.

Today, we have never been traumatized because of this incident. Whenever my memory relives this incident, I am filled with so much joy at how God intervened on our behalf. This incident got a lot of coverage via the news media and people are awed with what God did in delivering us.

Today, we believe the assailiant should be jailed because he is dangerous to society (Romans 13). (This was not the first time he did it.) If he would ever repent we would be OK with him living in the free world but until then he needs to be locked up. (He was raised in church, by the way.)

God is good. It is easy to oppose violent acts when things go well, but does God dismiss it without repentance?

One more note. The question comes, why did he attack us? He was a stranger....He told people in the jail that he attacked us because he believed Mennonites do not press charges.

Amen Sandra.

Amazing testimony to the faithfulness of God, and the fact that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness.

While that is a horrible situation, it is humbling to read your handling of it, and even more humbling to see the glory of God through it. While carnal men may say weapons or self defense classes would have been more effective, your testimony is proof positive to the spiritual reality that governs the physical world we live in. So many cannot understand this fact, and in the misunderstanding of our warfare, actually don't realize they are living in a facade, an unreality.

I say this with trembling, but perhaps that situation was ordained of God in order for His faithfulness and His ultimate glory, and you were trusted with it for this very reason; in the same way Lazarus, whom Jesus loved, was allowed to die in order for the glory of God to be manifest in his resurrection.

A Mennonite brother of the Yoder family actually translated a powerful little book along these lines called "Christ and the Powers", if you haven't I would give it a look.

You're testimony is a great encouragement to me, and thank you very much for posting it.

I believe this testimony puts this entire thread to rest, and settles every question, and every argument. Praise God.

(EDIT: I have reread your post a half dozen times, and it has made my day. What a glorious God we serve, a God that defies all human institution and logic and in His glory, does all things perfectly. Would that all mankind would trust as you do, in childlike dependance on the sovereignty and omnipotence of our Father.)

A thousand testimonies could be told regarding those who defended their families or strangers with the outcome being, either the death of the perpetrator or the incarceration of the same. And how no harm came to the innocent victim, and how the kidnapping was prevented.

Praise be to God for men who protect and serve to the glory of God.

If a father or husband believes that God would be pleased with them standing by and watching their wife/children being beaten/abused, I pity that man's wife and children. Especially if they're living in a place where it's likely for this to happen.

Those on the one side of this argument believe that it would be sin to physically protect the innocent from a brute beast (human), whereas those like myself believe it would be sin not to physically protect the innocent from a brute beast.

There is a difference between killing and murdering someone.

I am not a Hebrew scholar, but this source hear sheds light on the issue. https://www.gotquestions.org/you-shall-not-murder.html

In the 10 commandments are translated in the majority of bible version: "You shalt not kill" but a more appropriate rendering should read: though shalt not murder"

The Hebrew word רָצַח rāṣaḥ in all its other contexts talks about either the revenge of the manslayer or premediated cold blooded murder.

Killing is sanctioned in several instances:
1) Executing a convicted murderer
This is not only sanctioned but commanded under the Noahtic covenenant with all mankind. The requirement of God to execute a murederer has to be executed by man.

Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Paul uphelds the commissioning of the state to punish evil.
Here the wrath of God against the offender is to be delegated to the state, and that is all form of legitimate government on the earth:

Ro 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

2) Serving the army and engaging in battle
From the fact that 2 Roman centurions were commended for their faith and good works in the New Testament can be deducted, that God did not oppose the fact that these men were serving under a system that was partly cruel, pagan and oppressive but on the other hand acted on behalf of God as an extention of God's arm of justice.
If serving the Roman army where they would possibly engage in fighting would in itself constituted a sin in God's eyes, God would have told them for sure. Neither John the Baptist nor Jesus or Peter told them so.

However, there are situations

3) Killing someone in the defense of others apart from acting in police or military duty.
I cannot not point to any particular bible verse in the NT in respect to this. Most laws in the world condone such intervention and aquit the defender.
When there is no NT verse we have to go to the OT for clues. As others mentioned it here, in the instance of burglary by night, the defender goes free when he killed the intruder, but he is guilty if it happens in day light, albeit not as a murderer.

4) Killing to save my own life.
If someone wants to kill me as a Christian and no-one else, It would be best to ry to flee. The NT mentions Rev 13:10 which I find not easy to understand and bible translations differ greatly:
KJV - He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

ESV - If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.

The ESV rendition would imply that we should not resist being killed or taken captive. We also see in Acts where Paul did not fear imprisonment or death. In this case, God allows these things to happen. He will give us a short rest before he will resurrect us in glory.

I cannot find not a single NT instance where a believer killed someone in order to save his own life.

If you read the Foxe Book of Martyrs you find Christians fighting and killing to defend themselves and others accepting martyrdom.

