Clergy/Leaders’ Mail-list No. 1-208 (Sermon)

WHEN IS IT RIGHT TO FIGHT? (Part 2 of 4)

by Rod Benson

Matthew 26:47-52

When is it right to fight? Christians are citizens of heaven and of this world (Php 3:20; 1:27). We have dual allegiance: to our nation, and to God. When these allegiances conflict, evangelical Christians rely on the Bible for guidance.

There is a great deal of war and pillage, slaughter and terror, in Old Testament history. But contrary to popular belief the Old Testament presents a complex perspective on war. Narrative and propositional passages alike support both active combat and pacifism.

The New Testament presents a very different perspective. Jesus is the Prince of Peace (cf Isa 9:6) who came to establish a society and commend a lifestyle characterised by perfect peace.

Jesus chose not a sword but a cross as his weapon. He fulfilled his God-given mission not through war against the Romans (which might have guaranteed one generation of peace), or violent overthrow of the religious opponents of God, but through his pacifist teaching, nonviolence and martyrdom.

Look at Matthew 26:47-52. Jesus has just celebrated the Last Supper, knowing that Judas has left to betray him. He teaches his followers how to live in his absence, and predicts Peter’s denial of him.

He walks to Gethsemane and prays a prayer of agonising sorrow bordering on psychological despair and spiritual depression. Returning to his followers a stone’s throw away, he discovers them asleep instead of praying.

At this precise moment Judas arrives and betrays him (vv 47-49). A Jewish mob armed with swords and clubs seizes and arrests Jesus. Peter steps forward, true to form, and makes a swing with his sword at the head of the nearest man. He misses his skull, and hacks off his ear.

In this environment of emotional pressure, psychological dread and political intrigue, you might expect Jesus to do something bold or even miraculous.

In fact, he does perform a miracle. He bends, picks up the severed ear from where it fell in the dust, and restores it to the head of the high priest’s servant (cf Lk 22:51).

Then he turns to Peter and says, “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (v 52).

Is Jesus advocating pacifism? Is he endorsing a lifestyle of complete nonviolence? If he is, does this principle apply to us today? We need to look closer at what is going on here.

First, Peter’s use of force is unusual. Why is Peter – a fisherman – carrying a sword? I am sure the followers of Jesus were not in the habit of carrying swords.

I suspect this is Peter’s response to the painful words of Jesus to Peter in the Upper Room: “This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times” (Mt 26:34). To which Peter replies, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you” (v 35).

Perhaps Peter thinks, when Jesus is arrested, that the moment has come to demonstrate his loyalty to Jesus. Brushing sleep from his eyes, he grabs his sword and hacks at the nearest head. “What do you think of that, Lord? See – I won’t deny you!”

Peter trusts in his sword to protect himself from possible failure. He puts his faith in force, and it almost costs him his life. Swords are no protection when his real test comes, and he fails miserably (Mt 26:69-75).

Second, Peter’s use of force is unsafe: “all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (v 52). This is not precisely true, because not all who bear arms will die in battle. But the general principle is valid.

Jesus has called Peter to a different way of life. He is not to be a hacker off of heads but a fisher of men (Mt 4:18-20). His ministry is not execution but evangelism. His vocation is not to be a soldier but a shepherd (Jn 21:15-19).

Third, Peter’s use of force is unnecessary. He forgets Jesus is more than an ordinary man: he is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who can snap his fingers and thousands of angels will be at his command, or come to his aid.

Jesus says to Peter, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (v 53).

Fourth, Peter’s use of force is unwise. He also forgets that it is God’s purpose that Jesus should die (cf Mk 8:29-33; 9:31; 10:33). Jesus says to him, “But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way?” (v 54).

“I do not think it was easy for Jesus to say this,” writes James Montgomery Boice. “He had wrestled in prayer about what was required of him as God’s servant and man’s Savior just moments before.

“But this was what the Bible taught. Isaiah had written of the Messiah, ‘He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth’ (Isa 53:7).

