Resisting Evil?

Christians are now experiencing escalating persecution worldwide. This raises several questions:

“Should Christians ever bring legal charges against their persecutors?

Some feel that we shouldn’t and cite:

• Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them… Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” (Romans 12:14-19)

They reason that, since we must “bless and… not curse” and “never avenge” ourselves, bringing legal charges isn’t an option. Instead, we are to trust that God will bring “vengeance” (justice) - “the wrath of God” - on the Day of Judgment.

However, is “the wrath of God” only reserved for that Day? According to Paul, “the wrath of God” is also meant to be exercised through the court system:

• Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:1-4)

God also takes vengeance through the “governing authorities.” They are His invention to bring about justice. Therefore, to “leave it to the wrath of God” is to bring the matter before those whom God has ordained.

Paul repeats that we are required to submit to these authorities in the next verse. He then instructs Christians to pay them “taxes” (13:6) and “honor” (13:7).

How do we honor them? By respecting their office, by being witnesses against evil (Eph. 5:11) and even by pressing charges, when appropriate! If we know a gang is committing rapes and we fail to testify against them, then we become moral accomplices and bring disrepute upon our faith by allowing them to continue unchecked.

We also honor the authorities by allowing them to do their job.  It is not our job to bring justice. We cannot form vigilante groups or take revenge. However, we can help the governing authorities by bringing to them charges of criminal wrongdoing. If we fail to do this, we are guilty before God:

• He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord. (Proverbs 17:15)

If we give the wicked a free pass, our God is not pleased.

“Is it ever right to use physical force against the evildoer?”

Some would argue that personal physical force is never justified:

• To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:20-21)

They argue that, if we are to overcome “evil with good,” there is no place for physical force. However, this teaching, along with many others, pertains to the behavior of individual Christians not governments. Very few of the teaching in the New Testament were directed towards the authorities in their public roles. There was certainly no expectation that their Roman over-lords should “overcome evil with good” or to forgive their enemies. Instead, the authorities, whoever they were, ruled by fear – by the sword (Rom. 134). Anything other than this was unthinkable.

Ideally, the civil authorities are the ones to exercise justice and administer punishment, but what would happen if kidnappers broke into a home with young children? Should not the husband protect his family in the absence of the police? And what if the husband didn’t protect his family but misapplied the Jesus’ teaching about turning the other check, saying “You want my three-year-old-daughter? Take my four-year-old also.”

Such a response would be ignorant and bring disrepute upon the church. The next victim could then rightfully say, “Since you didn’t resist the kidnappers, you enabled them to come to my home on the following night!”

Of course, this scenario is absurd, but it demonstrates where this foolish thinking about non-resistance can take us. Instead, even Jesus taught that physically resisting evil was sometimes acceptable:

• Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. (Matthew 24:42-43; Luke 12:39)

The homeowner had a perfect right to protect his family, even with the use of physical force. Even Jesus Himself resorted to physical force when He drove the money changers out of the temple.

“How then are we to overcome evil with good?”

I was asked, “What would you do if you ran into someone who had just enlisted to go fight with ISIS?”

I answered that I would invite him for a cup of coffee and an apple pie. In gentleness, I would then try to reason with him to repent. However, afterwards, I would call the authorities to have him detained.

Our calling to love our enemies is not in conflict with our calling to support the authorities. Instead, they should both go together.

Protest vs. Non-Resistance and Passivity

Bethany Blankley, my former colleague at the New York School of the Bible, argues that the churches’ protest against their unfair and discriminatory expulsion from renting space on Sundays from the New York City schools was “unbiblical”:

• “Protesting in any form, as a Christ-follower is misguided and unbiblical.”

To prove her case, she appeals to the example of Jesus:

• Instead of responding in outrage over this [murder of Jews], Jesus spoke about the need for everyone to repent and follow him (Luke 13:1-3).

Although it is clear that our individual relationship with God and need for repentance must take precedence over our fruitful involvement with others and with society, I think that Blankley has overstepped the evidence. While Jesus’ silence on the broader issue of justice is worthy of note, it is a stretch to argue that we must all keep silent on all social justice issues.

• On another occasion, when asked if the iniquitous Roman taxation was lawful, Jesus made no reference to whether or not an occupying nation should tax its subjects. Instead, he spoke about the demands of God upon His subjects. He said, "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Luke 20:25).

