Mike,
I know you are busy, but if you have time, I would appreciate your comments on this article.
S____, the policeman THX

On the Believer’s use of Forcible Resistance

by ____

Question from a pastor: In light of Christ’s command to “turn the other cheek” and to “not resist the evil man,” is it inappropriate for believers to contemplate or exercise physical force in defense of our families against criminal aggressors?

Over the course of more than three decades, I have weighed the biblical testimony concerning this topic and related questions and cannot claim even now to have the final and definitive answer for every situation. I think that our carnal human nature inclines to the adoption of systems of laws and rules which, once learned, require no further exercise of moral judgment or seeking of the mind of God on our part. By contrast, I believe, responsible, Christian conduct is based upon the faithful observance of larger principles—e. g. to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God (Mic 6:8; cf. Mat.23:23). Individual commands of Scripture teach us how these principles are expressed in various life decisions, but in the absence of specific commands we must proceed upon principle, and the commands that do exist should be interpreted in the light of such principles. It would be more convenient if the teaching of Scripture could be shown seamlessly to advocate either universal resistance of evil or else universal nonresistance. This would simplify many ethical decisions considerably. However, the Scriptures do not present such a clear ethic­, either of automatic resistance ­­or of absolute nonresistance.

That evil, in principle, is to be resisted and restrained in some manner is clear enough in Scripture (1Sa.3:13/Jas 4:7/1Pe 5:9/Heb.12:4), though whether this resistance should be waged only through prayer, preaching and an uncompromising example, or by appropriate physical interventions as well, is not as clear to some as it seems to be to others. The positions I present in this article are simply my best tentative attempts to apply these larger principles of Scripture to certain situations about which the Bible gives no direct commandments. I do not expect that every Christian will or must reach precisely the same conclusions, but the times in which we live require that we give diligent consideration to the matter and that some conclusions be sought from Scripture.

I have long espoused pacifism, and wrote a manuscript against Christians’ participation in war over a decade ago. My position did not arise from any contact with Anabaptists (for I had no such contacts in the seventies, when my views were being formed), but from my reading of the New Testament and especially the Sermon on the Mount. My pacifism took the form of total nonresistance in all situations, so that the only time a hostile party ever struck me across the face with his fist, I literally turned the other cheek. Following the spirit of the same nonresistance convictions, when my wife was killed by a careless driver in 1980, I refused to sue the driver in court, though some Christians advised me to do so. I have followed the nonresistance teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, to the best of my understanding, for more than thirty years, without any regrets.

At the same time, I have continued my studies of the Scriptures. By gaining a better familiarity with the whole Bible, and an appreciation for the interrelationship of its parts, my understanding of some of these issues has (as I would assess it) matured. I formerly assumed that Jesus’ command, “Resist not the evil man,” by itself, resolved this complex issue, as if this was the only thing Jesus or the rest of Scripture had to say on the subject. Continued studies in the life and teachings of Christ (my long- time favorite subject) and of the apostles has given me an appreciation for the larger paradigm and the nuanced character of many of the things that Jesus said. Though I have remained what some would label a pacifist with reference to war, my thinking on certain related issues has undergone refinement.

Having associated closely with Anabaptist people in the past ten years, I have come to think that the pacifism of many of them differs from my own. For one thing, many of them (though not all) hold their convictions, not from deep, personal searching and agonizing over Scripture, but rather as a set of second- hand convictions passed along from earlier Anabaptist thinkers, who did the agonizing study and thinking for themselves (and often paid a horrible price for doing so). My pacifism came from my personal, first- hand study of the Scriptures and set me at odds with my religious upbringing and with the convictions of my denomination at the time.

Also, my experience has convinced me that some Anabaptists (not all) wear “nonresistance” and “pacifism” as sort of a badge of distinction, so that having “a witness for peace” seems to be the defining issue with some of them. In my case, my only concern has always been simply to have a witness for Jesus—not for “peace,” per se, nor any other socio- political cause. With me, neither “nonresistance” nor “pacifism” are the non- negotiable issues of the Gospel, but the Lordship of Jesus and the observance of His words are the non- negotiables. If His teachings support universal nonresistance, well and good, let us practice what He taught—but let us not choose nonresistance as our defining issue and then try to shoe- horn everything else in Scripture into that sacrosanct paradigm.

