Category: Christian Non-Violence

Salt and Light: Influence Through Distinction

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Living, Christian Non-Violence, Christian's Relationship to Government, Kingdom Life, Love for Enemies

The debate over Christian engagement in politics is often framed as a choice between two extremes: complete withdrawal from the Christian responsibility to influence the world, or full-scale activism aimed at transforming society through political power. “We must be salt and light” is often used as a rallying cry to push Christians into the support various social and political movements.

But what kind of influence does Jesus actually call his followers to have? In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus declares:

You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor to people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 5:13-16

The metaphors of salt and light clearly describe Christian influence. However, this influence is rooted in distinctiveness, not assimilation with the world. Salt and light do not blend in with their surroundings; they transform precisely because they are of a different character. Jesus warns “If salt has lost its taste… it is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out.”

Christian influence is not about adopting the methods of earthly kingdoms and their ways of influencing the world for what they see as good. It is about standing apart from the world by faithfully following the commands and example of Jesus in a way that makes the Kingdom of God, and its numerous good works, visible to the world.

A Different Kingdom

Some argue, “But Jesus has all authority (Matthew 28:18)! He reigns over everything! How can we cede any ground to ungodly secular leaders?!” While Jesus does indeed have all authority, the way he gains and exercises his authority is crucially important to keep front of mind.

The command to be “salt and light” must not be used to justify the desire to adopt whatever method of influence seems good in our own eyes. On numerous occasions, Jesus was offered opportunities to influence the world through the methods of earthly kingdoms, and each time he resisted.

For example, in Matthew 4:8-10, Satan offered him all the kingdoms of the world. If Jesus had all the power and authority of the world’s kingdoms, just imagine the policies he could have implemented!  Jesus had the opportunity to end abortion, enforce justice, feed the hungry, ensure sufficient provisions for the widows and fatherless, outlaw innumerable vices, and ensure righteous rule throughout the whole world! Yet Jesus rejected this offer. Why? Because it would have bypassed the cross, leaving death – the greatest tyrant of all – unchallenged.

Though Jesus did ultimately gain all authority over heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18), his method for achieving this authority was not the method of earthly rulers. If Jesus had gained power without suffering, he would have gained influence without redemption. If he had chosen to reform earthly kingdoms into improved versions of themselves, he would have failed to establish the kingdom of God. If he had avoided the cross, he could have been a great teacher, cultural influences, moral reformer, or a great political figure – one among many. However, he would have failed to destroy the very root of all earthly corruption – sin itself.

That’s why in John 6:15, when the people tried to make Jesus a king by force, he withdrew. Though he had the perfect opportunity to assume earthly power, he chose a different path. Later, before Pilate, Jesus clarified:

My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting.

John 18:36

Jesus did not deny that he had the authority of a king, but he emphasized that his kingdom is of a different origin, and therefore operates differently. His followers are distinguished by their refusal to fight as the servants of earthly kingdoms do.  Paul reinforces this in 2 Corinthians 10:3-4:

For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but have divine power to destroy strongholds.

Jesus’ authority is not advanced through fighting with fleshly means, but through spiritual weapons. Christians fight best as they proclaim the gospel – the gospel that can transform mankind from the inside out – a far more powerful form of influence than any earthly means can ever achieve.

What Does “Salt and Light” Influence Look Like?

Salt preserves and flavors precisely because it is different from that which it is applied to. Light illuminates because it stands in contrast to the darkness. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus does not call his followers to take control of society; he challenges them to live by a radically different set of values than those that uphold earthly kingdoms.

The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12) emphasize that the poor in spirit, the meek, and the peacemakers are the blessed ones. While Jesus exalts humility and gentleness rather than coercion and force, earthly political structures reward qualities like strength, assertiveness, and dominance.

Unlike the “eye for an eye” justice system of secular courts, Jesus instructs his followers to “turn the other cheek” and love their enemies (Matthew 5:38-44). This teaching upends the cycle of violence and retribution that characterizes earthly kingdoms.

In Matthew 6:33, Jesus urges his followers to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,” urging them to prioritize “treasures in heaven” over material wealth, political power, or social status. While earthly kingdom rely on the accumulation of power and resources, the kingdom of God calls for radical trust in divine provision.

The way Jesus calls his followers to influence the world in the Sermon on the Mount mirrors how Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego influenced Babylon. Though given positions of power (Daniel 2:49), they ultimately achieved influence by refusing to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image (Daniel 3:16-18). Their bold stance not only led to their miraculous deliverance from death, but also influenced the king himself to acknowledge the power of God (Daniel 3:28).

Similarly, the early church was credited with “turning the world upside down” (Acts 17:6-7). Yet, they did not achieve this by rallying behind various political movements, or influencing Caesar’s governance. Their world changing power came from proclaiming that there was “another king, Jesus.”

Jesus certainly expected his rule to influence the world for good, but he never instructed his disciples to seek control over earthly kingdoms. In fact, he explicitly warned them against ruling over others in the manner of earthly rulers (Mark 10:42-43).

Does This Mean Christians Should Be Passive?

The idea that “Christians must influence every realm of life” often leads to the assumption that faithfulness is measured by political success. Some argue that avoiding direct political engagement is cowardly or compromising. But this accusation assumes that faithfulness is defined by how successfully Christians get rulers to uphold godly values. But Jesus calls his disciples to be faithful regardless of political outcomes.

Was Jesus “passive” when He refused an earthly crown and instead word a crown of thorns? Was Peter a “compromising” when he urged Christians to submit to the emperor (1 Peter 2:13)? Was Paul a “failure” for preaching the kingdom of God while under house arrest rather than advising Caesar on the best public policies?

No – faithfulness is not about ruling as the Gentiles do, but about obeying Christ and following in his steps, regardless of the cost. True Christian influence is not that which is achieved through legislation, but through lives that reflect Christ. Our hope is not in Christianized laws or political victories, but in the gospel, “the power of God for salvation.”

Influence Through Distinction

The call to be salt and light must never be perverted into a call to rule over others. Christian influence comes through faithfulness to a radically different kingdom, built on distinctive values. To the extent that we assimilate to the ways of earthly kingdoms, we lose our saltiness. But if we remain faithful to the way of Christ, our light will shine through the darkness, no matter how much or how little power we appear to have.   

Instead of asking, “How can we take control?” we should ask, “How can we better replicate the methods of Jesus?” Our impact is not measured by dominance but by our distinctiveness – how closely our lives reflect the way of the cross. Only then can we truly be salt and light in the world.

What Kind of Power Do You Trust?

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Living, Christian Non-Violence, Christian's Relationship to Government

At the heart of the gospel is Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection. From the moment Pilate declared, “I have the power to crucify you,” to Jesus’s silent submission to death, the crucifixion of Jesus clearly highlights a stark contrast between two radically different forms of power. One was the power of the sword, the tool of earthly rulers. The other was the power of the cross, the ultimate demonstration of obedience, humility, love, and sacrifice – a power the world struggles to comprehend. At the cross, these two powers collide, leaving us faced with a crucial question: What kind of power do we trust?

The Power of the Sword

Earthly kingdoms have always maintained their authority through the power of the sword. This means their rule is enforced through violence or the threat of violence. Coercion and control is at the heart of how earthly governments, nations, and rulers sustain their authority. How do earthly kingdoms punish criminals? Through force. How do nations maintain their borders? Through force. How do governments defend themselves from enemies? Through force. Even the financing of the most basic government operations – such as collecting taxes – is upheld by force.

Some might argue that government power isn’t always coercive, as citizens often willingly submit to authority as a moral duty. Scriptures such as “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21) and “Be subject to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1) may come to mind. But even voluntary submission to authority doesn’t change the nature of government power. It is fundamentally coercive. If anyone refuses to submit, they face fines, imprisonment, or other punishments. This reveals that the authority of earthly governments is always backed up by the threat of violence, making it inherently coercive.

