Chapter 10: But don't the Scriptures say? Over the years, Christians who are uncomfortable with non-resistance have asked me about various Scripture passages that seem to contradict non-resistance. So let's look at some of these passages. Jesus said that he didn't come to bring peace on earth, but a sword. In saying that, wasn't he authorizing war?
It's true that Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Looking at that one statement alone, it might sound as though Jesus were saying that his followers would need to take up the military sword to fight for the kingdom. However, when we read the entire passage, it becomes quite clear that this is not what Jesus was talking about.
Actually, Jesus' statement was part of the instructions that he gave the twelve apostles when he sent them out to preach. Let's look at the whole passage. Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore, be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. Now, brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.
And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. And do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Therefore, whoever confesses me before men, him I will also confess before my Father, who is in heaven. But whoever denies me before men, him I will also deny before my Father, who is in heaven.
Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.
He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it. When we read the entire passage, we can readily see that Jesus is hardly authorizing his apostles to take up arms and fight holy wars against those who oppose the kingdom. It's just the opposite. He told his apostles that he was sending them out as sheep among wolves. Sheep don't carry swords, and they don't slay wolves. Rather, it's the wolves that do the slaying.
Jesus was telling his apostles that they needed to be ready to die for him. If they weren't ready to die for him, they weren't worthy of him. The only thing he authorized his disciples to do in the face of violence was to flee to another location if they could. In ancient times, a sword served two purposes. The use we normally think of was in warfare, where the sword was used for killing. However, a sword was also a tool for cutting or dividing.
The Scriptures speak of the word of God as sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit. In Matthew 10:34, isn't Jesus actually speaking of the sword of division? For he said, "I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household." Was Jesus saying that mothers and daughters would take up the sword of warfare against each other and kill one another?
Was he authorizing Christians to kill their parents and children? Or, instead, was Jesus saying that the gospel of the kingdom would cause family divisions? I think most of us can see that he was talking about the latter. Our own family may disinherit and persecute us, yet if we put them ahead of our Lord, we are not worthy of him. Now, let's reflect for a moment on what Jesus said in Matthew 10 concerning priorities.
He said, "He who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." If he won't allow us to love even our own children more than him, why do we imagine that it's acceptable to love our country more than him? What about the soldiers who came to see John the Baptist? John didn't tell them to lay down their swords or leave the army. Let's read that passage together.
It says, "Then tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, 'Teacher, what shall we do?' And he said to them, 'Collect no more than what is appointed for you.' Likewise, the soldiers asked him, saying, 'And what shall we do?' So he said to them, 'Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.'" The Greek word that the new King James translates as "intimidate" is diaseio, which literally means "to shake violently." The King James Version translates this word as "do violence
to." So the King James Version renders this passage, "And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, 'And what shall we do?' And he said unto them, 'Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages.'" So perhaps John actually was telling the soldiers not to assault or kill others.
Nevertheless, regardless of how we interpret diaseio, the fact remains that John was a prophet of the old order, not the new. John wasn't even a citizen of God's new kingdom. We know this because Jesus told his disciples, "I say to you, among those born of women, there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." And again, Jesus said, "The law and the prophets were until John.
Since that time, the kingdom of God has been preached." In short, John was a forerunner, preparing the way for Jesus. Although his message of repentance foreshadowed many of the things that Jesus preached, he was the last Jewish prophet, not the first Christian prophet. God did not send John to explain the gospel of the kingdom. What about the Roman centurion? Jesus didn't tell him he had to leave the army. Or what about Cornelius? The Bible doesn't say he left the army after his conversion.
First, let's take a brief look at the passage concerning the centurion.
Now, when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, pleading with him, saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented." And Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him." The centurion answered, "And said, Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only speak a word, and my servant will be healed." Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go your way, and as you have believed, so let it be done for you." And his servant was healed that same hour.
The truth is that Jesus said absolutely nothing about this man's profession. He expressed neither approval nor disapproval. In fact, the point of the passage was not that this man was a centurion. Rather, it was that he was a Gentile. That's why Jesus remarked, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith not even in Israel." This incident foreshadowed the fact that the Gentiles later proved more responsive to the gospel than had Israel.
Jesus' encounter with the Roman centurion is quite similar to his meeting with the Samaritan woman at the well. She was living with a man to whom she was not married. Yet, Jesus did not tell her to leave this man, did he? Does that mean Jesus approved of cohabitation without marriage? As for Cornelius, the Scriptures say nothing, one way or the other, about what he did after his conversion. There is no evidence that Cornelius continued to use the sword after he became a Christian.