Therefore, I beg your gracious indulgence, as my convictions are sufficiently Anabaptistic to annoy some of our Reformed readers, and yet not sufficiently Anabaptistic to avoid alienating some of our Anabaptist readers. If we are to follow Jesus, we must avoid falling into the trap of discovering some neatly- packaged system of thought within a certain movement, and thereafter defending the tenets of that movement tooth- and- nail against all scriptural evidence to the contrary. It is more comfortable to parrot the views of the group whose acceptance affords us a certain sense of security, but discipleship is a call to hard decisions and there are times when, as A. W. Tozer put it, “the saint must walk alone.”

The points I present below are not necessarily my final conclusions. I believe that I can be corrected from Scripture, and welcome any such correction from readers. The following is a summary of my tentative conclusions based upon my present grasp of the teachings of the Bible. It is not perfect, but it is the best that I can do:

1. Christians are not “under the law” of Moses, but of Christ (1Co.9:21). Yet Jesus affirmed the basic moral rectitude of the law (Mar 10:19/Luk 10:25-27), and the same law of Moses is everywhere (in both Testaments) affirmed to present a flawless standard of just and right behavior (Psa.19:7-11/Rom.7:12), which the Christian seeks to live out through the enabling of the Holy Spirit (Rom.2:14 f; 8:4). Though some of the statutes and ordinances do not apply to the Christian directly, the follower of Jesus can never deny the innate justice of God’s commandments.

2. There are certain crimes to which the law of Moses attaches the penalty of the death of the perpetrator. These include (but are not limited to): murder, adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, kidnapping, cursing parents, etc. The New Testament affirms the justice of this legislation (Rom.1:32/Act 25:11).

3. Though, in the law, a close relative of the victim—or even the whole community—conducted the execution, the enforcement of this penalty is assigned in the New Testament to agents of the state, rather than private citizens (Rom.13:1-7/1Pe.2:13-14).

4. The appropriateness of a Christian’s accepting the intervention of law enforcement agents to deliver him from criminal assault seems to have been taken for granted by Paul (Act 23:15-22). If such legal intervention were to involve the death of the criminal, we would be compelled to regard this as the just exercise of law as ordained by God.

5. In addition to the law enforcement authorities, God’s law (Exo.22:2-3) permits the homeowner’s use of lethal force against a burglar, if the burglar is killed in the act of committing the crime (“while breaking in”), though, if he gets away with the loot (“if the sun has risen on him”) and is later apprehended, he is not to be killed for his theft, but is required to make restitution. This legislation seems to teach one or both of the following: either 1) it gives the homeowner a special jurisdiction as the protector of his home and family, to act in the place of law enforcement officers, and/ or 2) it gives the private citizen (the homeowner in this case) the right to act in the place of the law enforcement officer in situations where he sees a crime in progress and no duly appointed magistrate is nearby (as in the case of a “citizen’s arrest”).

6. In the presence of a crime in progress, and in the absence of law enforcement officials, a private citizen acting as such (extending the rights of the “homeowner” to the larger “home” of his community) might be equally justified in the use of the same degree of force that would have been used by the state law enforcement agents in the same situation (no direct Scripture, just a possible inference).

7. As Christians, our principal concern for a wicked man is not that he suffer retribution for his crimes, but that he be brought to repentance and salvation (2Pe.3:9/1Ti.2:4/Rom 10:1), but, as neighbors, we have some duty to those who are in need and innocent parties who suffer injustice (Luk 10:29-37).

8. We are to love our neighbors (as well as our enemies) as we love ourselves. This means that we should do to others what we would desire that others do to us (Mat.5:44/7:12). Most of us would appreciate someone coming to our aid, when we are being wrongfully attacked. Even if we looked to God alone for our help, we should not be disappointed if He sent help through the agency of a policeman (this is what God has ordained policemen to do). If I know that I would welcome deliverance from criminal attack in certain cases, I find it hard to see how my mere watching (or ignoring) a crime in progress could be said to be consistent for brotherly love.