In Romans 13:1-7, Paul clearly acknowledges that governing authorities “bear the sword” as their tool of enforcement, referring to their use of lethal force when necessary. This type of power is evident throughout Scripture. Pharaoh ordered the death of Hebrew male children to maintain control of Israel’s growing population (Exodus 1:8-16). Haman plotted to destroy the Jews in a effort to eliminate them as a perceived threat (Esther 3:8-13). Similarly, King Nebuchadnezzar threatened to execute by fire anyone who refused to worship his golden image (Daniel 3:13-18). The ultimate example of this kind of power occurred when Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, authorized the crucifixion of Jesus, despite finding no fault in him, demonstrating the Roman authority to use death as a tool for political expediency (Luke 23:24-25). Earthly kingdoms rely on the power of the sword to maintain authority.

The Power of the Cross

In sharp contrast, Jesus’s kingdom rejects the power of the sword. The Kingdom of God does not seek forced obedience, nor is it sustained by violence or coercion. Rather it is a kingdom of peace, maintained through faithful, self-sacrificial, obedient love. Even in the Old Testament examples of times when God’s people used the sword against their enemies, such as in Israel’s conquest of Canaan, or David’s victory over Goliath, success only came through trusting in God’s power, not in the sword itself. These examples demonstrate the importance of relying on God’s victory, pointing ahead to Christ’s victory on the cross.

Isaiah prophesied that in the Messiah’s kingdom, violence would end, as swords are transformed into plowshares (Isaiah 2:4). Jesus underscored this when he declared, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting” (John 18:36). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught His followers not to violently resist evil, but to turn the other cheek and love their enemies (Matthew 5:38-39, 43-44). This non-violent resistance to evil stands in direct opposition to the power of the sword. When Peter attempted to use the power of the sword in Jesus’s defense, he was sharply rebuked for it (Luke 22:49-51).

Jesus’s exaltation to authority was dependent on his humility and obedience, ultimately exemplified in his death on the cross (Philippians 2:5-8). No earthly authority resembles Jesus in this way. No political regime has ever gained power through a commitment to love their enemies and overcoming evil with good. The very idea of an earthly government that refuses to bear the sword or defend itself from enemies is absurd.

However, Jesus’s kingdom is not of this world, nor does God does not expect earthly governments to operate like his kingdom. Since earthly governments bear the sword, God arranges them in such a way so as to execute his wrath on the unbelieving world (Romans 13:1-4). But the contrast between the sword and the cross remains clear. While earthly governments maintain authority through coercion, Jesus’s kingdom advances through the self-denial of faithful obedience and love.

The Cross is Greater Than the Sword

At the cross, we see the ultimate showdown between these two powers – coercion versus sacrificial love. At the time of the crucifixion, the cross was the greatest symbol of coercive power. It was the Roman’s tool for capital punishment, akin to a modern-day electric chair. Yet, because of Christ, the symbol of the cross has been transformed to represent the ultimate demonstration of the power of self-sacrificial obedience and love.

While the sword can end life, the cross has the power to give life. In the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus disarms the power of the sword, because He destroyed the power of death itself. As Paul writes, Jesus “disarmed the rulers and authorities,” and “put them to an open shame” by triumphing over them (Colossians 2:15). Unlike the sword, which can offer at best a temporary suppression of evil, the cross destroys the power of sin and death. Though virtues such as submission, obedience, and patience may seem weak or impractical, it is the reliance on God’s ultimate justice that gives them strength. Because of the resurrection, the way of the cross is revealed as powerful and ultimately practical.

In Revelation 5:5-6, the Lion of Judah is seen, not as a warrior, but as the Lamb who was slain. This image symbolizes that the true victory found in Christ comes not through violence, but through self-sacrifice.

Which Power Do You Trust?

As followers of Christ, we are called to follow the pattern and example of Christ, who endured suffering for the sake of others (1 Peter 2:21). Christians are called to be a holy, set apart nation, exercising priestly influence (1 Peter 2:9). Christians must be living sacrifices, refusing the conform to the patterns of this world (Romans 12:1-2). We’re called to be nonconformist, because we put our trust in the way of Christ, which is the way of the cross. Being “Christ-like” isn’t just one aspect of who we are, it’s the very essence of what being a Christian is all about.

This holy distinction from the world is lost, however, when Christians try to put their trust in both the kingdoms of the world and the Kingdom of God at the same time. Trusting in the power of the sword, or worldly power, is incompatible with trusting in the power of the cross. When Christians covet the opportunity to fix the world through the power of the sword, the power of the Kingdom of God, for all practical purposes, ceases to be exercised.

While following the way of the cross often looks weak, impractical, and ineffective in comparison to the power of the sword, it is, in fact, the greatest power in the world. At the cross, we see the final and decisive victory of self-sacrificial obedience and love over violence. Jesus’s resurrection is the proof that the faithful obedience to God is greater than the power of coercion and force. The cross reveals that the strength of the sword is actually weakness, and the weakness of faithful submissive love is strength.

The cross is God’s ultimate answer to evil, not through perpetuating violence, but through obedient, suffering, self-sacrificial love. Christians are called to live after this same pattern, trusting not in the powers of this world but in the greater power of the cross.

Reflections on Church Security and Faithfulness

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence, Love for Enemies

In recent years, the presence of armed security teams in churches has become increasingly common, largely due to the unfortunate reality of violent attacks, including potential church shootings.  However, beyond the immediate safety concerns, there are important doctrinal implications to consider as well. Does Scripture permit Christian churches to have armed security to protect them against deadly threats? On the other hand, does Scripture permit us to do nothing to protect the flock?

The aim of this article is simply to encourage us to reflect, not only on safety, but on the teachings of Scripture, particularly regarding how we as Christians should think about and treat our enemies.

On Courage and Justice

I deeply respect the courage of those who serve on church security teams, who are willing to put themselves in harm’s way to protect their Christian family from potential threats. Their courage is worthy of honor. Moreover, I believe the Bible demonstrates that murderers are justly deserving of death (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:23-25; Lev. 24:19-20; Deut. 19:21).

However, we must remember that justice and courage are not the totality of what is necessary for an action to align with faithful discipleship. Consider when Peter attempted to defend Jesus with the sword during His arrest (Lk. 22:47-53; Jn. 18:10-11). Peter showed tremendous courage, facing a mob of soldiers to protect an innocent man from being unjustly executed. Yet, Jesus rebuked Peter, highlighting a crucial point: just because an action is both courageous and just does not mean it necessarily always aligns with Jesus’s demands for his followers. “Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” must not be our only consideration (Mt. 5:38-42).

As Christians, our primary call is to faithfully follow Jesus as Lord, obeying his commands (Mt. 28:19-20). Therefore, our decision making regarding armed security in churches should not focus solely on what is most effective in providing safety, or even on what can be considered a “just” use of violence, but on what best reflects our commitment of faithfully obey Jesus.

On Self Defense and Protecting the Church

Paul’s words on marital love in Ephesians 5:25-29 serve as a guide for how husbands should care for their wives, mirroring Christ’s love for the church. This love is shown by “nourishing” and “cherishing” her. Similarly, in 1 Timothy 5:8 husbands are commanded to provide for the physical needs of their own households. Acts 20:28 emphasized the responsibility of elders to watch over and protect the flock. These Scriptures, and others, illustrate the necessity of protecting loved ones under our care from both spiritual and physical dangers.

