What the Bible Teaches About Violence is Common Sense to Those Without an Agenda

What the Bible teaches about whether violence is lawful or sin is actually common sense. Though there are nuances which must be accounted for, it is not very complicated. Sadly, many churches don’t understand and teach the obvious things which many who don’t know the Bible at all often get right in this area.

Rather than teaching Pacifism or justifying love of violence, the Bible teaches that violence is occasionally necessary yet should be avoided whenever that is reasonable. Doing what is one’s power to de-escalate conflict and refusing to fight (physically or otherwise) for the sake of bolstering one’s own ego or out of the pursuit of revenge in relation to perceived disrespect are essentials for following Jesus as the Bible prescribes. Wise tactics to stay calm in stress, to not unnecessarily provoke others, and to handle angry people who don’t necessarily have criminal intentions are skills which are taught by many employers. These are all essential skills for Christian discipleship as well. Comprehending the principle of Proverbs 15:1: “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger” is a generally effective de-escalation tactic. It is no surprise when people are taught the same basic, common sense thing in secular training.

It is seen in the Book of Acts how the first Gentile to be baptized without circumcision was a Roman centurion. Later on in Acts chapter 16 a jailer is baptized. These men didn’t need to step down from their jobs in order to be authentic disciples of Christ (like those in jobs which inevitably involve sin must step down). They already had experience in jobs where they had learned principles firsthand related to the prescribed Biblical attitude towards violence. Rather than hindering them in understanding and following righteousness before the true God, their experience in these positions actually gave them an advantage in doing so.

The attitude which the Bible prescribes towards violence rebukes gloating over inflicting violence- even when the violence itself was righteous. How much more is it evidently wrong to cheer violence which is for sport and entertainment? It is obviously exceedingly worse yet to cheer the violent victimization of someone who was not even a willing participant in the violence.

The Bible also rebukes feeling sorry for those who are having violence inflicted upon them when they are receiving the due consequences of their own choices and actions through proper channels of authority. It is evidently wrong to an even higher degree to oppose such infliction of violence.

It is not hard to see that being a sadistic person who loves violence and being a pacifist who never condones violence under any circumstance are both out of line and involve much sin. People sometimes hear of others going into one ditch on one side of the road and react by going into the ditch on the other side. A group of sadistic people laughing at the thought of shooting a potentially harmful intruder in their home or cheering someone being brutally beaten as part of a sporting event shouldn’t be justified- yet reacting to them should not involve thinking it is wrong to own a gun and to use it to protect oneself and others from criminals or to use violence otherwise in that context. Likewise, someone who acts like a pacifist and just allows members of their household to be harmed by an intruder is guilty of complicity with criminal action- yet reacting to that by actually looking forward to having a chance to kill an intruder is evil. Not everyone is so unstable, yet people do get steered into the ditches of Pacifism and sadistic love of violence through unwarranted reactions to those who go wrong in a different direction.

The Lord ordained the death penalty for murderers. His clear verdict about this is seen in Genesis 9:6: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” The Bible is filled with examples of righteous people killing criminals in upholding law and order. Moses was a righteous defender rather than a murderer in defending the Hebrew slave who was being violently oppressed by an Egyptian. Moses and many other Biblical examples prove that being a Good Samaritan might mean killing a violent criminal in the process of attempting to harm others. The Good Samaritan himself might have killed the violent robbers of the wounded man he helped if he had shown up to the scene a little earlier with a weapon and the skill to use the weapon to dispatch those violent robbers. The story of the Good Samaritan was actually told by Jesus to illustrate what the Law of Moses already taught about what it means to love your neighbor as yourself.

People often object to the death penalty or the killing of criminals in the act of violence by saying “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yet such killing is right while to oppose it is wrong. In the Ten Commandments when God says “Thou shalt not kill”, it is a reference to murder. The versions of the Bible which say “thou shalt not kill” would have been more accurate to say “thou shalt not murder.” When one kills criminals to defend those whom they are victimizing, that is the fault of the criminals. It is also not murder for a government to slay a murderer convicted through due process of law.

