Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 7
The chapter claims the Just War criteria directly violate Jesus’ teaching about not resisting evil, giving up tunic/cloak, and going the extra mile; if a Christian tried to harmonize those teachings with participation in war, what interpretive moves would they need to make, and where do those moves start to “nullify the teachings of Jesus” in practice?
Another way to ask: If someone tried to make Jesus’ teachings (don’t resist evil, give your cloak, go the extra mile) fit with fighting in war, what kinds of Bible-interpretation tricks would they need, and when do those tricks end up canceling Jesus’ commands in real life?

Direct Answer To harmonize Jesus’ nonresistance with war, a Christian would need to reinterpret Jesus’ commands as non-literal, inward-only, or limited to “private” situations while allowing state violence as a separate category. Bercot argues those moves begin to nullify Jesus’ teaching when they permit retaliation and rights-defense that Jesus explicitly forbids.

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot says Just War claims a war is just to “redress rights actually violated,” but “Jesus already addressed that very issue…He said not to resist evil.”
  • He cites Jesus’ concrete examples: “If someone wants your tunic, give him your cloak…carry it too,” concluding “Christians don’t wage wars to redress rights. They willingly suffer loss instead.”
  • Augustine’s key interpretive move is shown earlier: “not a bodily action, but an inward disposition,” allowing outward violence with inward “love.”
  • Bercot warns against interpretation that cancels Jesus: the Kingdom “never interprets any part of the Bible in such a way that it nullifies the teachings of Jesus.”
  • He labels the war-rationalization as pretending violence is love: “They don’t retaliate or fight back, but then say they were actually doing so in love.”
Discussion Follow-ups When you read the Sermon on the Mount, what teachings feel most tempting to redefine as “not literal”? How can you test whether an interpretation preserves Jesus’ plain meaning or quietly cancels it?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10
Back Questions Next