FM3

1.1.4 Principles of just war

As we have seen, Jesus Christ was not a pacifist and it is sometimes necessary to respond to
evil with force. But why and when is force right and when is it wrong? Through the Bible there
are several key principles to answer this question.

The right to life. All through the Bible it is assumed that individuals have the right to life. For
instance, Exodus 20:13 says, "You shall not murder." The reasons we cannot murder is
because God says so. But the reason he says so is because he has given us the right to live.
This right to life implies the right to self-defense. If we should not be murdered, then we are
justified in preventing someone from killing us. This is shown throughout the Bible.

Capital punishment. For various terrible crimes and sins, only death is a sufficient
punishment. God himself instituted capital punishment. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by
man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man" (Genesis 9:6).
"Anyone who strikes a man and kill shim shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:12).
Consistent with the principle of "an eye for an eye" (Exodus 23-25), only a murderer's death
can satisfy the demands of justice for murder. Capital punishment is also the just penalty for
despising authority (Deuteronomy 17:12), rebellion (Deuteronomy 21:21), and kidnapping
(Deuteronomy 24:7). It makes no difference in principle whether an individual, or an army, or
political leaders are guilty. If a man is guilty of a capital crime, he should die at the hands of
an executioner. If any army is guilty of a wide-scale crime, they too should die, at the hands of
an opposing army if necessary. If our leaders are corrupted to the extent of imposing tyranny
upon the people, then they should be forcefully overthrown and replaced by a legitimate
government.

Resisting tyranny. This idea of resisting tyranny is common in the Bible. Clearly we should not
resort to force when mere possessions are at stake. High taxes and the like can be endured
and do warrant taking lives. But when leaders are responsible for murder, deny civil liberties,
and generally impose a draconian regime upon the people, then we should disobey, resist,
and rise up to fight. In Exodus 1:15-22 the king of Egypt ordered that all newborn boys be
killed. But the Hebrew midwives did right by disobeying and sparing the innocent babies. As
we said previously, the book of Judges is full of accounts of leaders raised up by God for
express purpose of delivering Israel from the hands of tyranny. Read about Ehud (Judges 3),
Deborah (Judges 4), Gideon (Judges 6- 7), and Samson (Judges 13-16). These people are
commended for their faith in the New Testament because they responded to God's calling to
fight against tyranny (Hebrews 11:32-34).

Justice not revenge, collective not personal. Paul the apostle wrote, "Do not repay anyone
evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody" (Romans 12:17). We must
always be motivated to do what is right. "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at
peace with everyone" (Romans 12:18). By all means we must seek peaceful resolutions. "Do
not take revenge my friends" (Romans 12:19). We are not to get even with an evildoer nor
are we to take justice into our own hands. But it is not evil or vengeful for people to
individually defend themselves or to collectively exact just punishment.

Obeying authority. Since the Bible is the inspired word of God, we must follow its commands
and principles. We must take seriously the concept of just war taught explicitly in the Old
Testament and implicitly in the New since the Bible is consistent in its moral precepts. Since
Jesus was not a pacifist, we cannot say that christians renounce all armed conflict. And while
force should be a last resort it is sometimes necessary for self-defense and to resist tyranny.

This leads us to the all important idea of authority. Who is in charge. What must we obey?
When is resistance justified? "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and
on earth has been given to me'" (Matthew 28:18). All legitimate authority rests in the Lord
Jesus Christ. All earthly authority is therefore derived and limited authority. Christ gives
parents the authority to raise children according to his principles (Ephesians 6:1-4). But we
have no authority to abuse our children or lead them astray. He gives ordained leaders of the
church authority within the church, but they are accountable to Christ (Hebrews 13:17). They
also have no authority to abuse or lead astray Christians. Likewise, he gives authority to
governments to maintain law and order, not to abuse citizens or to perpetrate evil.