Numerous New Testament passages illustrate the principle of protecting loved ones from physical harm. Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt to protect Jesus from King Herod (Mt. 4:13-14). Jesus escaped harm when his life was threatened in Nazareth (Lk. 4:29-30) and hid himself from harm at the temple (Jn. 8:59). When Paul’s life was threatened at Damascus, the disciples defended his life by lowering him in a basket to escape danger (Acts 9:23-24). To protect the church and loved ones from physical threats is something we should strive to do.

While there are times when laying down one’s life for Christ may be necessary, the New Testament does not suggest passivity in the face of danger. It is, however, important to acknowledge that the imperative to protect loved ones does not justify using any means necessary for safety. For instance, just as the duty to provide for one’s household doesn’t justify stealing food to feed them, protecting the church doesn’t permit denying Jesus or violating his commands. If someone threatened violence unless we denied Jesus as Lord, we could not comply, even in the name of defending the church. We might consider other actions, but denying Jesus or breaking His commands in the name of protection is not permissible (cf. Rom. 12:17-21; 1 Pet. 3:9; Rom. 3:8).

Self-defense and protection of loved ones is a good and righteous pursuit, but faithfulness to Christ must always take precedence over physical safety (cf. Rev. 2:10; 12:11).

On Loving Enemies

Every Christian contemplating scenarios where they might be called on to kill someone, and every elder considering putting members of their flock in positions where they might be called on to use lethal force, must wrestle with the question of whether such actions faithfully align with the commands of Jesus and his apostles.

The New Testament offers clear and consistent guidance on how Christians should view and treat their enemies. We are commanded to love and pray for them (Mt. 5:44; Lk. 6:27-28, 35), imitating the Father’s mercy and impartial kindness, even to those who don’t deserve it (Mt. 5:44-46; Lk. 6:36). We must not prioritize our love for those reciprocate it, but extend love even to our enemies (Mt .5:46-47; Lk. 6:32-35).

Not only are we commanded to love them and turn the other cheek when struck (Mt. 5:39; Lk. 6:29), but we are specifically commanded to “do good” to them (Lk. 6:27, 31, 34-35), even in those times when we expect nothing good in return as a result (Lk. 6:35). Blessing, and not cursing should characterize our desires for them (Lk. 6:28; Rom. 12:14).  We are not to repay their evil with evil, but with good (Rom. 12:17; 1 Thess. 5:15), doing everything we possibly can to be at peace with them (Rom. 12:18), leaving vengeance to God (Rom. 12:19), providing for their physical needs (Rom. 12:20), overcoming their evil with good (Rom. 12:21).

Jesus demonstrated this by serving, healing, and praying for his enemies, even as they took his life (Jn. 13:1-5; Lk. 22:52; 23:34). Jesus suffered even when he had the power to crush his enemies, and this is the example we are called to follow (1 Pet. 2:21-24).

And here’s the real challenge: there’s never an exception clause. Nowhere does it say “Love your enemies, except for the really dangerous kind who threaten to kill innocent people,” or “Do good to them, unless common sense tells you their life needs to be ended.” It’s always just “love them,” period. “Do good to them,” period. “Bless them,” period.

It’s noteworthy that many early Christians who originally received these commands did in fact have to deal with the really dangerous, life-threatening kind of enemy – the kind of enemy that would drag off family members and crucify them, or feed them to the lions, or burn them alive. They understood Jesus’s teachings as requiring so much more than simply being nice to difficult people. While they took precautions, they were committed to following Jesus’s commands regarding their enemies, even at the cost of their lives.

Doesn’t the Bible Command us to Arm Ourselves?

Before his crucifixion, Jesus commanded his disciples to buy a sword (Lk. 22:36). This command was not, however, for self-defense as often assumed. Rather, it was given for the reason stated by Jesus, “For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’” (Lk. 22:37). Later that evening, when Peter used a sword for self-defense, he was rebuked (Lk. 22:50-51), further clarifying that Jesus’s directive was not an authorization for self-defense.

The New Testament does, however, contain several instances where Christians are encouraged to arm themselves, but not with physical weapons. Instead, we are called to arm ourselves with spiritual attributes and mindsets. In 1 Peter 4:1, Christians are told to “arm yourselves with the same way of thinking” as Christ, who endured suffering for the sake of others (1 Peter 2:21-23).  Ephesians 6:13-18 instructs Christians to put on the “whole armor of God,” which includes truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation, and the sword of the spirit. Similarly, 2 Corinthians 10:4 emphasizes arming ourselves with spiritual weapons rather than relying on fleshly means. Thus, while Christians are indeed commanded to arm themselves against evil, the weapons we are called to use are always spiritual in nature.

Should Churches Have Armed Security Teams?

The primary consideration for churches regarding armed security teams is whether our actions align with the teachings and example of Christ and his apostles. We may certainly wrestle with the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, carefully considering if we are understanding his teachings correctly, and examining how they should best be applied in various situations, but we cannot choose to ignore or disagree with difficult commandments. Only if, after humble examination, we conclude that using lethal force against our enemies is consistent with Jesus’s commands, may we carefully proceed with armed security teams.

Remember, it is not enough to ask if the enemy deserves to be killed, or if our actions will effectively save lives. We must also consider if our actions align with the teachings and example of Christ, who died for us while we were still his enemies (Rom. 5:6-10).

If we conclude that using lethal force against an enemy is inconsistent with Jesus’s commands, this does not mean that we should be careless in protecting our families and churches. Shortly after the close of the New Testament period, the early Christians even gathered in catacombs due to safety concerns.

While I don’t understand how the decision to have armed security teams can be reconciled with the teachings of Scripture, I do not question the faith of those in support of armed security teams. After all, Jesus praised the faith of a Roman Centurion (Mt. 8:5-10). Although Jesus never endorsed the Centurion’s use of violence, he still recognized his faith as praiseworthy. I simply want to encourage all my fellow Christians to prioritize faithfulness to Jesus’s teachings about loving our enemies, even if it means risking our lives for His sake.



The Worst Error a Church Can Make

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence, Kingdom Life, Love for Enemies

I recently conducted an informal Facebook poll, posing the question, “In your opinion, what is the worst error a church can make?” The responses touched on various issues of great importance, including the failure to uphold biblical authority, neglect of doctrinal truth, and leadership issues, such as having weak or unqualified elders. Others focused on relational problems in the church, such as gossip, judgmental attitudes, or letting people slip through the cracks without being noticed.

Without minimizing the seriousness of any of the errors mentioned, I invite you to consider one error which permeates all others – the failure to love God and others.

Love as the Cornerstone of All Other Commands

The New Testament defines love by pointing to Jesus Christ’s selfless sacrifice.

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.

1 John 3:16

To love is to imitate Jesus, who died for us, even when we were undeserving sinners (cf. Rom. 5:6-10).

The New Testament tells us that the command to love (i.e., to love in a way that resembles Jesus’s self-sacrificial love) is the greatest of all commands. Everything else hinges on fulfilling this law.

And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 22:34-40

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Romans 13:8-10

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” you are doing well.

James 2:8

Paul and Peter emphasize the importance of love, urging Christians to put on love above all else.

And above all these, put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

Colossians 4:14

Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.

1 Peter 4:8

In the well known “love chapter” (1 Corinthians 13), Paul asserts that without love, there is nothing we can do in our service to God that holds any value.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal… If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3

It should be noted that the command to love extends to all, even to those who don’t deserve it – even to our enemies (Luke 6:27-35). In fact, loving our enemies is the prerequisite for being considered as “children of the Most High.”

But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.

Luke 6:35

To what extent should we be merciful to those who don’t deserve it? We are to “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36).

To love others, even when it is undeserved, and implies self-sacrifice, hardship, and harm, is simply what it means to be a “Christian.” That is, to be a “Christian” we must love like Christ.

