Jesus said the law and the prophets were summed up in our love for God and love for our neighbor. Jesus’ statement is an over-arching precept from which we can understand the heart of God in both the Old and New Testament revelations and covenants. Jesus also gave us a new commandment that we are to love one another as He has loved us. This implies a new understanding of love because Jesus calls it a new commandment. He told His disciples that loving others the way He loved them would be a mark of true discipleship (John 13:34-35).
1. We are antagonistic by nature
In our natural state, we reject this teaching on love. Because we are by nature children of wrath and disobedience, the commandment to love goes against our natural inclinations (Ephesians 2:2-3). But through the gift of God’s Son, we are born again into His love (1 John 4:7-12). He enables us to love others by the love which is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5). The love of God overcomes our antagonistic nature and leads us to obey the commandments of Christ.
“If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15).
“This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 John 5:3).
“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me” (John 14:21).
2. Jesus commands us to love our enemies
Jesus’ command to love is not limited to God and our neighbors but also encompasses our enemies. When we think of enemies, we assume tension, strife, conflict, harm, and even warfare, all of these being fueled by emotions and actions other than love.
Jesus commands us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44). In this article we want to focus on how Jesus’ command to love our enemies will teach us how to view participation in warfare. This type of love was modeled for us when God commended His love to us through Jesus Christ while we were yet sinners and enemies (Romans 5:6-8). He was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, when the world was His enemy. He died for those who put Him to death, saying, “Father, forgive them.” He gave His life to offer new life to His executioners. He has called us to this type of love in His new commandment—to love others like He loved us. Jesus removes our antagonistic nature when we are born again so that we have the divine capacity to love our enemies and give our lives rather than take other lives.
3. The military model differs from Jesus’ model
Jesus’ example of loving His enemies is a stark contrast to the aim of the military, which is to destroy or defeat their enemies. Jesus demonstrated His way of love by laying down His life for His enemies. Are we willing to send an unbeliever for whom Jesus died into eternal Hell because our country has declared him an enemy? Can we kill another Christian brother in an opposing army when Jesus has given him eternal life? In both cases, our actions differ from what Christ has done for them and us. Adopting a military perspective of our enemies suggests that our national enmity is stronger than our brotherhood in Christ. The military model of war stands in conflict with Jesus’ model of loving our enemies by laying down our lives for them.
4. The Old Testament teaching on warfare was centered on the preservation of an ethnic and geopolitical nation
Some have argued that since God commanded the Old Testament saints to make war on their enemies God has justified warfare and the Christian’s participation in it. By the same line of reasoning, a person could also argue that in warfare it is acceptable to exterminate all the women and children when conquering the enemy’s land. We would note that under the old covenant there was a requirement for a man to express kindness towards a personal enemy of his own country in a time of peace (Exodus 23:4-5; Proverbs 25:21). But they were not called upon to love their enemies like Jesus loved us. In contrast, David says, “Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee?” (Psalm 139:21). So, any argument based upon the conduct of the Old Testament saints must be tested against the teachings of the New Testament.
Just as the ceremonial practices related to redemption have changed with the covenants, so also has the conduct of redeemed believers changed with the covenants. Jesus illustrated this point to the disciples when they, like the prophet Elijah, wished to call down fire upon their adversaries. He rebuked them saying, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (Luke 9:51-56). Though Jesus came in the spirit and power of Elijah as a prophet, He did not come the first time in the spirit and power of Elijah as a warrior to destroy the lives of evil men. Jesus’ new commandment called for a change of behavior. Jesus’ rebuke of His disciples was a radical example of the change that was taught in the Sermon on the Mount between “you have heard” and “but I say unto you.”
The Old Testament covenant was largely between God and an ethnic seed of His geopolitical national kingdom. The New Testament is a covenant exclusively between Jesus and the spiritual seed of His spiritual kingdom. With the change of those covenants came a change in the conduct of the covenant people to reflect the change in the character of those covenants and their kingdoms. The covenant of the law could not give life, but it could take life. The new covenant does not justly take life but lovingly gives life.