This short sharing is not exactly on point with some scenarios that have been put forth that would "justify" killing. However, it does address some counter intuitive or counter God given sense of right and wrong that has been discussed. Nonetheless, it is a very helpful preaching for people who suffer in the right. We must start here in a debate over right responses to suffering and find exceptions versus the opposite approach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzlRaLMd8pU

I think perhaps the greatest deception ever propagated to the human race is that our lives are to be governed by the sense of right or wrong (the knowledge of good and evil), rather than life or death, spirit or flesh; above or below; God or satan; light or darkness; the kingdom of God, or this present world.

I didn’t listen to JP’s sermon but I read the transcript. He is talking about non-retaliation or "getting even” which is an entirely different topic.

" A man using a gun to take revenge on his neighbor for not mowing his lawn is sinning because the motivation is selfish retaliation. However, that same man using a gun to protect his family from an intruder is not sinning because his motivation is protection of the innocent, not vengeance.” (From Got Questions, "What does the Bible say about retaliation.”

I realize your objection Todd to the application of the sermon to your specific example. The original post wasn’t restricted in scope as is your proposed scenario. So the sermon I posted suggests a controlling principle for how Christians should respond to people who are doing something evil or harmful to us or someone we are close to as we seek to do right. It’s not just about retaliation if you go back and check it. The same principle that is taught could apply to Christians who are under abuse from wicked people even when they are doing nothing right or wrong. I’m suggesting that the baseline principle is non-violent response to wrong and the burden then is to establish exceptions or overrides to this principle that are founded in Scripture or by leading of the Spirit and not solely, and I would even add "merely, according to human feelings or common senses of right or wrong. I have 5 children and 3 grandchildren so please don’t chasten me about ignoring love or responsibilities. We are trying to discover God’s heart and mind in this and I know yours because I share it.

I appreciate that COG.

Although scripture does not explicitly say so I do believe God gave humans an "instinct” to protect. Just like we have an instinct to recoil when we come close to treading on a snake when walking through the yard. It is a survival instinct.

I don’t think this instinct is evil or a result of the fall, but granted it would not have been needed had the fall not occurred.

Kind of like the argument CS Lewis made in the opening chapters of Mere Christianity. There is evidence of a "higher standard” in the way people behave. He said "Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five.”

QUOTE:
"that situation was ordained of God in order for His faithfulness and His ultimate glory,"

Believe it or not, but we feel exactly the same way.

About the using of carnal weapons for self-defense...men have told my husband that if it would have been them this fellow would be a dead man. We agree if we would have had a gun someone could have ended up dead and it may very well be one of us,not the assailent. We were in dead sleep, lying down when we were attacked and to think we could have reached for a gun and shot him? I do not think so.

Shall I tell you something else that is awesome? I was 75 YO, 4'11" tall. The attacker is 6' tall, 35 YO. And...and...God enabled me to take an 8" knife out of his hand...That was God intervening. God is so GOOD, so WONDERFUL!!! God is more powerful then any other power in this world. We experienced it first hand.

And I admire my husband for his efforts to help me while it appeared he failed in the end it worked to my advantage. God is awesome.

Sandra

//And I admire my husband for his efforts to help me while it appeared he failed in the end it worked to my advantage. God is awesome.//

Indeed He is!

Rhetorical questions shouldn’t require an answer.

Let’s just say He wouldn’t have turned and walked the other way.

I do know what He did when he saw men abusing His Father’s house.

To see evil being perpetrated on another person, and to turn and walk away is pure evil. But to intervene will often mean physical violence. If I allowed burglers to enter my home and rape and murder my family while I sat by and did nothing, I would be an evil man. But to protect them might mean killing the burglars. A perspective we need to consider.

Apparently this happened earlier after a few days of controversy…

https://scnr.com/article/christian-former-military-officer-beheads-satanic-shrine-in-iowa-state-capitol_953641cd9ad111ee9c930242ac1c0002

Yes!!!

Does he have a gofundme for his defense cost?

Todd-
I was surprised that no one had anything to say about this 🤷🏽”â™‚️
He already has become a bit of a hero for many people from what I’ve gathered. The thing that got me was his statement of faith and conscience.
Tho in any case, my reaction was much the same as yours as it was personally encouraging 🙏🏻

I read the article and had a few thoughts.

First, I think the satanic altar in the Capitol building actually is more of a true symbology than a nativity scene. We live under an accepted and prevalent delusion that the government of the United States is Christian government. The founders are men who owned slaves, oppressed the weak and poor in many ways, literally cut passages from their Bibles in order to more fully support their world views and pacify themselves in their disobedience to God. This government was never, is not, and never will be a "Christian government". The kingdom of God is the only true government, and is at this point in time made up of sojourners and pilgrims, believers in the king of kings, those who live under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, waiting for the day when He returns to set up His reign from Zion. This present world and it's system is in fact, satanic. So with that said, a satanic altar in the world's governmental buildings is more appropriate than the nativity scene.