In reality, the Scriptures give us relatively few accounts of what new converts did after becoming Christians. I think most of us assume that if new converts were engaged in unscriptural occupations, they changed their livelihoods after their conversions. For example, many prostitutes believed in Jesus. We rightfully assume that they left their harlotry, but the Scriptures are silent about the matter. Yes, but didn't Jesus whip the money changers and forcibly drive them out of the temple? Let's read that account.
Now, the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And he found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves and the money changers doing business. When he made a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple with the sheep and the oxen and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. And he said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away. Do not make my Father's house a house of merchandise." So on whom or what did Jesus use the whip?
The account doesn't say, does it? Sheep will normally follow only their own shepherd. So how was Jesus going to get the sheep and oxen to leave the temple courtyard? Absent a miracle, which he chose not to perform on this occasion, the most reasonable way to get the animals out of the temple was to drive them out with a whip. There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus used his whip on people. Nevertheless, this account does shed important light on non-resistance.
Jesus demonstrated that being non-resistant doesn't mean that a person cannot be assertive or speak out against sin. Of course, being God's son, he had much more authority than you or I have. The apostles never cleared the money changers out of the temple. Perhaps Jesus' teachings on non-resistance were temporary. Didn't he later tell his disciples to buy swords? The passage referred to is Luke 22:35-36.
And he said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." Then he said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." At first glance, it's easy to see how someone might think this passage is counteracting Jesus' earlier teachings on non-resistance. But when we read the rest of the chapter, we see that this was not the case.
Immediately after telling his apostles to buy a sword, Jesus explained, "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in me." And he was numbered with the transgressors. So Jesus himself explained his words. The purpose of the swords was simply to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12, which said that Jesus would be numbered with the transgressors. The next verse sheds further light.
So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough." Obviously, Jesus was not telling his apostles to prepare themselves for an armed conflict. After all, two swords were not sufficient to defend twelve men. Rather, the two swords were enough to fulfill the Old Testament prophecy. The remainder of this passage in Luke concerning Jesus' arrest clarifies the matter even further.
When those around him saw what was going to happen, they said to him, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" And one of them, Peter, struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, "Permit even this." And he touched his ear and healed him. So, in the end, Jesus did not permit his disciples to use the two swords for self-defense. He even undid the evil effect of the sword. Jesus used this episode with the swords to teach an object lesson.
The worst crime in human history was about to take place. The innocent Son of God was about to be falsely arrested, tortured, and killed. If there was ever a time for Christians to use the sword, this was surely it. But Jesus wouldn't permit his disciples to use the sword to defend either him or themselves. When he had told them not to resist evil, that's exactly what he meant, even when the crime of all crimes was being committed. Matthew's account adds one more detail about what Jesus told Peter.
But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he will provide me with more than twelve legions of angels?" When God wants to protect us, his angels are sufficient. As Tertullian later put it, "In disarming Peter, the Lord disarmed every soldier." What did Jesus mean when he said, "All who take the sword will perish by the sword"?
That statement is very similar to Jesus' earlier words, "He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it." If we put our trust in military arms and in the world's power, we will ultimately perish in that trust. We never again read of Jesus' disciples having swords or fighting to defend themselves. The book of Acts graphically details the non-resistance of the apostles and other Christians. Christians were set upon by mobs, Jewish authorities, and Gentile rulers.
But in no instance did they offer physical resistance. Stephen did not defend himself from the mob that seized him. And even at his death, he showed his love for his enemies, saying, "Lord, do not charge them with this sin." Acts tells us that immediately after the death of Stephen, a great persecution arose against the church, which was at Jerusalem. So what did Jesus' disciples do? Arm themselves and fight back? No.
Luke tells us, "And they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria except the apostles." The only action that Jesus had authorized his followers to take in the face of persecution was to flee. And that's what they did. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, which contains so many of the laws of the kingdom, Jesus told his hearers, "Whoever hears these sayings of mine and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock.
And the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock." When we think of a rock as a foundation, we think of permanence. The law of Moses had lasted for 1,500 years, but it was eventually fulfilled. It proved to be temporary. But Jesus' teachings are permanent. After all, it wouldn't be much of a rock if Jesus or his apostles had abrogated his teachings within a few years after he gave them. No, his teachings don't change.
They apply to us just as literally and just as absolutely as they apply to Jesus' first hearers. As I have quoted before, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.