5. The New Testament examples of Roman soldiers and centurions
Some have noted in the New Testament that John the Baptist, Jesus, and Peter recognized the faith of Roman soldiers. These examples certainly illustrate that people from every walk of life may exercise faith, but they do not demonstrate that Jesus approved of Roman military doctrine and conduct. In a similar vein, the woman of immoral reputation who anointed Jesus’ feet with oil was also commended for her great faith (Luke 7:50). Are we to assume that Jesus’ recognition of saving faith in this woman’s life was an endorsement of her lifestyle? Can we safely assume that she continued her lifestyle because Jesus commended her faith?
These examples in the New Testament are not intended to show an endorsement of the character’s previous lifestyle, but are intended to show that Jesus recognized the expression of genuine faith from all classes of people. Can we safely assume that the centurions maintained their belief in Roman military doctrine and conduct and continued to recognize Caesar as divinity and continued to honor their oath to unconditionally serve him as their lord? The Roman legionary sacred oath (sacramentum militare) was:
“I swear that I shall faithfully execute all that the emperor commands, that I shall never desert the service, and that I shall not seek to avoid death for the Roman republic!” (Vegetius, De re militari).
Tertullian evaluates the thought of continuing in the military after being saved (De Corona, chapter 11, written around AD 201). “Of course, if faith comes later, and finds any preoccupied with military service, their case is different, as in the instance of those whom John used to receive for baptism, and of those most faithful centurions, I mean the centurion whom Christ approves, and the centurion whom Peter instructs; yet, at the same time, when a man has become a believer, and faith has been sealed, there must be either an immediate abandonment of it, which has been the course with many; or all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to in order to avoid offending God, and that is not allowed even outside of military service; or, last of all, for God the fate must be endured which a citizen-faith has been no less ready to accept” (emphasis added).
Tertullian argues that after becoming a believer the soldier should abandon his military position; otherwise, there will be constant conflict between his faith and his sworn duty. He observes that many left the military when they were converted (though apparently not all). He notes that the soldier should not fear a penalty for leaving his position, because Christian citizens everywhere have suffered penalties for their faith. De Corona documents an existing understanding of the ante-Nicene (period between the Apostolic Age and the first council of Nicaea) church teaching regarding the cases of the centurions who expressed faith in Christ (the council of Nicaea in AD 325 convened by the emperor, essentially made Christianity the newly recognized state religion). Tertullian’s statement is also an interpretive guide for understanding John the Baptist’s dialogue with the Roman soldiers.
The soldiers came to John and asked, “What shall we do?” John’s answer came with three requirements.
a. Do violence to no man (Luke 3:14)
Many modern translations combine the first two instructions of John into one phrase to read something like this: “Do not extort money by threat or force.” We want to note that the KJV rendering has support in other classic and literal English translations such as the English Revised Version, Literal Standard Version, World English Bible, and most of the very early translations.
The Greek word for “violence” is diaseiō, which means to physically and violently shake someone or to intimidate or coerce with a threat of being physically harmed. The definition clearly implies using physical force or the threat of physical force to accomplish an objective. Taking human life would be going even beyond what John was prohibiting. John was prohibiting the soldiers from using any form of violence. Likewise, the ante-Nicene church took a stand against all forms of violence as noted by Clement of Alexandria:
“Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins” (Clement of Alexandria, fragment).
John’s statement prohibits the soldiers from using violence whether it is for extortion of money or taking human life. Since these individuals were called soldiers, they could not have been the Jewish temple guards. All designated soldiers in Palestine, regardless of their ethnicity, were under the authority and military oath of Rome. Their military oath required them to use violence as directed by their commander. Soldiers were used for forcible search and seizure missions wherever Rome suspected disloyalty. In a military conflict, how does a Roman soldier comply with orders to sack a city without doing violence to anyone? A soldier’s oath and duty does not allow him to make personal moral judgments contrary to his orders, but requires obedience to his commanding officer. John’s nonviolence mandate put those soldiers in conflict with their sacred oath (to not avoid death for the Roman Republic) and with the military chain of command which enforces the oath.
