What is the Christian position on the use of deadly force?

  

Posted September 4, 2019 In Cop Talk, Faith, Must Read, Officer Survival, Patrol By  

  
(Editor’s note: This is a timeless piece originally published June 7, 2012)  
By J. Warner Wallace  
The month of May provided yet another Memorial Day weekend to launch the 2012 Summer Season. This important weekend of remembrance was more than a seasonal marker in our yearly calendar. It was an opportunity for all of us to remember the sacrifices made by those who served or died to protect our liberties. Would Jesus Celebrate Memorial Day?
It’s also an opportunity for us, as Christians, to think about what God says about the rare, but sometimes necessary, use of deadly force. As Christians, [1] should we ever advocate the use of such force, or [2] is committed pacifism the only true expression of our Christian Worldview? [1] No.
[2] Yes.
Most Christians accept the idea that some uses of deadly force are necessary and justified from a Biblical perspective. Scripture supports this understanding in the following ways:

"Self-Defense" is a Sin

"Everybody knows" that Jesus commanded His disciples to be "pacifists." He commands us to

  1. Love our enemies (Matthew 5:44)
  2. Resist not evil (Matthew 5:39)
  3. Pay your taxes; don't take up arms against the Red Coats (Matthew 22:21).
  4. Turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39)
  5. Go the second mile (Matthew 5:41). If you take this verse seriously, it means "national defense" is a sin.
  6. Christians should believe that it is always sinful to kill a human being ("Thou shalt not kill." Mark 10:19, quoting Exodus 20:13). (Link goes to an exposition of the 6th Commandment by the Westminster Larger Catechism, which in many ways is a pacifist manifesto.) Better to be killed than to kill. Better Red than dead.
  7. Christians are commanded to leave vengeance to God (Romans 12:14-21)
  8. In short, even if we get snubbed as "pacifists" (a demeaning epithet, an insult), we will take Jesus seriously and follow Him. [details]
"Thou shalt not kill" is real clear. As we go through all the verses which Wallace alleges are contrary to that commandment, ask yourself if they outweigh the clearer commands. Interpret less clear passages in light of the clearer ones.
The Old Testament Advocated the Use of Deadly Force
God did not prohibit “killing” in the Ten Commandments. Instead, God prohibited “murder” that involved intentional “malice”.		 This is inaccurate. The Hebrew word [ratsach] in Exodus 20:13 does not always mean "murder."
(Numbers 35:25) And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil.
(Deuteronomy 4:42) That the slayer might flee thither, which should kill his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in times past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live:
(Numbers 35:27) And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood:
Both words (ratsach and harag) are used to describe both authorized and unauthorized killings. The word doesn't tell us if it's "murder" or an authorized "killing." Numbers 35:23-25 describes an accidental killing as ratsach, which according to Wallace is "murder." But it's not "murder," it's "manslaughter." It's still something we are not supposed to do, according to Exodus 20:13, but it's not technically "murder." The Westminster Larger Catechism rightly draws a lot more out of "Thou shalt not kill" than simply "Thou shalt not murder."
The Old Testament allowed for several forms of justifiable homicide, including homicides committed in self-defense or in the defense of one’s home (Exodus 22:2) Exodus 22:2 -- and verse 3 -- says that if you kill an intruder in your home, you must be put to death. Does that sound like a ringing endorsement of "lethal force?" Yes, God is patient, and if your killing happens at night, you won't be put to death. Learn more about this text.
and homicides committed when trying to protect the life of an innocent third party (Exodus 2:11-12 and Genesis 14:14-16). These two guiding justifications for homicide were employed by God himself as he occasionally directed the nation of Israel, and these two exceptions are still in place across the United States in the Penal Codes of each state. Was the slave master actually trying to kill the slave? In other words was Moses actually protecting the life of the Israelite?

Exodus 2:12 So Moses looked this way and that way, and when he saw no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.

Why did Moses look around to see if anyone would see him kill the Egyptian? Why did he hide the "corpus delicti" (Latin, "body of offense") rather than taking the corpse of the Egyptian and putting it on parade as a display of what happens to aggressors?

Genesis 14 does not say that Abraham killed anyone. It says he rescued Lot and retook possession of stolen goods. I would say there is a moral obligation to do this without killing. If someone is accidentally killed in the process, that's one thing, but intentionally killing a perpetrator when rescue can be accomplished without killing is surely a sin, by Christian standards.

Wallace offers no Scripture texts as examples of God using "these two guiding justifications for homicide" "as He occasionally directed the nation of Israel." Israel was commanded to commit genocide in a "Holy War" against the nations in the Promised Land. Does anyone seriously contend that these commands are justifications for homicide in our day?