An argument from Jesus’ silence is notoriously weak. Perhaps Jesus was silent for other reasons. Perhaps He understood that protesting against Rome’s unfair taxes would lead to a bloody and unprofitable uprising, which finally did occur in 66AD. Or perhaps He deemed that His fledgling church needed first to be established in the basics – better for now to render to “Caesar the things that are Caesar's.”

What is lacking in Blankley’s argumentation are explicit biblical teachings against protesting. However, her next example of Jesus’ passivity in this area comes closest:

• Jesus addressed the issue of resenting authority in his Sermon on the Mount. Under occupation, a Roman soldier had the right to ask any Jew to carry his pack for one mile. Jesus' commentary on this was, "if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." Then he added, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:40, 44)…Jesus' mindset went beyond the present circumstance to a higher law revealing that a Christ-follower's life is directed by the commands of God. His disciples taught the same, saying, "as much as it depends on you, live peaceably with all men" (Romans 12:18, 14:19; Hebrews 12:14; 1 Pet. 3:11).

We all agree that our Lord has called us to love and pray for our enemies. However, what does it mean to “live peaceably with all men?” Does it mean to never protest how others may treat you or even their own family? Does it never mean to expose sin and hypocrisy (Eph. 5:11)? Does it mean that we can never correct our children or a teacher her students? Does it mean we can never press charges against a burglar or a rapist? Does it mean that we must allow our wives to be raped in front of us without raising a finger or a word in protest? Or does living “peaceably with all men" require that we confront the evil-doer and bring charges against the rapist for the sake of the peace of our community? If we have failed to bring charges and the rapist struck again, wouldn’t this dishonor our Lord in the eyes of our community?

In contrast to Blankley’s position, Jesus’ ministry contained many words of protest and denunciation. He was highly confrontational. Just look at His many denunciations of the religious leadership (Matthew 23)!

However, Blankley makes an insupportable distinction between protesting against religious and political leaders, claiming that protesting against the religious leaders is okay:

• There is not one instance in all of the accounts of Jesus' life where he came into conflict with Roman authorities… Jesus did denounce the religious leaders of his day, but he did not denounce political leaders.

This might be so, but it wasn’t the Roman authorities with whom He had contact. It wasn’t the Roman authorities who were following Him and contradicting Him at every turn.

Furthermore, Blankley’s distinction that we can denounce the religious leaders but not the political leaders seems quite arbitrary, and it is upon this distinction that her entire argument rests. According to this distinction, if the NYC authorities were religious and not political, the churches could protest. But if they are religious, then the church can’t protest. But aren’t political leaders governed by values – religious sentiments?

Such an arbitrary distinction cannot be maintained biblically. For one thing, religious leaders also exercised political power. Besides, Mosaic laws required obedience towards religious leaders as well.

Exposing sin was central to Jesus’ ministry, and “exposing” is little different from “protesting.” There was no one immune to His critical light. Jesus even corrected Roman Pilate, who had been angered by His silence:

• "Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." (John 19:10-11)

Although Jesus assigned the “greater sin” to the religious leadership, He wouldn’t grant Pilate a clean slate either, reminding Him that He too was bound by the laws of God.   

Almost the entire focus of the Hebrew Prophets was a matter of exposing sin – protesting against it – in hope that this might lead Israel to repentance. They never made a distinction between the political and the religious leadership. They all had to repent!

Similarly, Jesus exposed the sin of the political-religious leaders who wanted to murder Him:

   

• Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour--when darkness reigns." (Luke 22:52-53)

We too must expose the “hour when darkness reigns," whether in the City of New York or in our churches.

Meanwhile, I would agree with Blankley that this prophetic endeavor should not be accompanied by outbursts of anger but by praises to God, who works all things together for good, and also by prayers for those with whom we disagree.

However, Blankley wrongly wants us to choose between trusting God and doing something ourselves about the injustice:

• If a Christian believes that God is in control, then he/she will submit to the ruling authorities and proclaim his/her faith by obeying God to be at peace with all men. A Christian will not sign petitions, but petition their father in heaven through prayer.

Blankley is saying that if you trust God, you will submit to the authorities and do absolutely nothing. You will not go to the police; you will not press charges against the rapist; you will not cry out about the injustices, genocide, slavery, or even the Holocaust. However, our Lord requires us to take responsibility for our neighbor and to cry out on his behalf (Amos 5:14-15; Isaiah 1:16-17) as we place our trust completely in Him. Mysteriously, these two strategies go together (Phil. 2:12-13; 1 Cor. 15:10).

