The sword is in the hands of government, to whom God entrusted it. Because God has designated government as his servant to be an agent of wrath in punishing evildoers. At least that's Paul's view in Romans 13 (forgive my paraphrase). This is another argument many use for the Christian's involvement in war and/or violence. Because if God designates a government to punish humankind for evil or good, shouldn't we be involved in ensuring that those governments have informed understandings of good and evil? Not my view necessarily (that Christians need to be involved in war), though I take Paul at his word that governments exist to dole out justice in some form or another…

I agree that the oppressor needs rescuing from himself, and that he is still created in the image of God. I just don't agree that this means we keep him alive at all costs.

I want to, and think I do, agree also with your assessment that no sin is more wrong than another, in that they all separate us from God — and that the consequences are what may be different. But I don't know what to do with that: because there will exist some situations where I must choose between options that are either all wrong, or would have all been wrong at another time. David eating shewbread. Jesus healing on the Sabbath. Rahab lying about the spies.

Morality is situational. So either there was a more and less wrong in those situations, or the situation itself made it such that one of the “wrongs” became a right. In the case of Jesus healing on the Sabbath, I know it can't have been a wrong, because he was sinless. But this is my very argument. Killing is not what God wants or intends for us to do — but might there ever be a situation in which this is the right choice (or the less wrong one)? There is with lying, and with working on the Sabbath. How can we be so sure that killing is the exception?

What I suggested was laughable was comparing Jesus dying in order to save the entire world to me offering my life to a murderer in order to allow him to kill a group of innocent people. If I could die in a situation in order to save others, I would gladly do so. But to refuse to defend innocent people is not noble and Christlike in that I spare the life of a bad person; it is to enable and allow him to take a number of lives. Doing nothing in that case keeps me personally from being the one to pull a trigger, but it does not prevent murder and death. I see it as almost a selfish way for me to remain “clean.”

I honestly believe that war as a construct is beginning to end as an answer because there is so much evidence that is doesn't work. But like every other construct we've defined, it needed a period to be realized and then examined. Will it go away completely. I don't know.

You bring up Nazi Germany, and specifically I would add Hitler. I've debated this before and one truth I would bring up is that Hitler was still a human being created in the image of God created very good. But he lost site of that. We don't like that because it takes away our excuse to hit back.

But I would also say this. I didn't have to make those decisions for war, and I am still not someone's judge.

I never said that.

You also asked, “Jonathan, I don't understand from whom the oppressor would need rescuing?” The answer is from oneself. We are our own worst enemies. To hold onto the dignity of the oppressor is to remind that person they are still created in God's image.

You also said, “It is wrong to kill the guy. But it is more wrong to allow him to kill others.” This is where I think we actually get it wrong. There is no “more wrong” There is just wrong. We want there to be “more” but there isn't. There IS more consequence, and much of our subjective understanding is usually to mitigate the consequences and find least harmful response. But they are very different.

You also said it is laughable to compare what Christ did on the cross with what we do in everyday life. I will leave you to that judgment but I do not share it. The cross is the ultimate reality for the exact reason that it extends far beyond our every day life but calls us to extend the cross in our every day life.

I've given a couple examples, with no reply. I like the discussion, but I would love for the things I'm saying to be addressed. What about Nazi Germany? What about Jesus saying those who live by the sword die by it?

I also want to apologize if I sound rude in my comments. It's almost as if I'm debating with myself as I write. And sometimes I don't realize how it comes across. The last thing I want to do is turn our discussion into an unprofitable and foolish controversy. I respect your ideas, and appreciate you giving us a forum in which to discuss these issues — and challenging us to think through some hard things.

And I may have misunderstood you, but after three rereads, I understand what you wrote in the same way I did before. Maybe my answer was just so long and confusing that it came across as if I didn't understand. I tend to get off subject.

God bless, and I am enjoying reading your blog.

Proverbs 21:15 — “When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous, but terror to evildoers.” Apparently a right relationship with God is one in which we are joyful when justice is done in the world — not happy, but joyful, knowing that God's character was exercised in our world.