b. Neither accuse any falsely
Roman soldiers were not allowed to speak contrary to the narrative of events documented by their commanding officer, as that would have been insubordination. Yet John requires that the truth must be told in all circumstances, regardless of the official position of the commander of the legion. John’s mandate on always telling the truth put the soldier in conflict with the military chain of command when the official version of events differed from the truth. Roman generals were known for portraying the evil of their enemies and embellishing their military success.
c. Be content with your wages
The standard wages of Roman soldiers were often supplemented by the booty of war. Generals would often promise financial reward or honor for the units who might scale the wall, break down the gate, or achieve a defined goal. Yet John commanded these soldiers to be governed by principle and not motivated by monetary enticement. The commanders used the rewards from the spoils of war to motivate their men. To be content with their wages would have disregarded the motivation used by Roman commanders. John is implying that profiting from the spoils of war is a wrong motivation and practice.
We notice some historical commentary regarding payment with booty from the World History Encyclopedia (“Roman Auxiliary Cavalry”): “The pay was good with rewards that included cash as well as access to loot and booty, although the cash was given to the unit, not an individual, for performing well.”
Another historical source notes: “The spoils of war not only paid off Caesar’s debts and enabled him to buy popularity and political support in Rome, but also allowed him to reward his troops’ courage and loyalty” (Graham Goodlad, “Great Commanders: Julius Caesar,” https://the-past.com/feature/great-commanders-julius-caesar/).
We can see from these excerpts how Rome used war to help pay for the cost of maintaining a military and how troops profited from warfare. Engaging in warfare for plunder was essentially legalized national theft.
This should help us understand why Tertullian indicates that after faith is confirmed in a soldier it is best to leave the military; otherwise, there will likely be ongoing moral conflicts between the soldier and the commanding officers. When there is ongoing moral conflict between the commander and the soldier it can sometimes be interpreted as insubordination rather than as faithfulness to Christ. If the soldier’s profession of faith and loyalty to Christ leads to the termination of his military service, it removes him from ongoing conflicts in his military duty between competing morals and loyalties. The concise statements that John presented would provide moral direction, create conviction, and reveal the conflict between their kingdom loyalty and their military duty. If John wanted to tell them to be a good Roman soldier, he would have only needed to say, “Follow your military orders with diligence,” because that is what their military oath required. But John placed their obligation to moral duty above their obligation to their military oath, which principle would have been intolerable to their commanding officer.
The soldiers were confessing in their oath that Caesar was their lord. John was preaching about another Lord when he said, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” They saw the potential conflict and asked, “What shall we do?” The centurions who believed would have needed to ask the same question—“What shall we do?” Would they command soldiers to violence in the name of Rome?
Also, it must be remembered that not all the law was put away at once with the advent of John the Baptist. Under the law the profession of a soldier was allowed, therefore John did not call upon them to abandon their profession. But he did call for nonviolence in spite of their profession. The beginning of the gospel of the kingdom was being preached by John opening the way for the new covenant, but the new covenant was not fully in effect until the death of Christ (Hebrews 9:15-17). It was the death of Christ on the cross that canceled the governance of the law (Colossians 2:13-14). While Christ was here in the flesh, He observed the Jewish festivals and recognized the Jewish ceremonial law, such as when He told the cleansed leper to go and show himself to the priest. Jesus observed the law to fulfill it. John and Jesus were teaching the gospel of the kingdom in preparation for the establishment of the Church at the coming of the Spirit. John’s preaching was preparing the way for Jesus’ teachings on nonviolence and love. His preaching was convicting and caused the soldiers to question their moral duty in relation to their military duty. The gospel of the kingdom will always challenge us to discern where our ultimate loyalty lies.
6. Jesus tells His disciples to buy swords
Another passage often cited as a justification for the use of violence in self-defense is Luke 22:35-38. Some people believe that Jesus’ command to purchase swords was an endorsement of using deadly force. But let us examine the context before we draw conclusions and especially note that this discussion was immediately before His arrest.
Jesus exhorts the disciples to sell their garments (outer cloaks) to buy a sword, implying that they should all be prepared to purchase a sword. Yet Jesus did not suggest that swords were necessary for everyone to defend themselves, otherwise He would have wanted each disciple to have one. Rather Jesus said the two swords they already had were enough, indicating He had a life lesson in view more so than the purchase of physical swords.