However, Blankley rightly places the emphasis on trusting God:

• Many Christians wrongly assume that the only way a situation can be put right is by political or social means, but this is not biblical teaching. God is in control and is active in the affairs of men and nations. The Christian worldview teaches that God removes rulers and puts them in power – both good and evil – for his purposes (Daniel 2:21; 4:17). All political leaders are appointed by God and nothing is beyond his control.

While God is definitely in control – He has even established our days (Psalm 139) and our lives for us (Eph. 2:10) – this doesn’t mean that we don’t have a role in our lives and in this world. Even though Paul assures us that we are “His workmanship,” this doesn’t relieve us of the responsibility of praying, meditating on Scripture, walking in love, or even protesting. Somehow, God works through our freewill choices and obedience. To dismiss one of these truths is to try to fly a plane with one wing.

Even though God has a plan for our lives, it doesn’t allow us to “put God to the test” by failing to live prudently, as Jesus had corrected Satan (Matthew 4:3-4).

Protest has long had a place among the children of God. Knowing that Haman was putting the finishing touches on his plan for the destruction of the Jews, the Jewish Queen Esther risked her life to come before her husband and king:

• "If I have found favor with you, O king, and if it pleases your majesty, grant me my life--this is my petition. And spare my people--this is my request. For I and my people have been sold for destruction and slaughter and annihilation. If we had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet, because no such distress would justify disturbing the king." (Esther 7:3-4)

It was this protest, by the grace of God, that saved the Jewish people. Perhaps it is time for us to speak up as well!

Non-Resistance to Evil?

A group of Christian women were singing hymns on the street. An angry passer-by struck one of the women down to the ground. The police later asked her if she wanted to press charges. She declined, thinking that she was being faithful to Jesus’ teaching:

·        "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38-39)

This Christian woman thought it wrong to resist the “evil person” by pressing charges. In her mind, such a response contradicted Jesus’ teaching on non-resistance. However, most of us do not take this teaching literally. Jesus had often taught figuratively or hyperbolically - plucking out you eye or cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin, not letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing, hating your parents, and letting the dead bury the dead. We don’t take these teaching literally. Then, should we take “turn the other cheek” literally?

An “eye for an eye” had been a progressive judicial principle that required that the punishment had to be in line with the offense (Exodus 21:23-27). Cutting off a man’s hand, if he stole a loaf of bread to feed his family, was not justice. However, the rich and powerful consistently appealed to an unbiblical understanding of “eye for an eye” to justify personal revenge, as the Bible Background Commentary explains:

·        The “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” are part of the widespread ancient Near Eastern law of retaliation. In Israel and other cultures, this principle was enforced by a court and refers to legalized vengeance; personal vengeance was never accepted in the law of Moses, except as a concession for a relative’s murder (Numbers 35:18-21). The Old Testament [OT] did not permit personal vengeance.

Even though the OT never sanctioned an “eye for an eye” for personal revenge, it had been used for this purpose. The Jamison-Faucett-Brown Commentary also agrees on this point:

·        This law of retribution—designed to take vengeance out of the hands of private persons, and commit it to the magistrate—was abused…this judicial regulation was held to be a warrant for taking redress into their own hands, contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament itself (Proverbs 20:22; Proverbs 24:29).

In light of this, Jesus’ argument wasn’t against Mosaic Law. Instead, it was against the abuse of the Law for the purpose of revenge. Consequently, Jesus’ teaching to “not resist an evil person” should be understood as a warning against retaliation and not a complete non-resistance to evil. In fact, Jesus often resisted evil. Instead of passively lying down, he proactively exposed the hypocrisy of the religious leadership. When the High Priest asked Jesus about His doctrine in an attempt to bring a death sentence upon Him, Jesus resisted him:

·        One of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded. If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" (John 18:22-23)

Although the leadership was trying to prove Jesus’ guilt, He demonstrated that they were the guilty ones. Jesus was never reluctant to highlight the hypocrisy of His detractors. Healing first requires an accurate diagnosis of the problem. Their problem was sin, it had to be exposed in hope that it might incline them to cry out for the only possible healing – reconciliation with the God they had rejected.

Meanwhile, our detractors charge, “Well, the church doesn’t seem to follow Jesus, does it? Jesus preached non-resistance!”