Proverbs 28:5 — “Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it fully.”

Isaiah 9:7 — “…He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever…”
In Jesus' rule, he will be always just and always right. Sounds like it's in his character…

Isaiah 30:16 — “Yet the Lord longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice…” Grace and compassion can and do coexist with justice in the person of God — and should in our lives. We don't have to throw out one in order to keep the other.

Isaiah 56:1 — “This is what the Lord says: 'Maintain justice and do what is right…'”

Isaiah 61:8 — “For I, the Lord, love justice; I hate iniquity.”

Zechariah 7:9 — “This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor…'” Again, justice and mercy and compassion together. What if showing mercy and compassion to one group requires justice for another?

In Luke 11, Jesus tells the Pharisees that they've kept a lot of rules, but “but neglected justice and the love of God.” They cannot be separated.

Even the cross itself was an act performed in order to demonstrate God's justice, so that he could be both just and saving in his actions, Romans 3. The Father stood by and watched his son die — in order to bring salvation and justice… at the same time.

When an individual strikes back in defending the defenseless, I don't believe he is saying the other's actions are acceptable. That logic offers that any time someone is perverting an action in life, if we carry out that same action in a righteous and Godly way we are saying their actions are acceptable. This guy is beating up a little girl, and you hit him in order to get him to stop; you've said his actions were okay. This lady is sleeping with people for money, and so the married couple next door are demonstrating through sex that they accept her abuse of it. This guy is a raging alcoholic, and so the believer drinking wine at communion is approving of his actions. There are actions and ideas that are not wrong in and of themselves — even God-given and right when used as he would use them — and they were designed with purpose and intelligence. Justice is one of these.

I believe that Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, is affirming laws of the Old Covenant. He's fulfilling them, giving them greater meaning. But he's not throwing them out. He's not suggesting God has changed his mind about the justice thing. In 5:38-42, Jesus is speaking to individuals who will come face to face with an evil person, and he tells them not to defend their own personal rights, but to instead give them up completely. But I can't see this text as being instructions for how we act when someone is oppressing the weak, or taking the lives of those who cannot defend themselves.

If our understanding of “turn the other cheek” requires that we refuse to come to the aid of the defenseless in a great time of need, then we almost must allow the poor to be taken advantage of in court, their land ceased for business projects or greed in general — and we ought to encourage them to give not only their land but their homes as well. If an evil man has killed one innocent person, we turn over to them a second?

Our understanding of love and how it works MUST be grounded in the character of God, not in our hatred for death, or even in a single of God's commandments. I hate murder and killing and violence as much as the next Christian. But I can't throw out who God is in order to put all of my weight behind a view of non-violence, no matter the cost. It's as if we've convinced ourselves that love and justice can't coexist in a world, much less in a person, and even less in a God. But the problem is, God does exist in those extremes. Somehow love and justice have to be tied together. Just as you would argue that I can't throw out love in order to punish and take revenge on all the evil people in the world. I have to argue that you can't throw out justice in order to keep from ever having to do a hard thing like stop one of those acts, even if it took violence. Both love and justice are crucial to being like God.

When Jesus tells us to love our enemies and pray for them, it's not a command to give them free reign of the world, allowing them to take whatever they like, whether money or power or lives. That ignores the nature and character of God in order to “love” a murderer. Is that how we love people? By enabling them to do horrible acts? If you truly loved me, would you allow me to make a mockery of creation and life by killing a number of innocent people? Do we allow our children to beat up other kids, because we are against punishing them? We know that God disciplines those that he loves, as is suggested love does (Hebrews 12). Love sometimes does hard things — and if forced to choose between the lives of innocent people and an evil man who is seeking to kill those people, love within the character of God does not allow us to pull a Saul, standing by and watching as someone is murdered. That is not love.

So I, too, emphasize love for the oppressor. But not a twisted and ungodly love that allows him to do as he wishes to others. A love that must be tied up in the whole character of God.