Those who oppose the death penalty and say it is not Christian put themselves in the camp of Jesus’ opponents who make the Word of God of no effect through their own tradition. People who say that the death penalty is wrong are in the wrong themselves as they thereby justify murderers and other highly malignant criminals by seeking to have them absolved of the only logically just punishment which their crimes warrant. The Bible says in Proverbs 12:10 that the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. This is a key example of that. Death penalty opponents contend with God Himself and essentially claim to be better and more compassionate than He is.

There are also many who say that the death penalty doesn’t work. Yet the death penalty ensures that duly convicted killers never kill again. That is the definition of working. And suppose it didn’t accomplish one iota more than that, to oppose it is still enabling future killing. Yet American states, and many other places which still practice the death penalty, don’t do it consistently enough nor quick enough for it to have even a significant amount of the effect it ought to have in terms of it being a deterrent to violent crime.

In the current system in America even obviously and admittedly guilty people can often plea bargain their way out of the death penalty. Even those who do get sentenced to death don’t actually get put to death for many years, often for many decades, and often even die on death row because of how long it takes for the whole process to happen. People won’t be scared away from crime by putting someone to death when the crime they committed happened decades ago. The Bible also says in Ecclesiastes 8:11 “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”

Some are against the death penalty because they are afraid of an innocent person being put to death for a crime they didn’t do. Yet the Lord prescribed the death penalty to be carried out by mortal men who might fail and cause this to happen. It is man’s job to fix the problems which could lead to innocent people being slain along with the wicked. If those in power can’t solve this problem, they shouldn’t be in power and it is reasonable to conclude that they are a curse to society rather than an asset. Consider also all the innocent people who get murdered by people who do not fear the death penalty like they might if they thought it were likely they’d die themselves within a very short time of the crime happening.

Many use the story of Jesus dealing with the woman caught in adultery in John chapter 8:1-11 to say that He condemned the death penalty. Yet John 8 verses 1 to 11 are not even dealing with whether the death penalty is right or not. The passage is actually dealing with a wicked and clever attempt to frame Jesus which Jesus countered in a righteous and even more clever way to expose the hypocrisy of His adversaries. The passage is not about an honest, sincere, and accurate attempt to carry out the death penalty on terms consistent with those laid out in the Law of Moses.

Let’s look then at the often misunderstood passage from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-39: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Jesus is dealing with personal insult here rather than serious attempts to physically injure. He is obviously rebuking twisting passages about the God-ordained vengeance delegated to the government in order to justify personal vengeance over insults (which the Jews have been notorious for doing- and also note that the Jews are the original attackers and instigators in their conflict with the Palestinians). The Bible obviously teaches that one who is attacked has the right to defend themselves. If the aggressor is harmed, that is their fault. They brought that harm upon themselves. Yet it is wrong to track people down of one’s own accord to administer one’s own perception of justice. That is unlawful resistance to evil and that is what Jesus deals with in the Sermon on the Mount.

Jesus Himself is the Word made flesh who inspired the command in the Law of Moses for the judges of society to carry out an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Deuteronomy 19:15-21: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

When Jesus was smitten by a Temple officer, He didn’t turn the other cheek. Was Jesus a hypocrite for not doing so? No, because His point in saying turn the other cheek is to not return insult for insult. Rather than smiting the Temple officer (which He could have at least done verbally), He rebuked the officer due to how the officer’s action was unjust. Some call that playing the ball rather than the man.

A little later in the Sermon on the Mount we come to another commonly misunderstood saying in Matthew 5:43-45: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”

“Love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy” is not even a Biblical saying at all. It is rather a saying that was common among the Jews which didn’t originate from the Bible (as there are many things said among Christians which don’t originate from the Bible). Consider that the Old Testament did indeed teach people to love their enemies on a personal level. When Jesus taught love of enemies in the Sermon on the Mount, He was also only echoing and clarifying what the Law of Moses already taught about that.

Exodus 23:4-5: “If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass (donkey) going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass (donkey) of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.”