9. Jesus taught that love may be exhibited in a choice to absorb injury rather than to inflict the same upon others (Mat.5:39/Luk 6:27-28). This attitude should be prominent in our minds when in a position to defend ourselves, and where other victims are not a factor. There are truly times when we should be willing to lay down our lives for persons who are not our friends, even as Jesus did (Rom.5:8-10). This understanding was clearer in the minds of early Christians than it is to modern believers. For example, the attitude of the 3rd- century church is well expressed by Origen and Arnobius in the following statements:

“Nowhere does he teach that it is right for his own disciples to offer violence to anyone… If Christians had owed their origins to rebellion, they would not have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character. [ These laws] do not even allow them on any occasion to resist their persecutors, even when they are called to be slaughtered as sheep.” Origin Against Celsus, book 3, chap.7

“We have learned from his teaching and his laws that evil should not be repaid with evil [Rom.12:17]. That it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it. And that our own blood should be shed rather than to stain our hands and our conscience with that of another.” Arnobius (3rd century apologist) Against the Heathen, book 1, sec.6

10. Every passage in Scripture about doing good to enemies and not resisting the evil man (e. g. Mat.5:38-42) envisages a case where the Christian is alone threatened. There is no specific teaching which forbids the forcible defense of other helpless victims.

11. The defense of helpless victims is right in the sight of God (Pro.24:11) and to refrain from doing what one knows to be good is sin (Jas 4:17). Of course, it may be questioned whether such defense includes the use of deadly force, or whether one must restrict his intervention to non- lethal measures.

12. Our concern for the soul of a violent attacker, and our assumption that we are more prepared to meet our Maker than is the (obviously unsaved) assailant, might well disincline us to use deadly force in stopping his assault. In such cases, a non- lethal form of resistance may be seen as the loving thing to do on behalf of all parties concerned.

13. Though we might be disposed rather to die than to kill another, self- defense may, in some circumstances, merely be a necessary part of defending others who are under our protection. This somewhat muddies the ethical issue of self- defense in such cases.

14. We might also feel that it is more virtuous to simply “trust the Lord,” rather than to fight for our own defense (I can appreciate this), though the moral issues are different where the obligation to defend another is a factor. “Trust in the Lord… AND DO GOOD” is the principle of Scripture (Psa.37:3). The obligation to “do good” for the benefit of another may override our preference to sit immobile, waiting for God to intervene supernaturally.

15. There is a hierarchy of biblical commands (e. g. God prefers mercy over sacrifice, Hos.6:6; and there are “weightier matters of the law”, Mat.23:23). Sometimes a higher duty overrules a lesser one (as when the high priest felt obliged to feed the hungry fugitive with bread ordinarily reserved for priests, Mat.12:3-4). Though we are commanded to love our enemies, we are never told to love them more than we love righteous or innocent victims of aggression. It may be that we bear no malice to an aggressor, and would prefer that he had not put us in such a position as to require our intervention, but, in my judgment, our duty to love and defend the helpless (Psa.82:3-4) overrules our ordinary duty to love the aggressor.

16. While universal nonresistance is not necessarily an ethic that serves justice in every situation, neither is a universal ethic of resistance. I do not believe that it is the province of Christians, generally, to punish sinners (Rom.12:17-21), though it may fall to them to deliver an innocent victim from unjust aggression. When forcible resistance can essentially guarantee that such deliverance will be effected, I believe that the Bible justifies such action, and that the neglect of such action may be sinful. For example, if an aggressor entered my home to harm my family, I would feel obliged to resist in any way that was suited to the level of the threat. On the other hand, if an overwhelmingly large gang of thugs (or a government agency!) had my house surrounded, and the best I could hope to do would be to “take out” a few of them before they killed us all, I would not resist. In my opinion, resistance is only a virtue when it can save innocent lives. It is not a virtue in itself. The attitude that says, “We’re all gonna die, but I’m taking as many of ’em with me as I can,” is a macho ethic for warriors, not for peacemakers. It is hatred in action, not love. The wrath of man may increase the body count, but it does not “work the righteousness of God.”