“This passage does not describe a warrior; it describes a person who willingly died for us.”(1)

Finally, Peter’s use of force is unjust. Note exactly what Jesus commanded Peter to do. He told Peter to put his sword “back in its place.” He did not ask Peter to throw it away, or hand it over to the mob, or turn it in to the barracks.

When Tertullian declared in relation to Matthew 26:52, “The Lord, in subsequently disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier,” he was arguing on philosophical or moral grounds, not on biblical grounds.(2)

Jesus did not disapprove of Peter carrying a sword. He disapproved of its unjust use. I regard this observation as important in developing a biblical response to the question, “When is it right to fight?”

Historically Christians have made five responses to the issue of militarism:

(a) crusade: “this is God’s holy war!” (religious zeal)

(b) national interest war: “my nation, right or wrong!” (patriotism)

(c) just war: military conflict justified on a case-by-case basis by predetermined ethical criteria.

(d) non-resistance: participation in military conflict as a non- combatant (e.g. ambulance, chaplaincy)

(e) pacifism: absolute nonviolence based on the principle that all war is wrong and should not be supported by a Christian.

Many sound biblical, theological, philosophical, psychological, historical, sociological and cultural reasons can be given as to why these views have persisted so strongly over such a long period of time.

Most thoughtful Christians today support the just war position. They distinguish between the biblical teaching that a Christian should be an advocate of peace from the God-given duty of government to restrain and punish evil.

At the end of the day Christians will not agree on the best approach to war. The just war approach seems to me to provide the best fit with the range of biblical teaching. But wherever possible, I believe followers of Jesus will prefer nonviolence; like their Lord, they will be peacemakers.

——————-

Just-war principles

Just Cause (the only just cause for war is defence against violent and unjustified aggression against the state, or against a neighbour state unable to defend itself). Pre-emptive defence may be possible, subject to the other conditions set out below. Injustice (for example going to war in response to unjust economic sanctions) would not generally be sufficient cause unless the survival of the people or the state were so threatened as to warrant the injustice being classed as violent aggression.

Just Intention (the only just intention is to restore peace to friend and foe alike). There must be no motive of revenge or retribution. Just intention demands proper conduct, avoiding hatred or brutality.

Last Resort. The use of military force must be a last resort after every other effort to resolve the situation, including international negotiations, has been exhausted, and has failed.

Proper Authority. The decision to go to war must be made by the highest lawful government or supra-government authority, and should be marked by an official declaration of hostility

Limited Ends. A war must be waged for limited ends only – sufficient to repel aggression and to redress its injustice.

Proportionality (the means used to wage the war must be proportional to the offence and necessary to achieve the end intended). The evils of the war, in its conduct and in its aftermath (e.g. long term environmental damage), must not exceed the evils of the cause.

Protection of Non-Combatants. Violence must only be directed against enemy combatants. Non-combatants must be protected from direct or intentional attack.

Reasonable Chance of Success. If a just peace cannot be achieved, the additional suffering caused by the war would serve no purpose, so war must only be undertaken where there is a reasonable chance of success, and must be discontinued if that chance fades.

From D.J.E. Attwood, “War,” in New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1995) 885-888. Some just- war advocates list fewer or more principles.

(1) James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of Matthew Volume 2: The Triumph of the King, Matthew 18-28 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001) 576.

(2) Tertullian, “Treatise on Idolatry,” in J. Helgeland et al., Christians and the Military: The Early Experience (London: SCM Press, 1987) 23.

—————————–

Sermon 425, Blakehurst Baptist Church, Sydney, Australia, on Sunday November 4, 2001.

Copyright (c) 2001 Rod Benson. Reproduction in any form is permitted only with full copyright notice intact. Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible: New International Version (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1980).

You can contact Rev Rod Benson by e-mail at <> To subscribe direct to his weekly sermons, e-mail him with “subscribe” in the subject.