“Holy War” as an Excuse for Not Following Jesus

Jesus said that God -- Who hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) -- allowed divorce because Israel was so hard-hearted (Matthew 19:8). What else did God allow because Israel was so hard-hearted that it couldn't be stopped? Consider the perplexing case of Numbers 35. Jones accidentally kills someone, and the next of kin, Smith, is prepared to kill Jones. I'm sure Detective Wallace would agree that Smith would not be justified for using lethal force against Jones days, weeks, or even months after an accident. Smith does not agree with Wallace. And in faithless Israel, blood vengeance was so strong, apparently God gave up trying to stop it. Like divorce, it could only be slowed down a little, with some protection for the innocent victims. Here is the passage from Numbers 35 in the "Easy to Read" version:
 

20-21 “You might hit someone with your hand or push someone or throw something at them and kill them. If you did that from hate, you are a murderer, and you must be killed. A member of the dead person’s family can chase you and kill you.

22 “You might accidentally kill someone, maybe by pushing or by accidentally hitting them with a tool or weapon. 23 Perhaps you threw a rock that was large enough to kill, but it hit someone you didn’t see and killed them. You didn’t plan to kill anyone. You didn’t hate the person you killed—it was only an accident. 24 If that happens, the community must decide what to do. The court must decide if a member of the dead person’s family can kill you. 25 If the community decides to protect you from the dead person’s family, the community must take you back to your City of Refuge. You must stay there until the official high priest dies.

26-27 “You must never go outside the limits of your city of safety. If you do and if a member of the dead person’s family catches you and kills you, that family member will not be guilty of murder. 28 Whoever accidentally killed someone must stay in their City of Refuge until the high priest dies. After the high priest dies, that person can go back to their own land.
  What does the death of the high priest have to do with whether someone who accidentally killed someone can be killed by a member of the victim's family? You might have a vague sense that this is some kind of type of Christ and His cleansing of the world, and you would be on the right track. But we certainly wouldn't justify Smith's slaying of Jones based on this passage of Scripture.

How many other passages of Scripture are misused in our day to oppose pacifism?
The New Testament Also Advocates the Use of Deadly Force
Jesus clearly told his followers that His teaching was consistent with the Old Testament instruction that preceded Him (Matthew 5;17-20), even as He introduced a new covenantal agreement with mankind related to Salvation. In addition, the New Testament affirms the justified use of force in the following ways:		 That's just an astonishing claim. "Advocates the Use of Deadly Force." Not "excuses," but "advocates." Not "cuts them some slack," but "advocates."
Jesus Believed in Justifiable Aggressive Action
Jesus was quick to act aggressively to defend what He believed was right (see John 2:13-16). Jesus violently turned over the tables in the temple and His actions were warranted by the just nature of His cause.		 Jesus killed nobody in the temple. This is not a justification for lethal force. We should be more careful in our use of Scripture. Many people have looked more closely at the text and raised some valid questions:
Jesus Called for the Use of the Sword
Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves with swords (see Luke 22:36). At the very least, Jesus called his disciples to prepare themselves for their own defense. And the sword (an instrument that can be used to kill someone) was evidently allowable in the eyes of Jesus.
  • Did the Disciples eventually buy swords?
  • Did the Disciples use swords against the Jews and Romans when they were arrested?
  • Did Christian Martyrs violate Jesus' command?
  • Was Jesus actually (literally) commanding His disciples to procure swords to defend themselves against (prevent) persecution?
No. Most expositors agree with Calvin:

"It was truly shameful and stupid ignorance, that the disciples, after having been so often informed about bearing the cross, imagine that they must fight with swords of iron."

Luke 22 is hyperbolic language, not intended to be taken literally.
Jesus and John Never Condemned the Duty of Soldiers
Both Jesus and John shared the same perspective on the appropriate use of force. Maybe that’s why Jesus never commented negatively on any soldier he ever came in contact with (see Matthew 8:5-12). In addition, John the Baptist never scolded the soldiers who came to be baptized (see Luke 3:12-14). In fact, while he admonished them not to extort money or accuse people falsely, he never told them to accept a position of pacifism.		 Jesus condemned Israelites by accusing them of having less faith than one of the pagan soldiers who had invaded Israel and was now putting them under tribute and military occupation. It was not Jesus' point to state the obvious: that the Italian invasion and occupation of Israel was sinful. If Italy invaded Israel today, would Wallace defend Italy? No sane person would.

John told the soldiers to "do no violence." So then what? Might as well tell a NASCAR driver not to go over 55.