17. One might wonder why I would not approve of participation in a war of liberation or for some other commendable goal. As I see it, there are many differences between the deterrence of a crime in progress, on the one hand, and a war, on the other. The following considerations place the two situations in ethical disparity:

a. War is a conflict between two complex national entities. Though one of these nations may corporately be more righteous than the other (this would be difficult for participants to ascertain objectively, since they are dependent on their own nation’s propaganda for their information), yet no nation is comprised entirely of righteous people or entirely of wicked people. God is neither a racist nor a nationalist, and judges all parties according to their actual behaviors (Act 10:34-35/1Pe.1:17/Mat.16:27), which means that racism and nationalism (or patriotism) cannot be appropriate motivations for the moral decisions of Christians. The ethics of killing another man simply because he is of another nation at war with our own, though he may be a righteous individual—even a Christian brother!—cannot be countenanced by the Christian, in my judgment.

b. The killing of innocent people is evil (2Ki 21:16/Pro.6:17/Joe 3:19), whatever the pretext (e. g. “national security,” “saving the world for democracy,” “retaliatory” or “preemptive” strikes, obtaining an additional vineyard for the king, etc.). To say that some wrongs must be committed in order to obtain a higher good is pragmatism, not Christianity. The idea of “doing evil that good may come” is a concept “whose damnation is just,” according to Paul (Rom.3:8). Notwithstanding the almost unanimous claims of some Christian ethicists, war is in no way the ethical equivalent to capital punishment. The latter only involves the shedding of guilty blood, but almost every war involves the indiscriminate killing of innocent noncombatants. Any war effort that is conducted in a way that cannot guarantee the immunity of innocent noncombatants cannot be the ethical equivalent of an individual’s resistance of a violent criminal assault, nor of the state’s justified execution of capital criminals. (In an entirely defensive war, the aggressor combatants might justly be categorized as criminal assailants, in which case, perhaps the principles outlined above may apply).

c. A soldier must pledge complete and unconditional obedience to his superiors, who may be men of low morals or poor ethical judgment. While a Christian soldier would sooner be punished by his superiors than submit to an unrighteous command, the Christian has no business making such vague and irresponsible pledges (remember Jephthah). It is better not to take an oath than to take one and not keep it (Ecc.5:5);

d. Jesus said that a man cannot become the slave of two masters (Mat.6:24). Christians are slaves of Christ and should remain free as much as possible from any bondage that would limit their freedom to follow their consciences before God (2Ti.2:4). This does not preclude one from working for an unsaved employer, since such employment can be abandoned at will. An enlisted man, on the other hand, enters a relation of servitude not unlike that of a man selling himself into slavery. While nothing can be said against the slave who was enslaved against his will, the Scripture encourages slaves to become free if they are given the legal option (1Co.7:21). Paul writes to all concerning this, “You were bought at a price [ i. e., by Christ]; do not become slaves of men” (1Co.7:23);

e. A soldier is a killer by vocation. Can you imagine Rambo as the poster boy for the “WWJD” fad? As Tertullian put it: “Can it be lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that ‘he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword’? And shall the son of peace take part in battle, when it does not become him even to sue at law? Shall he apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment, when he is not [ even] the avenger of his own wrongs?” (Tertullian, The Crown , chap. 11). True, a person can fulfill a military commission and retire without ever having personally killed anyone. However, soldiery is by definition a calling to “kill people and break things” upon command. A man unwilling to do these things has no business being a soldier. By contrast, a Christian intervening to stop a crime is not exchanging his vocation as a peacemaker for one as a warrior.

f. The vocational soldier is often obliged to do things that would be regarded as sinful in civilian life (e. g. lying, stealing, blowing- up other people’s homes and factories, wiping- out civilian populations). What makes these actions right for the soldier at war, but wrong for ordinary men at other times? Is it not “the war” itself? “All’s fair in… war.” But does this not place “war” in a position of competition with God as the definer of morals? If God forbids me to kill innocent people, but the war effort obliges me to do so—is there not a conflict of interests here? Are there not thus presented to me two moral arbiters in competition for my loyalty? Cyprian put it aptly: “The whole world is wet with mutual blood. Murder, which is admitted to be a crime when it is committed by an individual, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds [ committed in war], not because they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetuated on a grand scale.” (Cyprian To Donatus, section 6).