Jesus proved that the Law of Moses itself forbids vengeance on a personal level. When He said things like turn the other cheek, resist not evil, love your enemies, etc. He was not saying to not have a gun, to not shoot the guy who is trying to kill you, to not be a soldier or a law enforcement officer, to not protect your home from intruders, to not support appropriate judicial punishment for convicted criminals, etc. There cannot be a faithful Biblical Christian testimony when good is labeled as evil and vice-versa.

It is really only common sense that it is always right to do good to those who hate you (in the sense of giving them water if they are thirsty rather than be a do-gooder who casts pearls before swine), to bless them that curse you (in the sense of not having a malicious attitude towards them- it doesn’t mean tell them “God bless you”), and to pray for one’s enemies without personal malice. It is also common sense that it is right to bring criminals to justice- whether they are personal enemies or not. It is always right to defend oneself and others from violent criminal action. It was also never right to retaliate on a personal level (even a subtle insult or passive aggressive act of cruelty). People can, and often are, aggressive bullies who are malevolent and inflict unrighteous harm on others without even using physical violence.

This distinction between judicial and personal vengeance is why Moses had stonings performed under his authority of criminals who had done things which the Lord had prescribed the death penalty for- yet he prayed for those who spoke against his own person. This is why Jesus as a man did good to His enemies, prayed for them, and even died to make a way for them to repent and be forgiven- while as the Judge of mankind He will yet condemn His unrepentant enemies to the eternal fire of hell on Judgment Day.

Many are influenced by a heresy which goes back to the 2nd century AD to a man named Marcion. Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament. Many now arrive at Marcion’s conclusions without blatantly saying that the God of the Old Testament is not the Father of Jesus Christ. They do this by claiming that Jesus taught a higher or better law than what is taught through Moses in the Old Testament. They also do this by teaching that God is less violent and wrathful now than He was in Old Testament times. This practically means that they teach unrighteous things like Pacifism as the Christian standard when Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels on non-resistance were actually a clarification of, and a vindication of, the Law of Moses which His own Spirit also inspired. When someone says something like “Jesus taught us to love our enemies; the Old Testament didn’t do that”, they are echoing a Marcionite concept.

And if you need more proof that Jesus, as the Word made flesh, was only echoing and clarifying what the Law of Moses already taught in the often misunderstood Sermon on the Mount, look at what He would go on to say there.

Matthew 7:12: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

One cannot be a pacifist then and be in line with the real Jesus of the Bible. Moreover, Pacifism promotes idolatry. The false “hippie Jesus” which many believe in is intrinsically linked to the lie that Jesus was a pacifist.

Don’t think then that owning a gun and being ready to use it on violent criminals makes a professing Christian a hypocrite. It doesn’t. This is not saying that it is a sin to not have a gun either. People should consult the laws of their land and consider their own circumstances to make reasonable decisions about which weapons they own and when they carry them. Those who have others they are in charge of ought to take reasonable measures somehow for their protection. Churches should indeed have security plans and should consider having well trained, responsible armed security along with training for the church as a whole to best deal with various emergency situations.

The pacifists might point to Matthew 26:51-52 and quote “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” to try to justify Pacifism. This means though that those who live by violence will perish by violence. Those who take up weapons and use them unlawfully are the strongest candidates to die a violent death which is really their own fault. There is nothing in the context of “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” to suggest that it is wrong to have a weapon which you are ready to use for defense.

Jesus told His disciples to obtain swords (Luke 22:35-38)- even though He rebuked them for using the swords against the authorities to try to save Him from being arrested. The disciples were going to need the swords to protect themselves going forward. It is possible that the swords His disciples were carrying are mainly what prevented them from being arrested when Jesus was. We see in Acts chapter 23 that the Apostle Paul, after he had been arrested and taken into custody by the Romans, had the Roman Army’s leadership notified of a plot by the Jews to kill him. Paul knew full well that this notification, if successful, would result in extra armed security for himself (and it did). Abraham, the man commended as the model of faith for Christians in Romans chapter 4, had 318 servants who were born in his house which were trained for war. He also had a sufficient supply of weapons for them (see Genesis 14:14-16).