Before we attempt to address the primary question of whether or not God advocates pacifism rather than armed resistance, let’s address the question of whether or not the Bible is consistent in its teaching about personal retaliation.

Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21 teach that it is appropriate to demand an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth when a person harms someone else.  Stated another way, these passages instruct that a person should be punished in like manner to the harm they have done.   On the other hand, in Matthew 5:38-42 and Luke 6:29, Jesus Christ teaches that a person should turn the other cheek when someone harms them.  This seems to indicate that the New Testament is not consistent with the Old Testament in teaching about retaliation.  How can this be reconciled?

With regard to the law of retaliation given in Exodus 21:23-25, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary states that the purpose of this law was “to check the passionate vengeance that for a slight injury often retaliated with death and destruction.”  In other words, this law was to limit the extent of the retaliation, by making the punishment fit the crime.

In reference to all of the previously cited Old Testament scripture passages, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible states, “It was not a command, that every one should of necessity require such satisfaction; but they might lawfully insist upon it, if they pleased. . . .”  

Furthermore, God states in Leviticus 19:18, “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. . . .”  [Note:  When we quote Scripture in this article, we use the wording in the New King James Version of the Bible, except when we quote a non-biblical source that is using Scripture from a different version of the Bible.]

Thus, the law of retaliation was not intended to permit men to take personal revenge.  Instead, this law was primarily intended to provide guidance for the administration of justice by the government of the Hebrew nation.

In contrast, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary notes that in Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus Christ is telling people “how they should respond to personal injury.  (He is not discussing government’s obligation to maintain order.)”  In this scripture passage, Christ is attempting to teach the people to follow His example of returning good for evil.  Therefore, to at least some extent, Christ was taking the Old Testament teachings to a higher level – a level of love and forgiveness, rather than justice and punishment. 

Now, let’s address the primary question. 

Matthew 26:51-52 provides an account of an incidence in which Jesus Christ tells one of His apostles (probably Peter) to put away the sword he had drawn when the Roman soldiers came to arrest Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane.  Although this could be interpreted as a rebuke regarding the use of force, Norman Geisler, Ph.D., and Howe, M.A., on page 360 of their book entitled When Critics Ask, express their belief that Jesus was not advocating pacifism.  They believe that “while the Bible permits the sword by the government for civil purposes (Rom. 13:1-4), it does not endorse its use for spiritual ends.  It is to be used by the state, not by the church.” 

Gleason L. Archer, on page 341 of his book entitled Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, expresses a similar point of view.  And, on the next page of his book, Archer discusses Matthew 5:39, which is another verse that pacifists use to support their position.  In this verse, Jesus states, “I tell you not to resist an evil person.”  Archer concludes,

If Matthew 5:39 applied to the state and to human government, then the principle of “Resist not evil” would mean the abolition of all law enforcement.  There would neither be police officers nor judges nor prisons of any kind.  All society would immediately fall prey to the lawless and criminal elements in society, and the result would be total anarchy.  Nothing could have been further from Christ’s mind than such Satan-glorifying savagery and brutality.

On page 219 of his book, Archer makes the following argument:

Is it really a manifestation of goodness to furnish no opposition to evil? . . .

No policy would give freer rein to wickedness and crime than a complete surrender of the right of self-defense on the part of the law-abiding members of society. . . . It is hard to imagine how any deity could be thought “good’ who would ordain such a policy of supine surrender to evil as that advocated by pacifism. . . .

But, does God advocate war?  If God is the God of peace, as Paul states in Romans 15:33, why did He advocate war by the Israelites, as is at least strongly inferred, if not clearly stated, in a number of passages in the Old Testament?  And, why did Jesus Christ, the Messiah (or Savior) Who is called the Prince of Peace in Isaiah 9:6, declare in Matthew 10:34, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth.  I did not come to bring peace but a sword”? 

Norman Geisler, Ph.D., and Thomas Howe, M.A., declare on page 202 of their book entitled When Critics Ask,

Waging war and being a God of goodness and peace are not necessarily incompatible.  First, it is wrong to suppose that waging war is inconsistent with goodness. . . . When God waged war in the OT, it was against the forces of spiritual evil.  God took drastic action to rid the land of the evil influence of the inhabitants.  