However, Jesus’ dialogue prompts them to reveal their swords. Perhaps He was calling attention to their former lives in relation to their likely responses to His coming arrest. One of Jesus’ disciples was Simon the Zealot (Luke 6:15). A faction of the Zealots was also known as the “Sicarii” or “dagger men.” They were undercover agents, carrying hidden daggers under their cloaks, who worked for the overthrow of Rome by assassinating Romans and Jewish collaborators. Perhaps Simon the Zealot and along with him Simon Peter were the ones who were carrying short, concealed swords or daggers. Jesus’ statement to sell their cloaks was essentially forcing them to reveal their weapons. Jesus used their swords to initiate a teaching event that would lead His disciples to uncloak and reveal their former lives and habits.
7. Buying swords was in the context of being numbered with transgressors
We also note that the context for buying swords includes a specific prophecy that Jesus was to be associated with transgressors. We know that Jesus being numbered with transgressors was also fulfilled when He was crucified between two thieves (Mark 15:27-28). Perhaps Peter’s role as a transgressor physically resisting Jesus’ arrest was another partial fulfillment of that prophecy. These swords were not intended to prepare the disciples for self-defense, but rather may have been to associate Jesus with the disciples’ resistance against His arrest. Jesus’ instruction to buy swords was an indication that a significant event was coming where they might feel the need for self-defense. He was deliberately setting up a teaching event about using a sword for self-defense, and at the same time was establishing an identity with those who would be viewed as transgressors resisting the law.
Jesus was essentially charged with insurrection because He made Himself a King. Peter knew these implications were serious, and therefore he denied even knowing the man. Considering the context of this prophecy in this narrative, there is a strong likelihood that the disciples could be viewed as outlaws (transgressors). In this context Jesus clarified at His trial that His kingdom was not of this world, therefore His servants would not fight—making it clear there was no intended civil insurrection even though Peter’s use of the sword could have made it appear so.
Peter, as a symbolic transgressor, used his sword to resist the law when they came to arrest Jesus. But Jesus rebuked Peter, saying, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Jesus reprimanded Peter for using the sword which He previously asked him to carry! Then Jesus stated that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Some have suggested that since all soldiers who draw the sword do not die by the sword, Christ must have another meaning in view. They suggest it means that all who take the sword either in aggression or revenge will meet the sword of civil justice. But this interpretation is not any better because not every villain who lives by the sword has died by the sword of civil justice.
Any interpretation of Jesus’ maxim must recognize that the use of the word all suggests a rule is being established. Any understanding must recognize that Peter was asked to sheath one of the two swords which the disciples had among them. Was Christ simply saying “all” those who use the sword to take lives will bring upon themselves their own sword of destruction?
The sword, when used to take another’s life even in self-defense, awakens within the wielder the spirit of violence or vengeance. That spirit of violence in self-defense is also the spirit of self-destruction. Jesus rebuked the spirit of violence even in the self-defense of the innocent. Peter’s use of the sword to resist unjust men of the law to protect an innocent man associated Jesus with a transgressor who resisted the law. Peter’s use of the sword in self-defense was a transgression of Jesus’ statement that His kingdom was not of this world and His servants would not fight against His arrest.
Jesus’ statement to Peter dispels the possibility that the disciples were to buy swords for self-defense. It appears as if Jesus wanted Peter to have a sword so that Peter could see for himself how it stirred the spirit of violence within him when defending another with it and how that action made him a transgressor. He was quick to show violent courage and raise the sword in self-defense against armed men, but then he did not have the moral courage to confess Christ before a young maid! Ah, what happened to Peter’s courage when making his bold claim that he was ready for prison and death? He swung his sword in self-defense and then denied his Lord! Did the sword which awakened his violent courage put to death his moral courage?
Christ would heal what Peter’s sword cut off—setting an example and rule that the early church would follow. Tertullian went on to say, “Christ in disarming Peter ungirt every soldier” (De Corona, chapter 11).
Loading...