Implications of Failing to Love

It is important to note that the New Testament does not teach a minimalist approach to Christianity, as if nothing else matters beyond loving God and loving others. On the contrary Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

Later, John reinforces this point:

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

1 John 5:2-3

“Love God, Love Others” shouldn’t be a mere slogan, while other points of doctrine are minimized in their importance. Instead, if we genuinely love God with all of our heart, soul, and strength, everything else becomes more significant. In fact, it should matter even more to us because of our love for God others. This isn’t Christian minimalism; it’s Christian maximalism.

At the same time, it’s crucial to acknowledge that even if we follow commandments, uphold doctrinal truth, lead the church wisely, live holy lives, treat others kindly, and even lay down our lives, yet without starting with love for God and others, we miss the point. Loving the Lord with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind is the principle from which obedience to all other commandments flow.

Think carefully about this: If love is to be placed above all else, and if all our service to God is worthless without love, and if every other command hangs on the commandment to love, what conclusion can we draw, but that the failure to love is the worst possible error that a church could make.

Yes, there will be doctrinal disagreements and errors, and unqualified elders causing problems. But how we respond to these problems, and the individuals involved, is of utmost importance.

If we’re thinking biblically, how can we avoid the conclusion that mistreating, misrepresenting, slandering, or attempting to embarrass someone in the name of truth stands as just as bad, if not worse, than whatever error it is we claim to be opposing.

Self-Examination

While we have an obligation to distinguish between what is and what is not faithful, it is crucial to guard against self-righteousness. Instead of feeling righteous by contrasting ourselves with some of the more unkind, unloving Christian examples, we must start by asking ourselves: Are we guilty of the worst error imaginable? Do we do everything in love? Do we place love for God and others above all else?

Think about it.

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Ephesians 5:1-2

Forgive Them

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence, Love for Enemies

Whenever we reflect on Jesus’s death on the cross, one of the most shocking and challenging verses is Jesus’s prayer in Luke 23:34:

“And Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’”

It’s one thing to pray for our enemies when those enemies are distant, don’t present any immediate danger to our loved ones, or perhaps only mildly annoy us. But the setting of Jesus’s prayer makes this verse even more shocking and challenging. Jesus said this right after being betrayed, arrested, denied by his closest friends and disciples, mocked, beaten, falsely accused, unjustly tried, nailed to a cross, crowned with thorns, and left to slowly suffocate on the cross. What’s more, Jesus had the power to call more than twelve legions of angels to save himself and destroy his enemies (Mt. 26:53), so it’s not as if Jesus didn’t have other options. And yet, it was at this moment that Jesus assumes the ignorance of those who were crucifying him, and prays for their forgiveness on that basis.

This prayer, prayed on behalf of Jesus’s enemies (and for us, for it was our sin that put him there – Romans 5:6-10), is powerful. It is life changing. This is the kind of radical forgiveness that allows us to leave our sin in the past and move ahead without having to carry our guilt with us. This is the kind of undeserved forgiveness that can transform us into completely new kind of people. But it also presents us with a tremendous challenge because we, as disciples of Jesus, are expected to forgive our enemies in the same way that Jesus forgave his enemies.

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is continually held up as an example that we are to follow. For a few examples, consider the following scriptures.

A new commandment I give to you, that you are to love one another: Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

John 13:34-35

Observe that we are not simply commanded to love one another. We are commanded to love one another as Jesus loved.

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Ephesians 5:1-2

Observe that we are not simply commanded to imitate God. We are specifically commanded to imitate God by loving as Christ loved – a love that was demonstrated by his self-sacrifice for us.

But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believed in him for eternal life.

1 Timothy 1:16

Observe that Paul did not simply benefit from Christ’s mercy and patience. Paul recognized that Jesus’s mercy and patience were an example for those of us who believe in Him. If Jesus’ mercy and patience is an example, that means that we are expected to imitate Him.

For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.

1 Peter 2:20-24

Of course we should strive to follow Jesus’s example in all things. But observe that in this text, Peter specifically calls us to follow in the steps of Jesus as he patiently suffered and died on the cross at the hands of his enemies. We are to die to sin especially in those moments when we would be the most tempted to retaliate against our enemies.

We are commanded to have the same self-sacrificial mindset that we see in Jesus himself.

Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which was also in Christ Jesus.

Philippians 2:4-5

Or as Paul simply puts in in 1 Corinthians 2:16, “We have the mind of Christ.”

This means that the attitude that Jesus had toward his enemies is the attitude we are expected to have toward our enemies and toward one another. Even when we are witnessing the worst possible behavior, we are to follow the example of Christ. Even when we are the ones who are left to suffer the pain caused by the behavior of others, we are to follow the example of Christ. Even when we are wrongfully accused, publicly slandered, or betrayed, we are to follow the example of Christ. Even when we find ourselves with the opportunity to make our enemies justly suffer for their actions, we are to follow the example of Christ. We are to assume “they know not what they do” and pray for their forgiveness on that basis.

Of course, someone might reasonably ask, “Is there ever a line that could be crossed that would be such an extreme evil that we are no longer expected to follow Jesus’s example?” This is a good question, but as we wrestle with this question we also consider if there could even be an example of evil that is more extreme than what Jesus experienced at the cross? It should be noted that the first Christian martyr, Stephen, followed the example of Jesus’ prayer almost verbatim (Acts 7:60).  

Following Jesus’s example runs contrary to what seems to come most naturally. Of course we should also be praying for friends and neighbors who suffer as a result of violence. Of course we should pray for justice to be executed in response to evil. Such prayers are natural responses to evil, and they aren’t wrong provided we leave vengeance in God’s hands (see Romans 12:18-21). But if we do not pray for the forgiveness and deliverance of our enemies, we will fail to reflect the attitude that God had towards us when we were his enemies.

For while we were still weak at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person – though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die – But God shows his love for us in that while were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 5:6-8

As our society continues to grow more and more polarized, as opposing groups continually hurl their hatred and insults towards one another, and as people continually assume the worst possible motives from one another, let’s hold ourselves to a different standard: the standard set by the example of Christ. Whenever we find ourselves horrified by acts of war and violence, let’s respond by imitating the mindset that Christ had towards his enemies.

Jesus’s prayer for his enemies (and for us) should encourage His church to cultivate this same attitude. Even when others seem to be filled with wickedness, their sin is the same as those who crucified Jesus. Jesus prayed for them. Jesus died for them. Jesus loved them. Let us follow the example of Jesus and pray “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

“Shall Christians Go to War” by J. W. McGarvey (1861)

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence, Love for Enemies, Restoration

The August 1861 edition of the British Millennial Harbinger was themed “The American Civil War”, and contains the following article, as well as a very interesting reply from Alexander Campbell. The entire edition is available online here.

Our Heavenly Father has ever governed the world according to this maxim, “He that humbleth himself shall be exalted; and he that exalteth himself shall be abased.” A few months ago, the citizens of the American Republic were the proudest people under heaven. They boasted of a present grandeur, a historic renown, and a future glory, such as had not fallen to the lot of any nation. Christians shared in this pride, forgetting that a love of country is but a refinement upon self-love. The God of heaven has never been pleased with such pride, and when it has swelled itself too high, he determined to abase it. It was while King Nebuchadnezzar was in the very act of looking from his palace upon the lofty walls, the splendid buildings, and hanging gardens of Babylon, and saying to himself, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of my kingdom, by the might of my power and for the honor of my majesty?” that the hand of the Lord smote him with an insanity that made him think himself a beast, so that he herded with cattle, and ate grass like an ox, thill his hair was like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws. So it was in the midst of our national pride and glory, that the Lord has smitten the people with a similar madness, and like ferocious beasts, they have fallen into butchering one another. God grant that when their understanding is returned to them, they may be able to adopt the language of that unfortunate monarch, at the close of his dreadful aberration:

I blessed the Most High and I praised and honored him that liveth for ever and ever; whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom from generation to generation… I praise and extol, and honour the King of heaven, all whose ways are truth, and his works judgment; and those that walk in pride, he is able to abase.