Second, it is wrong to suppose that waging war is inconsistent with peace.  There would be no peace in the world if God did not oppose evil.  Indeed, the peace of God is now available to all who believe, because God waged war against the forces of evil – a warfare that culminated at the Cross where the blood of God’s only Son was shed. . . . Sometimes war is necessary to bring about lasting peace.

On page 219 of his book, Archer asserts, “No nation could retain its liberty or preserve the lives of its citizens if it were prevented from maintaining any sort of army for its defense.”

But, doesn’t the Bible state in the sixth commandment, recorded in Exodus 20:13, that God does not want us to kill anyone?  Archer explains on page 121 of his book,

[M]uch confusion has arisen from the misleading translation of Exodus 20:13 that occurs in most English versions.  The Hebrew original uses a specific word for murder (rasah) in this sixth commandment and should be rendered “You shall not murder” (NASB).  This is no prohibition against capital punishment for capital crimes, since it is not a general term for the taking of life, such as our English word “kill” implies.  Exodus 21:12, right in the very next chapter, reads: “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.”  This amounts to a specific divine command to punish murder with capital punishment. . . .

On the same page of his book, Archer also addresses the killing of large groups of people through warfare, as follows:

[T]here were specific situations when entire communities . . . or entire tribes . . . were to be exterminated by the Israelites in obedience to God’s command.  In each case these offenders had gone so far in degeneracy and moral depravity that their continued presence would result in spreading the dreadful cancer of sin among God’s covenant people.  Just as the wise surgeon removes dangerous cancer from his patient’s body by use of the scalpel, so God employed the Israelites to remove such dangerous malignancies from human society.

What about the previously cited statement by Jesus Christ in Matthew 10:34?  Did Jesus come to bring peace or conflict?  On page 118 of his book entitled Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W. Haley, M.A., also uses a medical analogy.  According to Haley,

[T]he object of [Jesus’] mission was peace, but a result of it would, in many cases, be strife and war.  Often, in securing a valuable end, we cannot avoid certain incidental evils.  The object of the surgeon in amputating a diseased limb is the preservation of life, yet pain, as an incidental evil, follows the stroke of his scalpel.

A religion of inherent, radical purity could not be promulgated in the world without awakening the fierce antagonism of everything impure and evil.  Hence would arise strife and division, bitter conflicts. . . .

On page 340 of their book, Geisler and Howe assert,

We must distinguish between the purpose of Christ’s coming to earth and the result of it.  His design was to bring peace – peace with God for unbelievers (Phil. 4:7).  However, the immediate consequence of Christ’s coming was to divide those who were for Him and those who were against Him. . . . Christ’s ultimate mission is to bring peace, both to the human heart and to earth.

But what should we do when laws are unjust, especially laws that allow practices, such as abortion, which result in the death of innocent people?  

In Proverbs 24:11, Salomon states, “Deliver those who are drawn toward death, and hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.”  Some people may interpret this scripture as encouragement to do what is necessary – perhaps, even to break the law – to protect other humans who are about to be killed, including unborn babies who are about to be aborted.

However, on page 249 of their book, Geisler and Howe assert,

This passage does not justify breaking the laws of God-ordained human government (cf. Rom. 13:1; 1 Peter 2:13), even if we believe they are unjust laws.  The only time believers are allowed to disobey the law is when it compels them to sin, not when it permits someone else to sin. . . .

Furthermore, this text (Prov. 24) does not support illegal attempted “rescues” for several reasons. . . . [T]he chapter does not support civil disobedience; it commands civil obedience.  It says, “fear the Lord and the king” (v. 21), and fear implies obedience. . . .

There is no indication in this passage (or any other) that believers [i.e., Christians] have the right to illegally take away the legal rights of others simply because they personally believe the laws are unjust. . . . The truth is that two wrongs do not make a right, and the end does not justify the means.