Consider Romans 13:1-5 which is perhaps the most important biblical passage about the
authority of governments. "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for
there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have
been established by God" (Romans 13:1). In America, the highest governing authority is the
Constitution, not elected officials who are sworn to uphold and defend it.

"Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has
instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves" (Romans 13:2). Violating
Constitutional liberties is rebelling against God, whether it is done by a criminal or the
politicians. Thus,

When elected officials break their oath to uphold the Constitution, it is not the patriotic citizen
who is in rebellion, but the governing official!

"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to
be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you"
(Romans 13:3). If you do what is Constitutionally right by forming a militia and the government
accuses you of wrongdoing, then in fact they have lost all authority because they have turned
away from the very thing which legitimizes them.

"For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear
the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, and agent of wrath to bring punishment to the
wrongdoer" (Romans 13:4). God intends the government to do you good by maintaining law,
order, and justice. When the government systematically punishes the upright citizen and
commends wrongdoing, it is no longer serving God's purpose.

"Therefore , it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible
punishment but also because of conscience" (Romans 13:5). Jesus Christ is the ultimate
authority and the Constitution is the real governing authority. If we are submitted to Jesus
Christ and committed to Constitutional liberties, then our conscience demands the resistance
of unconstitutional authority which is no authority at all.

1.1.5 Discussion questions

To determine what is right and wrong in ethical matters, should we follow public opinion,
existing laws, our own opinion, or the Bible? Why?

Do you believe that there is any inconsistency in what the Bible has to say about the morality
of self-defense and war waged against tyranny? If not, why not? If so, please specify what
"inconsistency" you perceive. Is there any way you can see these "inconsistencies" can be
reconciled?

Do you believe that Jesus was, or Christians should be, complete pacifists? Why or why not?

How is the idea of just war consistent or inconsistent with loving God? With loving our
neighbor? With loving our enemy?

Describe the general continuity of principle among capital punishment, law enforcement by
the police, personal self-defense, and just war.

Can you describe the difference between acting out of revenge and acting in behalf of
justice? Why is the one right and the other wrong?

What is your definition of authority that must be obeyed?

What are some examples of usurped or illegitimate authority that do not justify armed
resistance? Why isn't fighting right in such cases?

What are some examples of usurped or illegitimate authority that do justify armed resistance?
Why is fighting right in such cases?

Main ideas of this section

We must make sure that whatever we do in any department of life, including the use of force,
conforms to the truth and moral principles of the Bible.

The New Testament did not change or overturn the moral principles of the Old Testament. It
simply clarified, developed, added to, or fulfilled them.

A close look at the Bible will show that Jesus Christ was not a pacifist, and will demonstrate
that he approved of the justified use of deadly force.

When elected officials break their oath to uphold the Constitution, it is not the patriotic citizen
who is in rebellion, but the governing official!

Further reading

If you desire to read and study these issues in more depth, I recommend the following books
available from the Free Militia.

On the inspiration and authority of the Bible

Custer, Stewart. Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy? (Nutley, New Jersey, The Craig Press,
1968), 120pp.

Garrett, Duanne A. and Melick, Richard R., Jr. (editors). Authority and Interpretation: A Baptist
Perspective (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1987), 220pp.

Giesler, Norman (editor). Inerrancy (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1980), 516pp.

Young, Edward J. Thy Word Is Truth (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Banner of Truth, 1957), 274pp.

On the morality and ethics of just war

Boettner, Loraine. The Christian Attitude Toward War (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian
& Reformed, 1940/1985), 91pp.

Davis, John Jefferson. Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today (Phillipsburg, New
Jersey, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1985), 299pp.

Morey, Robert A. When Is It Right to Fight? (Minneapolis, Minnesota, Bethany House
Publishers, 1985), 143pp.