Daniel 4:34, 37

I think I will never feel proud of my country again. If so, I shall be better able to sympathize with Paul when he exclaims: “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.”

He who uses famine, and pestilence, and war, to scourge the nations, is now scourging us. The call for soldiers is sounding through the land, and Christians are urged, like others, to join the red ranks of war. The pulpits, presses, and prayers of sectarian churches are strangely mingling with the strains of martial music, and the turbulent eloquence of partisan leaders and recruiting officers, to heat up the blood of the people and drive them to the battlefield. The din of preparation and the whirl of passion are surging so wildly around us, that the coolest head grows dizzy, and we scarcely know where we stand. In such an hour the heart of the true disciple instinctively turns back to the Great Teacher, and seeks repose under the yoke of his authority. Shall no we, who have discarded all human traditions, and assumed before heaven and earth that the New Testament is our only and all-sufficient guide, be true to it in this trying hour? If we do not, then we deny the Lord who has bought us, and he will certainly deny us.

When we ask the question, “Shall Christians from either of the contending sections go into this war?” remember the question is not, “Which section is in the right?” With that question, as religious teachers, we have nothing to do. Neither do we ask whether it would be justifiable, according to the honor and the law of nations. Nations and mere men of honor are governed by this code, but Christians by one far different. It is not even a question as to whether a Christian may, under extreme circumstances – such as the immediate protection of the lives of his wife and children – use deadly weapons. But the question is the one right before us, “Shall Christians take part in the war that is now raging? Will we be justifiable in so doing by that Book which is to judge us in the day of eternity?”

One thing is absolutely certain, and that is, that nothing short of a precept or precedent from Christ or the Apostles, can give us the warrant which the case demands. If we go into this war contrary to the will and word of Christ, the blood of the slain will cry out against us, and the curse of heaven will fall upon us. Do the will and word of Christ, then, justify it? I presume that there is no more decisive method of determining what Christ would have us do under given circumstances, than to inquire what he himself would do if he occupied our place. If he were alive and among us now, as he was in Judea, and teaching in either section of the country, what would be his conduct and advice? To ask this question is to answer it. No man who knows his history – who knows that at his birth exulting angels shouted, “Peace on earth, good will among men” – that his name is the Prince of Peace – that “when he was reviled, he reviled not again – when he suffered, he threatened not” – can for a moment doubt that, if here now, he would once more say, “Put up thy sword, for they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” It were not less that blasphemous to suppose that he who taught us to love our enemies, and to forgive as we would hope to be forgiven, would now tell us to butcher our kindred, or urge us to battle with his prayers. But he is our example, and if we take not up our cross and follow him, we cannot be his disciples.

But the inspired Apostles are also our example, for they followed the footsteps of their Master. Suppose, then, that the twelve were all alive today, and here in our country – six of them in the South, and six in the North. Would they, like the hosts of sectarian preachers on both sides, be urging their brethren to the war? How degrading is the thought! And yet the men who claim to be the successors of the Apostles, are openly, before heaven and earth, exulting in this impiety. The soul of one who has been taught by Paul and Peter sickens at such a scene, and well does he know that he who wrote to the Christians in the city of Rome, who were groaning under the cruelty of Nero, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath. If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink” – would now say to us, “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” He knows that, unless Peter has greatly changed for the worse since he left the body, he would still urge us to:

Be pitiful, be courteous – not rendering evil for evil, nor railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing, knowing that you are thereunto called that you might inherit a blessing. For he that would love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile. Let him eschew evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open to their cries; but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

1 Peter 3:8-12

May the “very God of peace” be with us all, and the “peace of God, that passeth all understanding, keep our minds and hearts through Jesus Christ.”

Barton W. Stone’s Lecture on Matthew 5:38-48

On By The Christian ExileIn Christian Non-Violence, Church History, Love for Enemies, Restoration

The Christian Messenger; July 1844

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.
– Matthew 5.38

The law of Moses admitted of, yea, enjoined strict retaliation on its subjects; the reverse of which our great Lawgiver Christ Jesus enjoins on his subjects with equal strictness. “But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil.” The word evil is an adjective, and doubtless agrees with person understood, resist not an evil or injurious person – if he smite thee on thy right cheek, retaliate not by smiting him also, rather meekly offer the other cheek. By doing thus you may overcome the injurious person, and bring him to submission to the truth. Christ himself, set the example. When he was reviled he reviled not again, when he suffered (more than a stroke on the cheek) he neither retaliated, nor threatened the injurious, but counted himself to him that judgeth righteously. If this precept of Jesus be binding on one of his followers, it is binding on all, and his example sanctions the obligation. “Surely these people will learn war no more,” neither the art nor the practice of it. If genuine Christianity were to overspread the earth, wars would cease, and the world would be bound together in the bonds of peace. This is Christ’s kingdom – the kingdom of peace. A nation professing Christianity, yet teaching, learning and practicing the arts of war cannot be of the kingdom of Christ, nor do they live in obedience to the laws of Christ – the government is anti-Christian, and must reap the fruits of her infidelity at some future day.

But what shall be said of the nation which seeks to injure another, and in face make a trade of it? Yet professing Christianity? The answer is easy. They are leagued with the powers of darkness, and shall share of all their pains.

So far has the Christian world fallen from Christianity, and so long lost sight of it, that its professed advocates have in many instances amalgamated with paganism, and push Christianity into the back grounds. War, so contrary to the kingdom of peace, is taught as a science at military academies, and that too at the expense of the nation. Legislators condemn dueling, and impose severe penalties, and yet these same legislators will justify the same principle on a larger scale – a war between two nations. Their principle is to resist the injurious – but our legislator says, resist not the injurious. Whom shall we obey? God or man?

And if any man sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
– Matthew 5.40

This man who sues you is an injurious person. If he takes away your coat resist not the injurious, rather let him take thy cloak also. Show what a low estimate you place on worldly possession, that your treasure is above. This course may save your enemy. The same principle is continued. Rather than resist the other person,

And whosoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not away.
– Matthew 5.41-42

These precepts are in as plain language as can be expressed. I pretend not to make them plainer. This will, or should satisfy those who say the scriptures mean what they say, and say what they mean. They are certainly against avarice, selfishness and unkindness, and plainly express the contrary. We must make God our example. If we admit one exception to the rules laid down, we may admit others for a similar reason, and know not where to stop; one may explain them away, and act as is generally done, as if such a law was not in existence, and yet profess the Bible to be the sole rule of our practice.

Ye hath 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 who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
– Matthew 5.43-44

The rule of conduct, by which the ancients were regulated, was to love their neighbor and hate their enemy. – It is necessary to inquire with one of old, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus gave the inquirer a practical definition in the Samaritan, doing good to an unknown man in great distress, who had been abandoned by the priest and the Levite of his own nation. The Jews were martial enemies to the Samaritans, yet this Samaritan shewed mercy to a Jew in great distress, when he well knew he was his enemy. He was the neighbor, not the enemy. They are set in contrast. An enemy is described in the next verse, as one that curses you – hates you – and despitefully uses and persecutes you. A neighbor is described as one that loves, blesses and does good to them that curse and hate him, and prays for them who despitefully use and persecute him. This definition of a neighbor, is the same as that given above in the case of the Samaritan. How lovely – how divine is the portrait! If all who confess Jesus were of this character, what a body of light and glory would shine upon our world! They, the world, would have to shut their eyes against the light or yield to its power and become neighbors too! This character, drawn in miniature, is the very character of the Father of the universe, and manifested in his son, and in providence to the fallen world. Christians are thus enjoined to act towards their enemies – to all mankind, for the purpose stated in the next.