Secondly, in thinking about the actually event and what took place, this nations powers that be have set up freedom of religion and expression. In doing so, the opinion of the government official is correct, all should be allowed to display, or none. The satanic temple has just as much of a governmental right as anyone else to place a display. This is just the law of the land, something Christians are commanded to at least respect, and to obey, insofar as it does not lead us to directly disobey the will of God.

This is a prime example of one foundational truth of the world system, it's freedom is in fact slavery. In proclaiming a freedom of religion and expression, it enslaves itself to that proclamation, so that when something someone disagrees with is performed, the freedom prevents anyone from taking a stand against it, therefore effectively rendering the entirety of the system absurd. In freedom they are slaves, slaves to each other and ultimately, slaves to the very one who's altar was erected as a demonstration. It's a deep irony, and a commentary on the culture in which we live - a culture that enslaves itself to the opinions of others, and knows nothing of true freedom.

In truth, a crime was committed, and that crime carries with it a sentence. The world's government is a terror to those who do wrong, not to those who walk with God. I find no offense in a satanic altar, just as Paul found no offense in the altar to an unknown God he found. Paul used the altar as an avenue to address the people of that area, and proclaim to them that the God they did not know was an idol, and the one true God has made Himself known to them in the incarnation - the advent of Jesus, God with us.

Interestingly this parallel holds a deep significance in this season, and a striking prophetic revelation if we look at this from God's perspective, and not mans, or the world systems narrow, and darkened view.

As Christians, we should be free from the influence of the world, not allowing it to conform us to its view, values, ethics, or epistemological ideals. We walk in a different kingdom, smack in the middle of this satanic world system. Our freedom is manifested most effectively in our protest against this system by our lives unmasking it and it having absolutely no effect on us, other than our using it as a spring board to further the true freedom of Jesus found in the gospels message.

So in conclusion, my opinion is the satanic altar has more place in that building that the nativity, as it shows the actual lordship of this present world and it's system. Jesus will one day physically rule and reign in this world, but that day is soon to come, and not a present reality. It is now, and not yet. Now for the dwellers in tents, those that have no roots in this world, and can simply pack up their tents and leave at a moments notice. Not yet insomuch as those same sojourners are waiting expectantly for the creator of this earth, a world usurped by a cunning enemy, to return. We live under this amazing dichotomy of the "now and not yet", walking under the Lordship of the creator and rightful ruler now, while not yet seeing His physical rule established. I revel in the thought of the judgment seat, when I can give an account for my life, fix my eyes physically on my Savior and Lord, and finally dwell with Him forever in His physical kingdom, free from every evil, and finally completely liberated from this present world.

This is our hope, the second advent of the rightful ruler; and this is the gospel of the kingdom.

Agreed- it appears he did meet his gofundme goal in short order. I guess I don’t remember hearing about this horrible display going up in Iowa’s Capitol building.

This is a prime example of one foundational truth of the world system, its freedom is in fact slavery. In proclaiming a freedom of religion and expression, it enslaves itself to that proclamation, so that when something someone disagrees with is performed, the freedom prevents anyone from taking a stand against it, therefore effectively rendering the entirety of the system absurd. In freedom they are slaves, slaves to each other and ultimately, slaves to the very one whose altar was erected as a demonstration. It's a deep irony, and a commentary on the culture in which we live - a culture that enslaves itself to the opinions of others, and knows nothing of true freedom.

I thank our Lord Jesus Christ for your post brother Evan. Much truth well expressed with a gentle spirit.🙏

It didn’t get much traction in the media beyond the local coverage, (tho apparently there was quite a ruckus) it didn’t blip my radar until the idol had been brought down and the coverage increased.
When I first read it, I thought this could not be real and was a gimmick, tho when I looked it up and saw how much traction it had gotten, it occurred to me pray and seek the Lord on this man’s actions (not knowing him personally nor his heart) and He in no way expressed displeasure.
Then I remembered this thread and wondered in the context of it, how this would be viewed by the posters… too OT ? or is this compatible with any of the different NT perspectives expressed in this thread?

It is encouraging that his go fund me received the response it did 🙏🏻

The first thing that came to mind was the cleansing of the temple. Granted the Capitol is no temple but the zeal is the same.

Todd said, "the zeal is the same"

Is it though? Because you made the distinction that shows it is actually nothing like Jesus cleansing the temple in the same post.

Was this zeal for his fathers house?

/Was this zeal for his father’s house?/

No- for his Father’s honor.