As a proponent of Christian pacifism with a social media account, I hear a lot of “biblical” arguments in support of Christians using lethal force or supporting war.
As a theology grad student, I also know that most of these arguments are really, really bad. Here’s why.
1. Jesus told His followers to buy a sword (Luke 22:36)
If Jesus told His disciples to buy a sword, the logic goes, that must mean that Jesus supported lethal self-defense and (by some stretch of the imagination) maybe even pre-emptive wars. If you limit your reading to only this verse and the one previous, it’s not hard to see how Jesus could be seen as supporting the use of violence among His followers:
“And he said to them, ‘When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?’ They said, ‘Nothing.’ 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.'”
Luke 22:35-36, ESV
In this very limited reading, Jesus seems to be saying that at an earlier point, His disciples went out into a dangerous world with very little provisions but God took care of them. However, as Jesus was about to be arrested and crucified and the church age was to begin, a time had now come when they would have to fend for themselves and should even travel armed as they go out preaching the gospel.
But when you look into the wider context of this passage, there are good reasons to think that Jesus was not encouraging His disciples to carry a sword for self-defense. In fact, there are at least four:
- When Peter understood Jesus’ words literally, he replied “look, Lord, here are two swords” (22:28) and Jesus responded, “it is enough.” This response has been understood one of two ways by most exegetes: either Jesus was literally saying that two swords were sufficient for a certain task or He was expressing frustration that Peter had bungled so much in his understanding: i.e. “alright, that’s enough.” If we take the first option, could Jesus really have meant that two swords were enough for more than 12 men to defend themselves? On the face of it, it seems comical. But there is a different purpose that two swords would have been enough for…
- Those who are so eager to defend violence for Christians often shoot past the very next verse after this treasured prooftext. In it, Jesus actually gives the exact reason why He wanted His disciples to have swords in this moment: “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.” In other words, Jesus wanted His disciples to have swords so that a prophecy would be fulfilled—that He would be seen as being a transgressor, a violent rebel, thus justifying in the minds of those arresting Him their perception of Him as a threat. His followers carrying swords like common criminals would justify this perception. Jesus was not saying that His followers should buy a deadly weapon and be prepared to use it, but that this is what sinners do. Thus, the swords served a very specific purpose. In fact, He goes on to chastise one of His followers for using a sword for another purpose.
- That very night, when soldiers came to arrest Jesus, we read that His followers called out, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” just as one of them (Peter, according to the Gospel of John) struck a slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. In Luke, Jesus responds, “Stop! No more of this” and heals the slave (v. 49-51, ESV). Matthew gives a slightly different account: “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way'” (Matthew 26:52-54, ESV). Those hoping to make this passage somehow support violence highlight only the last part, arguing that the real reason Jesus objected to what Peter did was because it didn’t serve His purposes in that moment. But that wasn’t Jesus’ initial objection. Instead, He highlighted the futility of violence and sought to disarm Peter with His words. In addition, read in context Jesus wasn’t saying that if Peter used violence it would foil Jesus’ plan, but that if God had sent twelve legions of angels to protect Jesus, this would have foiled His plan. The difference is important because then the flow of the argument is really that Peter should not use violence because it’s self-defeating, and that if God wanted something done badly enough He could intervene to make it happen. In other words, Jesus was chastising Peter for His lack of faith in God.
- The fourth contextual reason to reject the pro-violence reading of Luke 22:36 is a little more complicated and has to do with the structure of the passage forecasting the taking up of the sword as a practical denial of Jesus. For a more detailed account of this argument, you can read David Burnett’s handout “The Sword and the Servant: Reframing the Function of the ‘two swords’ of Luke 22:35-38 in Narrative Context.” (https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/David-A.-Burnett-SBL-Lk-22.35-38-Handout.pdf)
2. Paul taught that we should obey the state (Romans 13)
Paul writes in chapter 13 of his letter to the Roman church that Christians should be subject to the state because authorities are instituted by God and carry the sword to avenge against those who do evil. Even taken at face value, this is not an endorsement for Christians using violence since the preceding verses in chapter 12 distinguish what the state does—use force against its enemies—from how Christians are expected to behave:
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ . . . Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Romans 12:19-21 ESV
In other words, even if the state does serve a purpose with its violence, Christians are to keep their distance from it.
If the state is an “avenger” for God (13:4), the Christian is told to be the opposite—to never avenge but leave room for God’s wrath, exercised either on the day of judgment or vicariously through state violence against the wicked. Instead of participating in this state violence, the Christian is called to overcome evil with good.
For more information on this reading of Romans 13 and its context within the biblical framework, you can read my book Fight the Powers: What the Bible Says About the Relationship Between Spiritual Forces and Human Governments.
3. Jesus told soldiers not to take bribes, but not to leave their professions (Luke 3:14)
Any Bible reader who is actually paying attention will know that it was John the Baptist who said this and not Jesus (look it up if you don’t believe me!), but since 95% of the time this argument has been made to me the words were falsely attributed to Jesus, that’s how I detailed the argument above.