That ye may be the children of your father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.
– Matthew 5.45

Now, who are the children of our heavenly Father? Those who labor to be, and to do, like him – those who are neighbors in heart and practice. None else will acknowledge by the Savior of sinners – none else will be admitted into heaven. Such a society on earth would resemble heaven itself. “In such a society as this my weary soul would rest.” Such a society as this can only profit the world, and without it the world would be lost. The wrangling of the carnal bands of nominal Christians in hostile array against each other, spending their strength in vain disputing about opinions, do they profit the world? Are they not a stumbling block to them? Keep your heavenly father always before your eyes as your pattern. This you will do by keeping in constant view Jesus, the image – the express image of his person, for in seeing him you see the Father, – the mercy, grace, and love of the Father flowing from the lips, the hands, the eyes, and wounds of Jesus for a rebel world. Such a compassionate, tender spirit should we possess, and such a love in deed and in truth, should we exhibit to the world, not only to our neighbors, or those that love us, but also to our enemies that hate us.

For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the Publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the Publicans so?
– Matthew 5:46

By cultivating and cherishing such a spirit as recommended above, and by such conduct towards our enemies, is the pain line drawn by the divine hand between the Christian an the world – it is in fact the discrimination between them. If the present generation of professed Christians were judged according to these rules, who could stand?

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father who is in heaven is perfect.
– Matthew 5:48

O let us labor after this perfection! Let the preachers set the example to their flocks, that they may present them spotless and blameless to their Lord. Their reward shall be great, not in this world’s goods, but in heaven. They that go forth weeping, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless return again, bearing their sheaves with them. O Christians, be diligent to make your calling and election sure. Look up, help is at hand, your redemption is nigh.

B. W. S.

Love Your Enemies

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence, Love for Enemies, Restoration

If we are to call ourselves Christ-ians, we must love our enemies like Christ does. For the early church, loving enemies was not just a minor feature of their faith – it was one of the most distinguishing features of the early church.

Jesus’s command to love enemies must never be reduced to simply “be nice to your grumpy neighbors.” It must be a love that is as radical as Jesus’s love on the cross, and it must be at the very heart of who we are as Christians. If we are serious about our commitment to restoring New Testament Christianity in our own day, we must wrestle with the teachings and examples of Jesus and His apostles, even when it challenges us to step outside our comfort zones.

This is not to suggest that we can’t raise tough questions about the implications Jesus’s teachings. We are allowed to ask questions like “did Jesus really mean what I think he means?” and “did Jesus really intend for his teachings to be applied in this particular way in this particular situation?” And Christians may not always draw the same conclusions from their studies. We are allowed to wrestle with Jesus’ teachings.

But we must never simply ignore or dismiss Jesus’ teachings simply because we think of them as impractical or nonsensical. If we have given Jesus our faithful allegiance, we cannot and must not decide to disagree with his teachings.

But I Say To You…

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. – Matthew 5.38-48

Jesus quotes from Exodus 21:24, “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.” Jesus read this law not as God’s endorsement for just violence, but as a text designed to limit violence. Jesus teaches the fulfillment of this law by saying “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person.”

“Do not resist an evil person”? On the surface, such a command sounds very strange. Wasn’t the entire life and mission of Jesus one of resisting evil? Aren’t Christians supposed to resist evil and worldly ways?

What did Jesus mean when he said “do not resist an evil person”? The best explanation is the one Jesus gives with four examples.

  • “Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also”
  • “If anyone wants to sue you and take away your shirt, let him have your coat also”
  • “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two”
  • “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you”

This is a form of resisting evil. Instead of responding with the “slap for slap, punch for punch, bullet for bullet” same kind of evil, Jesus commanded his disciples to resist the urge to respond in kind, thus putting an end to the cycle of violence. Jesus didn’t simply forbid unjust retaliation. The law did that. Jesus took it a step further by commanding his disciples not even to resist in kind.

How do Jesus’s disciples resist evil? By letting evil people win. That almost feels strange to put it that way. It’s backwards. It’s counterintuitive. But go back and read the four examples. In all four examples, Jesus instructs us to let the bad guy gain the upper hand.

What’s more, this is what Jesus showed us to do when he practiced what he preached. Jesus allowed his enemies to “win” by nailing him to the cross.

It should be noted that following this command is not weakness. Jesus was not “weak” when he hung on the cross. He could have easily commanded an army to ten thousand angels to judge the world and set him free. He was commanding us to let the bad guys win, even when we have the strength and power to defeat them.

Radical Enemy Love

Jesus commands us to love our enemies. He didn’t just command us to love some of our enemies. He didn’t just command us to love our enemies when it makes sense to so. He commanded us to love our enemies the way God, “who sends rain on the just and unjust”, loves them. We are to love the way God does by refusing to make a distinction between which enemies we are to love. He commanded us to love our enemies even in those times when it wouldn’t make sense to your average Gentile or tax collector.

Consider also this parallel passage from Luke:

But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. But love you enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Be merciful, just as your Father is Merciful.” – Luke 6:27-36

Could Jesus have been any clearer? The type of love Christians are to have is supposed to be more than the “common sense” love shown by the world around us. Also note that Jesus commands us to do good to our enemies, lest we think that we can somehow “love” our enemies while doing harm to them.

Not Just a Minor Feature of Christianity

Lest we think that this is just a somewhat strange, one-off command of Jesus, when we read our New Testament, it doesn’t take long to see this teaching repeated time and time again.

When Jesus was arrested in the garden, he commanded Peter to “Put your sword back into its place” (Mt. 26:52). Here Peter was drawing his sword against an enemy in defense of an innocent person, yet Jesus rebuked Peter.

Jesus cites the fact that his disciples were not fighting in his self-defense as proof that his kingdom was not of this world.

My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this world. – John 18.36

When Jesus was hanging on the cross, he prayed, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk. 23.34). Without a doubt, Jesus loved his enemies.

“Yeah, but Jesus had to do that…”

“Sure, but Jesus’s death was different. He was the Messiah. That was the sacrifice for sins. Jesus had to let himself be killed. It had to happen as part of God’s plan.”

Without a doubt, Jesus was unique and His death was unique.

But even so, when Peter looked to the cross, he viewed Jesus’s response to evil as an example given for all of us to follow.

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth, and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously. – 1 Peter 2.21-23

In Romans 12, Paul instructs the disciples to “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” says the Lord” (v. 19) Rather than judging them, Christians are to love and serve their enemies, attending to their needs (vs. 20-21).

In Hebrews 10:34 we read about how the early disciples joyfully accepted the plundering of their possessions, knowing that they possessed a better and more lasting possession.

In Acts we read about the disciple Stephen, who with his dying breath, prayed for his enemies as they were stoning him (Acts 7.60).

And then there’s the book of Revelation. Not only does Revelation ascribe our victory to the “slain lamb” (Rev. 5.6-14), but apparently Jesus was not the only one to gain victory through death.

Revelation 12 is filled with encouraging words, describing the victory of the saints:

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation , and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night. – Revelation 12:10

Salvation! Power! Kingdom! Authority! The enemy is destroyed! This is all great news!

But then in the very next verse, we are told how Jesus’ disciples gained this great victory.

And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. – Revelation 12:11

Yes, we must overcome evil. But the way we overcome evil is by resisting the strong urge to gain the upper hand when our enemies mistreat us. Or as Paul puts it,

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. – Romans 12:21

Are We Really Expected To Believe Such Nonsense?

The idea of “letting others win” will always be mocked at by some. It will always be dismissed by others in exchange for resisting evil with a little more “common sense.”