Luke 3 is not a good passage to interpret in a woodenly fundamentalist manner. It is helpful to know something about the cultural conditions at that time. Wallace says John the Baptist didn't "scold" anyone:

Luke 3:7 Then John said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Yikes! I would hate to hear a "scolding!" (But maybe police have a different standard.)

Continue reading about Luke 3
Paul Affirmed the Occasional Need for Deadly Force
Paul recognized the fact that government has the authority to use deadly force as it “bears the sword” (see Romans 13:1, 3-4) and Paul did not deny the government’s authority to execute him if the government found that Paul had done evil (see Acts 25:9-11).		 Paul says that the Roman empire is demonic (Exousiai -- Demonic "Powers" ). He speaks of "the powers" in the same way as the Old Testament prophets: God Ordains Evil. But to those who are called and saved, God works all things together for our good (Romans 8:28; 13:4), even evil things -- like "principalities and powers" (Romans 8:38).

Jesus said Pilate had the "authority" or "power" to murder Jesus (John 19:11), but that doesn't mean Pilate had God's moral approval. The State does not have God's moral approval, but God is sovereign over the State and over the Mafia, and over all evil.

For an innocent person to say what Paul said in Acts 25 is kind of a boast about the certainty of one's own innocence rather than a seal-of-approval on deadly vengeance-takers.

The Jews who accused Paul had no Biblical basis for putting Paul to death. Italy (Rome) had no Biblical justification for its military invasion of Israel, slaughtering thousands of Jews, putting Israel under tribute, and setting up an undemocratic military occupation government in Israel, including the court Paul was in. Jeremiah said the same thing Paul said, under very similar circumstances:

Jeremiah 26:11
Then spake the priests and the prophets unto the princes and to all the people, saying, This man is worthy to die; for he hath prophesied against this city, as ye have heard with your ears.
12 Then spake Jeremiah unto all the princes and to all the people, saying,
14 As for me, behold, I am in your hand: do with me as seemeth good and meet unto you.
15 But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the Lord hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears.

Neither Paul nor Jeremiah were worthy of death, so their statements cannot be used to justify their execution.

As the next of Wallace's counter-examples shows, Jesus destroyed those whom Wallace says had legitimate authority.
Jesus Will Use Justifiable Deadly Force
With all this in mind, it’s much easier to understand and accept the way that Jesus is then depicted in the Book of Revelation, where he is described as a warrior at End Times (see Revelation 19:11-21).		 Vengeance belongs to God. Jesus was God. This Scripture passage gives no human being on earth today a warrant for doing what Jesus did in AD 70 (slaughtering Jews in Jerusalem and burning their city, Matthew 22:7).
Even though these passages of Scripture advocate the rare but justified use of deadly force, many Christian pacifists have argued that Jesus’ teaching related to “turning the other cheek” (Matthew 5:38-41) prohibits Christians from using force of this kind. Notice, however, that Jesus talks about being struck on the “right” cheek in this passage in Matthew’s gospel. Many Biblical scholars have noted that such a blow would have to be delivered by an attacker using his right hand in a backhanded manner. In the Jewish culture of Jesus’ day, such a blow was an act of disrespect more than it was an act of physical aggression. In this context, Jesus was simply teaching that we are to restrain ourselves from answering insult with insult. This passage has nothing to do with the justifiable use of force in order to protect oneself or protect the life of an innocent third party. So why does Jesus say to let the attacker/insulter strike you on the left cheek?

Two verses later we read this:

41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.

This has to do with pagan soldiers who have invaded your country and put your people under tribute and now puts a gun to your head and orders you to carry the soldier's provisions for one mile. Would the soldier kill you if your refused and resisted? Would Wallace kill the soldier? Maybe Moses would have.

What is Jesus telling you to do? Kill your enemy?
These two justifications (self-protection and protecting an innocent third party) ought to guide us as we examine our motivations to go to war. This sort of force ought to be rare and carefully justified. While we may disagree on the valid justification for a specific act of war in the past, we can truly recognize our fallen war veterans as heroes when we understand the proper Biblical reasoning for force. Moral decisions of this nature require heroic bravery and thoughtful wisdom. We hope your Memorial Day weekend provided you with an opportunity to remember the courage of those who preceded us, even as we think clearly about the teaching of Scripture on this issue. This is a huge issue, and is usually dealt with in bumper-stickers. It should be studied more carefully.

The Case for Pacifism

In Praise of Muhammad Ali
———  
J. Warner Wallace is a Dateline featured Cold-Case Detective, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Adj. Professor of Christian Apologetics at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, author of Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, and creator of the Case Makers Academy for kids.  
———