Murray, John. Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishers, 1957), 272pp.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2 The heritage of arming and organizing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memorize: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and
slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know now what course others may take, but as for me, give
me liberty, or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

1.2.1 Give me liberty or give me death!

When the second revolutionary convention of Virginia met in March of 1775, the majority of
those in attendance favored quiet preparations for war but wanted to continue seeking peace
with the king of England and Parliament. So when resolutions were introduced proposing that
Virginia formally assume a defensive posture in anticipation of war, the majority cringed at the
prospect of war being inevitable. The resolutions were about to be defeated when Patrick
henry rose to address the assembly. It was his speech that changed minds so that the
resolutions were carried. It was his speech that first openly advocated war. It was his speech
which arguably mobilized the American colonies for eventual victory.

I therefore will quote the speech in its entirety to set the context of the American Revolution
and to remind us of the similar perils we face today. As you read it, keep several things in
mind.

First, Patrick Henry was promoting war to a group of informed men who were predisposed to
peace. His speech was meant to convince the skeptical rather than to agitate warmongers.

Second, Patrick Henry was promoting war against the greatest military power on the face of
the earth, the British Empire. The men in that assembly did not have the benefit of hindsight
but were contemplating a war which, from their perspective, was by no means sure to be won.

Third, Patrick Henry was promoting war as a necessary last resort. He was not a
"trigger-happy" glory seeker. He was facing facts that peaceful approaches had been
impotent for over ten years of struggle.

Keeping these facts in mind will keep us from mistaking Patrick Henry for an impatient, violent
man and keep his speech in proper perspective. And now, let Patrick Henry's words speak for
themselves.
"No man, Mr. President, thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of
the very honorable gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often
see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought
disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining, as I do, opinions of a character very
opposite to theirs, I should speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no
time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For
my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery. And in
proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in
this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to
God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving
offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of
disloyalty towards the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of Hope. We are apt to shut out
eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into
beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are
we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear
not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my own part, whatever
anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to
provide for it.

"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know
of no way of judging the future but by the past. And, judging by the past, I wish to know what
there has been in the conduct of the British ministry, for the last ten years, to justify those
hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that
insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a
snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this
gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparation which cover our
waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and
reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be
called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of
war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort.

"I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to
submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any
enemy in this quarter of the world, to call for this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir,
she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to
bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.

"And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for
the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held
the subject up in every light of which is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to
entreaty, and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not already been
exhausted?

"Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that
could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have
remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and
have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.
Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and
insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned with contempt
from the foot of the throne.

"In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There
is no longer any room for hope. If we are to be free; if we mean to preserve inviolate those
inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending; if we mean not basely to
abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have
pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained
-- we must fight! I repeat sir -- we must fight! An appeal to arms, and to the God of hosts, is all
that is left us.

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak - unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But
when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are
totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather
strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by
lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of Hope, until our enemies
shall have bound us hand and foot?

"Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature has
placed in our power. Three millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a
country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send
against us.

"Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the
destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is
not to the strong alone: it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no
election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There
is no retreat but in submission and slavery. Our chains are forged. Their clanking may be
heard on the plains of Boston. The war is inevitable. And let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry peace, peace, but there is no
peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our
the clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand here idle?
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as
to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

Thus was Patrick Henry's speech. Thus were the resolutions to prepare for war carried. Let
me make a few more remarks so you can see the parallels with our situation today and so
there is no misunderstanding.

Neither Patrick Henry, nor the resolutions he sought to approve advocated attacking the
British army. They simply advocated being ready for the inevitable British attack. Neither does
the Free Militia propose to attack anyone but only to be prepared to defend.

Just as the colonists sought to alleviate unjust taxation without representation with every
possible form of peaceful means, there has been an ongoing attempt with all branches of the
federal government to demonstrate how unconstitutional many laws, programs, and taxes are,
to no avail. The Constitutional is routinely ignored and petitions to obey it are met with an
"insidious smile" but no serious action.

The great danger of Patrick Henry's day was the growing strength of British forces along with
the growing measures to disarm the colonies. Today we see the multiplication of police
officers, agencies, prisons, and government power simultaneous with attacks on personal gun
rights.