But the earliest Christians believed Jesus actually meant what he said. They believed that they were supposed to love their enemies, even to the point of death. They actually believed that their death was a more powerful proof of the gospel than their life. The 2nd century Christian, Tertullian, is famously quoted as saying:

The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. As often as we are mown down by you, the more we grow in numbers; the blood of Christians is the seed.

For the first couple of centuries immediately following the close of the New Testament, “Love your enemies” (Mt. 5.44) was quoted by 10 different authors in 26 places, making it the most cited verse from the New Testament. “Love your enemies” was to the early church what verses like “Acts 2:38” or “John 3:16” are for the church today. It was the very heartbeat of early Christianity. It is the teaching for which they were most known. It is what separated them from everyone else.

Those Hard Questions

“But what if someone attacks my family in the middle of the night?”

“But what if a Christian is a policeman or in the military?”

“But what about Hitler? Surely Christians shouldn’t have just let him win?”

Questions like these aren’t easy. They need to be wrestled with (with lots of love for one another in the process). If after wrestling with all the teachings of Jesus, you are convinced that you would be justified in killing an enemy as a very last resort, fine. Buy a gun if you want. Join the military if your conscience compels you. Maybe you’re right. Maybe there is an argument that can be made to justify violence in some extreme situations.

But that’s not the point.

The point is, when it’s all said and done, and those questions have been asked, and those discussions have been had, “loving your enemies” must still be at the very heart of who we are as Christians. When other people hear “Oh, you’re a Christian”, do they think “You’re one of those crazy people who loves their enemies no matter what”? If we’re not known for loving enemies in a way that seems strange to the world around us, we’re not following the teachings and example of Jesus.

Beloved, Jesus expects us to love our enemies. We must love our enemies.

Exodus 22:2 and the Attacker at the Door

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence, Love for Enemies

A few months ago, I posted an article in which I wrestled with the question “what would you do if someone attacked your family?” (you can read it here). As could be expected, the article prompted lots of interesting discussions, and not everybody agreed on the best way a Christian should handle such a challenging situation.

On one hand, Christians are commanded to love their enemies and do good to them (Mt. 5.38-48; Lk. 6.27-37; Rom. 12.14-21; 1 Thess. 5.15; 1 Pet. 2.21-23; 3.9). On the other hand, God “hates hands that shed innocent blood” (Prov. 6.17), and almost all of us would instinctively feel justified in using violence to protect our loved ones if we absolutely had to. Yes, we must take Jesus’ commands to love our enemies seriously, but surely we also have the responsibility to protect innocent people when it is in our power to do so. It’s not a simple problem.

It doesn’t bother me when I see Christians disagree with one another. And it doesn’t bother me to hear Christians raising hard questions and thoughtful objections to what they think are flawed positions. But what does bother me is when Christians simply “pick a side” and do their best to read their opinions into scripture rather than seriously trying to study the text. What does bother me is when Christians elevate “common sense” or “effectiveness” over faithful allegiance to Jesus and his teachings.

The Exodus 22:2 Question

In response to my article, one reader responded by pointing to Exodus 22:2. He suggested that Exodus 22:2 should quite simply resolve the supposed “attacker at the door” dilemma. And here’s the thing: he might be right. The scripture reads,

If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. – Exodus 22.2

The verse seems pretty straightforward, and it addresses the home invader scenario almost perfectly. Notice carefully:

  1. The bad guy attacks
  2. The good guy catches bad guy and kills him
  3. The good guy is not guilty of the home invader’s blood. Case closed.

Maybe it really is that simple. Maybe bringing up all this “love your enemy” stuff really is reading more into the commands of Jesus than Jesus ever intended. It certainly seems that way.

At least until you read the next verse…

Don’t Forget About Exodus 22:3

But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. – Exodus 22:3

In verse three we have almost the exact same scenario as verse two. Observe:

  1. The bad guy attacks
  2. The good guy catches bad guy and kills him

But this time, the good guy is guilty. The only difference between the two scenarios is that “the sun has risen on him.” In other words, in home invasion happened during broad daylight.

Why are the two scenarios treated differently? What difference does it make whether the home invasion happened during the day or the night? Why is the homeowner free from guilt at night, but guilty during the day?

The answer is this: we don’t know for certain.

Perhaps the difference is that during the daytime the homeowner could see and know exactly what was happening, and thus verse three refers to an intentional killing, while at night the killing would be unintentional since the homeowner couldn’t clearly see the attacker. Maybe the “daytime” implies that the neighbors would be wide awake and the homeowner could call for help, while a night time invasion implies a true “worst case scenario” where “kill or be killed” are literally the only two literal options available for the homeowner. Or maybe the issue is self-defense. Maybe during the daytime the thief is more likely only interested in taking things, while a night time invasion implies a more direct danger to someone’s family.

The problem is that the text never exactly tells us why the two cases should be treated differently. It simply tells us that the two cases are to be treated differently. I suppose we could do a google search, or consult several commentaries, and pick out whichever proposed explanation we like the best. But we need to be careful. Since the text doesn’t give us an explanation, even scholarly commentators are, to some extent, guessing. Maybe they have educated guesses, but since the text is silent, we just can’t be certain.

How Do We Apply Old Testament Laws?

Not only do we need to wrestle through the complications presented by verse three, but we also must wrestle with the hermeneutical question of how God expects Christians to understand and apply these Old Testament laws now that the old law has been fulfilled.

Does God expect us to apply these laws as if they were written for us? If we can use Exodus 22:2 as justification to kill an attacker at the door, should we also sell daytime attackers into slavery as Exodus 22:3 instructs? Should we also follow Exodus 22:16-17 which says that if someone has sex with a virgin then they must marry her or pay her dad a bride-price for her? Should we also put children to death when they curse their father or mother as is commanded in the previous chapter (21:17)?

We should remember that while the law of Moses is certainly God’s inspired word, and while it certainly demonstrates God’s wisdom (especially when compared with the ethical practices of Israel’s ancient near eastern neighbors), it was never written to establish God’s ideal law for all nations at all times.  For example, God’s law never eliminated slavery, but it did establish a more humane attitude and more just treatment of slaves. This does not imply that slavery was God’s ideal, but rather it pointed Israel towards God’s ideal by improving upon the slavery practices of their culture.

For another example, consider the way the Law of Moses protected divorced women by requiring that their husbands write them a certificate of divorce. Divorce was never God’s ideal, but “because of hardness of heart” (Mt. 19.8) God permitted it.

When we read Exodus 22:2-3 in this same light, it would suggest that the law was not necessarily written to place God’s stamp of approval on killing home invaders at night. Instead, it seems as if this law, like all the others in the surrounding context, were written to point Israel towards a more loving and gracious treatment of their enemies by placing restrictions on when an attacker could be killed.

Interestingly, this command is mentioned only fourteen verses after the “eye for an eye” and a “tooth for a tooth” command (Ex. 21.24), the very command that Jesus fulfilled when he taught:, “Do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Mt. 5.39).

If Jesus understood “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” as pointing towards a day when God’s children would love their enemies and resist the urge to retaliate, how do we think Jesus would want His disciples to apply Exodus 22.2-3? By blowing an attacker’s brains out without giving it a second thought?

The Importance of Honest and Humble Study

Perhaps there is a biblical defense for killing an attacker in a worst case scenario. Perhaps a Christian can feel justified in killing an attacker, even while sincerely seeking to uphold Jesus’s teachings and examples about how we are to treat our enemies. Perhaps a sound biblical argument can be made for lethal force, and perhaps Exodus 22:2, when handled humbly and responsibly, can somehow be woven into that defense.