g. The Christian is not to alter his ethics in the promotion of some national interest. Our citizenship is in heaven (Php.3:20). The idea of a Christian’s “dual citizenship”—in heaven and in an earthly nation—cannot be found in Scripture. We dwell on this planet as “strangers and pilgrims” (1Pe 2:11), and relate to our domicile nations as “ambassadors for Christ” (2Co.5:20). Ambassadors do not join the armies of the nations to which they have been sent to serve their native country. The interests of the kingdom of God are not promoted by the “sword” (Joh 18:36/2Co.10:4-5/Eph.6:12), but by the “seed” (Mat.13:3 ff/Mar 4:26 ff/Isa.2:4).

In the final analysis, every Christian must decide within himself, before God, how best to fulfill the constant duty to “do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” in the various circumstances in which we find ourselves. I have no personal criticism of those who reach different conclusions after prayerful searching of the Scriptures. Responses from disagreeing readers are welcome.

—END

Hi S____,
Thanks for sending this along. I have never heard of this man, but he certainly sounds like a very sincere man who wants to do the right thing. The Lord has given him the ability to acknowledge that “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword,” but the Lord has not given him the ability to see that principle through to its scriptural end.
It is few men indeed who are able to apply that statement as Christ Himself applied it in the Garden of Gethsemane, where Christ offered Himself instead of His disciples, who were guilty of resisting arrest. It takes the sum of God’s Word to make this clear, so here are Luke’s and John’s accounts of what happened when Christ was arrested.

Luk 22:47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
Luk 22:48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?
Luk 22:49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
Luk 22:50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.
Joh 18:7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.
Joh 18:8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am [ he]: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
Joh 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
Joh 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

There has never been nor will there ever be a more just reason for helping another brother who is being unjustly dealt with by others. Imaging any scenario you want, and it will pale into insignificance by comparison to what was happening to Christ at the time of His arrest. What was His advice to this very letter you have sent me with all of its understandable rationalizing? Here are a couple of other versions which make Christ’s words to Peter much clearer than the King James does:

(EMTV) But Jesus answered and said, ” Stop right there.” And touching his ear, He healed him.
(GNB) But Jesus said, ” Enough of this!” He touched the man’s ear and healed him.

Then Christ goes on to tell Peter that Peter’s reasonings were not those of God, and in doing so Christ is also answering this brother’s reasonings.
I am not a fool. I am well aware that it is impossible to obey Christ in this flesh. But if Christ is in me I am not walking in this flesh, and I will become a fool that I may be considered wise in Christ’s eyes.

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

God’s mind, and therefore His Word, are counterintuitive to the mind of the natural man. As sincere as brother ____ is, he has succumbed to the rational thinking of the natural man and has replaced the love of God with the love of the natural man. Here is what he perceives as the proper way to show one’s love for others:

“8. We are to love our neighbors (as well as our enemies) as we love ourselves. This means that we should do to others what we would desire that others do to us (Mat.5:44/7:12). Most of us would appreciate someone coming to our aid, when we are being wrongfully attacked. Even if we looked to God alone for our help, we should not be disappointed if He sent help through the agency of a policeman (this is what God has ordained policemen to do). If I know that I would welcome deliverance from criminal attack in certain cases, I find it hard to see how my mere watching (or ignoring) a crime in progress could be said to be consistent for brotherly love.”

This scripture below is true brotherly love, and as are most people, the author is unaware of what is true brotherly love:

1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

True brotherly love is obedience to God’s commandments. Nothing else is “brotherly love.” Everything else is simply masquerading as brotherly love.
I too, appreciate the work that policemen do every day. But my appreciation for what they do to maintain order in society does not blind my spiritual eyes to the fact that those who are sent by God to reward evil doers are themselves evil doers, from a Biblical perspective. This does not mean that I in any way disparage those who are placed in that position by God Himself. It simply means that as far as I am concerned, “every man is a liar and God’s Word is the Truth.”