The story in question details the various types of people coming to John and asking for spiritual advice. When soldiers came to him asking what to do, he told them simply, “do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages” (Luke 3:14, ESV). The reason this verse is brought up is because Jesus (though actually John) doesn’t think to tell them to give up soldiering altogether, thus it must be the case that Jesus was positively in favor of Christians killing on behalf of the state.
But why should it matter who said it? It’s in the Bible, right?
Well, there are a lot of people quoted in scripture who made incorrect statements. For instance, in the book of Job his friends make all kinds of contradictory and false statements about why God would allow Job to suffer. The Bible is telling us that John said this, not that John was infallible.
The fact that biblical characters can be mistaken is particularly true in the case of John. Though he was famously prescient about Jesus’ messiahship, he also didn’t seem to understand what it meant for Jesus to be the messiah. While in prison, a disillusioned John struggled with why he would be suffering oppression under an illegitimate king while Jesus, the real king of the Jews, had come to His people. Thus, the very same John who had proclaimed that Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world sent word to Jesus by his disciples asking Him, “are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another” (Matthew 11:3, ESV)?
So, even though John had been given the insight that Jesus was the Christ, he apparently failed to understand what that actually meant. Similarly, those who think that Jesus is a messiah who wants His people to crack skulls for the kingdom have also failed to apprehend the nature of His kingdom and lordship. While John can be forgiven for his misunderstanding as a prophet of the old covenant who had yet to hear Jesus preach the Sermon on the Mount and who hadn’t had the kingdom of God explained to him yet, modern Christians with complete Bibles should know better.
4. Peter didn’t tell Cornelius to leave the army (Acts 10)
Okay. So maybe John going easy on the soldiers can be credited to His pre-kingdom perspective, but what about the apostles’ treatment of soldiers after Jesus had been crucified and resurrected? For instance, what about the gentile centurion whom Peter preached the gospel to but neglected to tell that he needed to leave the army?
For those whose memory of this story is hazy, Cornelius was a gentile centurion in the Italian Cohort who feared Israel’s God. After having a vision of an angel, he was instructed to send for the apostle Peter, which he did. Peter had his own vision in which he was chastised for seeing gentiles as unclean, thus beginning the first gospel mission to gentiles.
Though this was indeed after Jesus was resurrected, a similar argument can be made about Peter’s limited point of view as we made about John the Baptist’s. After all, Peter has just figured out that the gospel can go out to gentiles! If he’s missing something that basic to the mission of Jesus, perhaps he hadn’t fully gotten the memo yet about Jesus’ new kingdom not being like an earthly kingdom with armies (see John 18:36).
It’s also possible that in the moment it wasn’t at the forefront of Peter’s mind, or that Peter did discuss it with Cornelius, but Luke’s (the author) interest in this section of his book was on the gospel going out to the gentiles so he only discussed details which were central to that concern in his narrative. Ultimately the argument here is from silence, so there isn’t much that can be said either way.
Speaking of building a theology from silence, Preston Sprinkle noted in his book Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence that:
“as a centurion, Cornelius (as well as the centurion in Matt. 8) would not only be pressured to worship foreign gods, but also be responsible for leading various ceremonies on behalf of his cohort. As a centurion, Cornelius would essentially function as a pagan priest! True, Peter doesn’t forbid Cornelius to use violence. But neither does he forbid him to perform pagan duties. Because that’s not the point of the story. Acts 10 and other soldier-salvation passages highlight one basic point: the gospel pierces the hearts of unlikely people—even Roman military leaders.”
This argument from silence, like most arguments from silence, doesn’t prove what its proponents hope it does.
5. Just war principles are supported by the Bible (scripture reference unavailable)
This objection is very difficult to deal with because there are no passages which give explicit support for Just War principles. As a reminder, just war principles include:
- Just cause. The reason for going to war must be just. Innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.
- Distinction. Acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, not civilians.
- Proportionality. Combatants must make sure that any harm caused to civilians or their property not outweigh the direct military advantage expected by an attack.
Compare these criteria to the wars which God commanded in the Old Testament:
“But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded, that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the LORD your God.”
Deuteronomy 20:16-18, ESV
Even allowing for the possibility of hyperbole here, as has been argued by Paul Copan and Matt Flannagan in their book Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God, we still don’t see any consistency here with just war principles. On the exact opposite end of the spectrum, Jesus said things like, “my kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting … but my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36), “do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also … Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:39, 44), and “put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).
While the Old Testament gives guidelines for total holy war and the New Testament gives principles for being citizens in the non-violent spiritual kingdom of God, what you don’t find in scripture is a defense of just war philosophy.
6. “Love your enemies” only applies to personal enemies (Matthew 5:38-48)
This is less of an argument from scripture and more a bare assertion about what scripture means. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells His hearers:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. 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.”
Matthew 5:38-45, ESV
The problem with the claim that Jesus only had personal enemies and not national enemies in mind is that the examples He gives are of things that Israel’s enemies did to them! It was not any old stranger who would force one of Jesus’ Jewish listeners to walk with them a mile, but a Roman soldier demanding that a subjugated person carry his pack for him. Similarly, a Jew in Jesus’ time was perhaps most likely to be back-handed by a Roman oppressor than a fellow Jew. In other words, you cannot introduce a distinction into this passage that it not only doesn’t contain but naturally resists.