But to simply throw out Exodus 22:2 as a proof text without even attempting to wrestle with the many questions surrounding this verse is irresponsible. To use Exodus 22:2 irresponsibly can actually weaken someone’s case as it gives the impression that they are simply trying to read their opinion back into scripture rather than really trying to study and draw out what the text really teaches.

Let’s never back away from challenging questions about difficult verses. But let’s be careful to approach those questions humbly and honestly, and most importantly, with faithful allegiance to Jesus.

Why We Don’t Sing the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence, Christian's Relationship to Government, Love for Enemies, Revelation
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5tJTUubVhZJU0pmV0iJ7FP?si=NGJa12f2TxKmrcfFBuPP0g

When I was younger, I was taught that the most important part of our worship in song wasn’t the notes, but rather the words. When we sing to God, we are also speaking to and teaching one another (Eph. 5.19; Col. 3.16). We should be able to “sing with the mind” (1 Cor. 14.15).

Every Sunday, our worship is filled with wonderful, beautiful, theologically rich hymns which remind us of biblical truths.  But growing up in the church, there was one song that we didn’t sing. In fact, we avoided it. We never sang “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” It’s not that we didn’t know the song (if you know the tune of “Booster”, you know the song). But rather, we avoided it because of its anti-Christian message.

Of course, there are some who remain ignorant of the song’s history and its anti-Christian theology. There have been rare occasions (usually near a patriotic holiday) where I’ve heard this song led in worship. But those occasions are rare. And even when the song is led, there are usually at least a handful of Christians throughout the auditorium standing there in awkward silence.

It is important to pay attention to the message we teach with our songs. That’s why many Christians don’t sing the “Battle Hymn.”

The Origins of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”

(Source: Chapter 8 of Julia Ward Howe’s biography. You can read it here.)

The Battle Hymn of the Republic was written in 1861 by a northern political activist, Julia Ward Howe. As an abolitionist, she was convinced that the Union cause was moral and righteous, and thus felt justified in supporting the destruction of her southern neighbors.

Returning from a visit to Washington in 1861, her carriage was delayed by marching regiments of Union soldiers. To pass the time, she and her companions sang several war songs which were popular at the time. Among them was a song called “John Brown’s Body”.

John Brown’s body lied a-moulding in the grave,
His soul is marching on!

The tune was catchy, and it wasn’t long until the marching soldiers joined in singing with her. One of her friends then suggested to her, “Mrs. Howe, why do you not write some good words for that stirring tune?”

Early the next morning the following lyrics came to her:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.

After the song was published in 1862, it quickly found its way into military camps, and was frequently sung in exhortation before battles, and was sung joyously upon the news of military victories. In describing why she had written the song, Howe said:

Something seems to say to me, “You would be glad to serve, but you cannot help anyone; you have nothing to give, and there is nothing for you to do.” Yet, because of my sincere desire, a word was given to me to say, which did strengthen the hearts of those who fought in the field and of those who languished in the prison.

Despite its wartime origins, it is important to realize that opposition to singing this “hymn” has nothing to do with who we think was right or wrong during the war. It has everything to do with the anti-Christian message of the song.

The Theology of the “Battle Hymn”

Like many who lived in the 19th century, Howe was very familiar with the Bible. Therefore the song is filled with language and imagery from Scripture. The song certainly has a spiritual message, but the message is not a Christian one.

The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is religious war propaganda. It twists and turns the biblical imagery for the purpose of “strengthening the hearts” of Union soldiers as they fought and killed their southern neighbors. Far from being a Christian hymn, the “Battle Hymn” is anti-Christian to the core.

Revelation 19 and the Coming of the Lord

The phrase “coming of the Lord” is understood to refer to the 2nd coming of Christ (1 Thess. 4.15; Jas. 5.7-8). Despite the fact that the phrase “coming of the Lord” never appears in the book of Revelation, most of the songs images are drawn from Revelation 19.

And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which not one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “King of kings, and Lord of lords.” – Rev. 19.11-16

In this passage, violence, war, and judgment seem to accompany the appearance of Christ, who arrives on a white horse (a common image used for Roman military conquerors). The passage describes Jesus in a blood-drenched robe treading out the “wine press of the fierce wrath of God.” Howe poetically uses the image to describe the Lord “Trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.”

The problem is that Howe wrote this lyric, not for the purpose of trusting in the Lord’s judgment, but rather for the purpose of giving Union troops license to kill their southern enemies. Americans have continually heard this popular patriotic song exactly as it was intended by Howe to be understood – as a validation for Americans to destroy enemies whom they judge as being immoral.

As Howe wrote the following verses with Union soldiers in mind, seeking to “offer service to their cause”, even the triumph of the gospel and the birth of Christ were twisted into justification for war.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
“As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal”
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on!

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never sound retreat
He is sifting out the hearts of men before his judgment seat,
O be swift, my soul, to answer Him, Be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on!

In the beauty of the lilies, Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me;
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on!

John’s Use of Military Imagery

The Bible is no stranger to using military imagery (1 Tim. 1.18; 2 Tim. 2.3), and Revelation 19 is no exception. But Julia Ward Howe and John of Patmos use military imagery to opposite ends.

Howe used the military imagery of Revelation 19 to “strengthen the hearts” of union soldiers as they marched into battle against their enemies. John used Roman military imagery to show that Christ (as opposed to Roman military leaders) will ultimately win the day. If we are looking for a heroic conqueror on a white horse to ride in and save the day, John doesn’t want for us to look for a Roman military leader, a Union General, or any other military hero. He wants us to look to Christ.

By the time Revelation was written, the “sword” was already commonly understood by Christians as a figure of the word of God (Eph. 6.17; Heb. 4.12). Earlier in the book of Revelation, Christ is described as having a sword coming out of his mouth, strongly reinforcing this image (Rev. 1.16). The fact that Revelation 19 describes the sword coming out of Jesus’ mouth indicates that the “weapon” John envisions is not the “burnished rows of steel”, but rather the word of God.

John then describes how the sword is used to strike down the nations and rule them with a rod of iron. This is quite the opposite of Howe’s usage of Revelation’s imagery to “strengthen the hearts of those who fought” for her nation. In Revelation 19, the nations are not the victors. Rather the nations, having been deceived by Babylon (Rev. 18.23), are the ones who are defeated by the triumphant word of God.

The Victory of the Lamb

The book of Revelation not only assures us of Christ’s victory, it also gives us understanding as to how God destroys evil.

Amid all the violence and evil in the world, Revelation 5 gives good news. The victorious Lion of Judah is here to fight for us! But the surprising thing is that when John turns around to see the Lion, He looks like a slain Lamb.

“And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain.” (Rev. 5.6)

Significantly, a similar surprise is seen in the Revelation 19 battle scene. A close reading will show that the blood on Christ’s garment was not that of his enemies. Christ is described as being covered in blood (v. 13) before the enemies are struck down (v. 15). The blood is not that of His enemies. It is His own blood.

At the conclusion of Jesus’s conquest, He bears a new title: “King of kings and Lord of lords” (v. 16). Jesus replaces every other king, lord, or other political power which may demand our allegiance. Immediately after the conquest, the kings, the military commanders, the mighty men, the horses are their riders are all defeated (vs. 17-18).

Julia Ward Howe wrote the Battle Hymn to strengthen others in their allegiance to the Union. Revelation 19 challenges us to give our allegiance to Him who is Faithful and True as opposed to giving our allegiance to the nations of this earth with their kings and military conquerors. The “Battle Hymn” uses the same images, but to a completely opposite end.

Choose Your Side

Though the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is filled with scriptural images, it has nothing to do with following Jesus. This is why many Christians don’t sing the “Battle Hymn”. We don’t sing the “Battle Hymn”, because we have decided to give our allegiance and worship to Christ alone, rejecting allegiance to any other defeated king, lord, or political entity.