Psa 17:11 They have now compassed us in our steps: they have set their eyes bowing down to the earth;
Psa 17:12 Like as a lion that is greedy of his prey, and as it were a young lion lurking in secret places.
Psa 17:13 Arise, O LORD, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword:
From men which are thy hand, O LORD, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid [ treasure]: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their [ substance] to their babes.
Rom 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

God uses evil men to “compass us,” and then He uses other evil men to deliver us from those who “compass us.” Evil men are “God’s sword” to exact justice on other evil men. Those He uses in this way “have their portion in this life.” It is Paul who tells us that vengeance belongs to God and not to us:

Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [ rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

But then he also explains to us that God uses those who exact vengeance as His “minister of God to you for good”, His instruments for directing His wrath against those who are involved in the affairs of this age:

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

As foolish as it may sound, it is not love to defend our brothers who are being unjustly treated or even killed, if in the process we must disobey the commandments of our Lord. Take a bullet for your wife, yes, by all means, or your brother. Christ would have commended Peter had Peter been willing to go to the cross with Him, but Peter was like you and me. We are willing to die for Christ, but unwilling to die with Him and allow evil to destroy our physical body in order to find our spiritual body. How foolish are these words to the natural man:

Luk 17:33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

I do not mean to sound mean- spirited, but when we rationalize the defense of our brothers into self- defense, we do nothing more or less than to deny the words of Christ, and simply conclude that the defense of our brothers “muddies the ethical issue of self defense,” will still amount to denying Christ’s words, and therefore denying Christ, Himself. We, our brothers and Christ, are not, as ____ states, another issue. Our brothers are us, and we are them.

Here are ____’s own words:

“13. Though we might be disposed rather to die than to kill another, self- defense may, in some circumstances, merely be a necessary part of defending others who are under our protection. This somewhat muddies the ethical issue of self- defense in such cases.“

He goes on to make this statement:

“If I know that I would welcome deliverance from criminal attack in certain cases, I find it hard to see how my mere watching (or ignoring) a crime in progress could be said to be consistent for brotherly love.”

Placing oneself between the assailants is not “mere watching (or ignoring) a crime in progress. Placing oneself in a position of absorbing the evil is what Christ demonstrated for us. When I refused to go to Viet Nam, was I “merely watching or ignoring a crime in progress?” No, my refusal was my action against evil to which God has called me. The soldiers in Viet Nam were called to be physical soldiers, while my calling was to be a spiritual soldier, an ambassador of the kingdom of heaven, as ____ correctly points out.

He also makes this statement:

“10. Every passage in Scripture about doing good to enemies and not resisting the evil man (e. g. Mat.5:38-42) envisages a case where the Christian is alone threatened. There is no specific teaching which forbids the forcible defense of other helpless victims.” [ Emphasis is mine]

God has obviously, at this point, blinded ____ to the story of our Lord Himself, where both He and His disciples were threatened, and Christ healed the ear of the servant of the high priest, taking away any evidence of His disciples’ wrong- doing and placing Himself in the hands of the authorities in their stead.
____’s whole premise is based upon His assumption that the law of Moses is the law of God. As I was for the majority of my own life, he is confused about the function of the law of Moses as a mere shadow of the “change also of the law,” which Christ came to give us in His position as a reformer.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [ and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 9:10 [ Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Christ was a reformer and made many “changes also of the law.”
If I had his e- mail address, I would forward all of this to Him, since he actually solicits input from others, but I will leave that to you, if you feel so lead. He would learn that the law of Moses “is not of faith… is changed with the priesthood… and is but a shadow of good things to come,” which are all fulfilled in Christ, if he would read the paper The Law of Moses Versus The Law of The Spirit.
I hope this is all of some help for you. My prayers are with you and your family. Do not hurry the Lord. He will provide you another job when He is ready to do so. Whatever is done is His doing, simply because it is He who is working all things after the counsel of His own will. Yes, even the evil.
Your brother in Christ,
Mike

I am a Christian policeman and have recently been confounded with the conflict of turning the other cheek vs. enforcing the law which could lead to me using violence to do so. I read and appreciated your paper on the subject, and also received insight from another man of God, Mike Vinson. Mike Vinson has a web site entitled http:// iswasandwillbe. com/. I felt lead to send you his response to your article. I believe you remain teachable and strive for truth. I believe the same of Mike. Please read his response with an open heart and let God be the judge. Iron sharpens iron.
Thank You,
Your Brother S____