However, Jesus didn’t follow such a teaching either. Although He always condescended to heal the broken and humbled, He also resisted the requests of the arrogant and hardened. He resisted the efforts of the Jews to make Him king; He resisted when they wanted to kill Him before His appointed time. When asked to judge, He resisted:

·        Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" (Luke 12:13-14)

Jesus was never pressured or coerced into doing anything in opposition to His person or mission. Everything He did and said was done in service to the truth. He always spoke the truth in love, although it often contained a painful denunciation (Matthew 23). Rather than serving as an example of non-resistance, we find that Jesus consistently resisted sin by exposing it.

Jesus resisted Satan who tempted Him saying, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread" (Matthew 4:3). Jesus didn’t practice non-resistance by saying, “Whatever you say, Satan! Bread from stones, coming up! Want it buttered?”  Instead, He stayed true to His mission:

·        Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4)

On many occasions, Jesus resisted his own Apostles. When two of them requested the supreme honor of reigning on either side of their soon-to-be King, He denied their request. After Peter rebuked Jesus for confiding that He was facing death, Jesus didn’t practice non-resistance. He didn’t say, “Well, since you don’t want me to go to the cross, I guess I won’t.” Instead, He sharply rebuked Peter:

·        "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." (Matthew 16:23)

On at least one occasion, Jesus even resorted to violence, driving the money-changers out of the Temple with a whip (John 2:15-17), hardly an example of non-resistance! Evidently, Jesus was only teaching against a certain type of resistance – retaliation.

However, our atheistic mockers will retort, “Well it seems that Jesus was teaching more than non-retaliation. He taught that we should allow our attackers to turn us into punching bags. Isn’t that what it means to turn the other cheek? Shouldn’t you then allow your assailant to strike your other cheek?”

Jesus wasn’t teaching against self-defense or the defense of your wife and children. Instead, He was speaking hyperbolically, as He often did. Just several verses earlier, He taught:

·        “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.” (Matthew 5:29-30)

No one takes this teaching literally. If we did, we would all be eyeless and handless, and this would violate a Mosaic law against mutilating the body. Clearly, we have to take this verse figuratively. Jesus concluded:

·        It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Mat 5:30).

   

Therefore, if cutting you hand off could spare you from eternal judgment, then cut off your hand. This would indeed be a very small price to pay to escape hell. However, we all know that such surgery couldn’t possibly save us, but if it could, we should do it.

In Matthew 5:38-42, we find a similar teaching. Jesus gives several hypothetical situations to illuminate what He means by “Do not resist an evil person.” In His first example He states, “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Although Jesus allowed Himself to be physically abused during the crucifixion day, prior to that, He always avoided arrest. He never even allowed His right cheek to be struck!

Jesus regarded the Mosaic Law as God-given. This Law never deprived a husband of his right and duty to protect his family against assault. It is therefore unthinkable that Jesus would deny this legal privilege by teaching non-resistance. We therefore can’t take this teaching literally.

What then does this teaching mean? Rather than retaliating with “eye for an eye,” Jesus seemed to be teaching that it is better to allow yourself to be beaten than to pursue revenge, taking the law into your own hands. It is better to go the extra mile required by the “evil man” than to retaliate. In the same vain, He had taught that it’s better to cut off your hand than to continue in sin. Not that you should cut your hand off or allow yourself to be abused, but both of these unenviable outcomes were preferable to a life of sin.

Jesus’ next example reads,

·        And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (Matthew 5:40)

Once again, Jesus seems to be teaching that it is better to voluntarily surrender your cloak than to vengefully retaliate for the sake of your tunic. This teaching certainly doesn’t mean that we should not avail ourselves of legal means to protect our home, family or business. Allowing ourselves to be abused for no higher cause does not glorify our Lord. It just shows our ignorance and brings unnecessary derision down upon our heads.

Jesus’ merely taught that we shouldn’t invoke “eye for an eye” as a justification for revenge! In fact, Paul appealed for legal protection on many occasions. Clearly, we are not called to be doormats, allowing our families to suffer abuse. This will not glorify the Lord nor manifest His wisdom.

There are godly ways to resist evil, and there are ways that are unsuitable for the Christian, as well as for others. The Christian woman, who had been assaulted for singing hymns, did not seek revenge, but she should have pressed charges. She at least owed that to others who this assailant might now be emboldened to attack.

Indeed, she should pray for him and try to show him the love and forgiveness in Christ, but she should also have resisted the “evil person” in a legal and godly manner.