Preface To The Second Printing
1. Must God Plead With God?
   
2. How The Spirit Leads
   
3. Physical Reinforcements of Faith
   
4. Jesus' Physical and Spiritual Death
   
5. Is There Merit in Pain?
   
6. The Six Days of Creation
   
7. Adding Guilt to Anxiety
   
8. Wine and The Disciple
   
9. Revolution or Evolution
   
10. I Am That Disciple
    
11. When People Disagree
    
12. Is Unity Based Upon Seven Doctrines?
    
13. Our Seven Sacraments
    
14. Instrumental Music
    
15. The Mood of Worship
    
16. Justified Then Sanctified
    
17. Is Christian Our Name?
    
18. The Lord's Table
    
19. Righteousness That Exceeds
    
20. Neither Destroyed Nor Nailed To The Cross
    
21. The Right of Self-Protection
    
22. A Tree of Error
    
23. God is Limited
    
24. You Are Here
    
25. God is In Charge
    
26. Hook's Points
    
27. Lamentations of A Mediocre Preacher
    

THE RIGHT OF SELF-PROTECTION

This will be a study of certain rights of disciples. Does being disciples require that we be socially passive, non­resistant, and non-violent? Do we have any recourse against injustice and tyranny? Does a society have the right of self­protection? Many perplexing questions call for answers. Some we may answer definitely; others may be left to the judgment of each individual in his particular circumstance.

The sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," is the fundamental law protecting the sanctity of life. The very need for such a commandment is regrettable. The Golden Rule is the fundamental law to govern all social relationships. If it were practiced by all, this study would be unnecessary. The problem arises because the disciple must practice it even when others are not.

In order to have a proper basis for many of our conclusions, we will consider both Mosaic and Christian teachings, principles, prohibitions, and regulations concerning our social conduct and the taking of life.

The sixth Commandment warns, "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 20:13). Capital punishment was the penalty prescribed for violation of this commandment: "He that smiteth a man, so that he dieth, shall surely be put to death" (Ex. 21 :12; cf. Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16f; Deut. 19:1 if). The killer was to be killed. Would the executioner be violating "Thou shalt not kill" in killing the killer? He would not be in violation because there are different definitions of killing, and execution of the criminal is not the type condemned.

There are at least four kinds of killing which were not considered as murder; hence, they did not incur the capital penalty. These would be identified as manslaughter, but not murder. The sixth Commandment is more understandably translated, "You shall do no murder." Let us review these four types of manslaughter.

1. Accidental: "Ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer that killeth a person unwittingly may flee thither" (Num. 35:11; read all of ch. 35). He was not considered to be a murderer.
2. Protective: "If a thief be found breaking in, and he be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him" (Ex. 22:2).
3. Punitive: Capital punishment was prescribed for those who blasphemed the name of Jehovah (Lev. 24: 16), those who disregarded the Sabbath (Num. 15:32f), one who cursed or struck his parents (Lev. 20:13; Ex. 21:15, 17), and other offenses.
4. Warfare: God directed Israel into warfare on different occasions. In Deuteronomy 20, Moses sets forth regulations concerning battle.

Some persons reject these Mosaic regulations on the grounds that the Jews were permitted to hate and to take vengeance. But such objections come from a gross misunderstanding. God has never permitted man to hate his fellowman and to take vengeance. Rather, the law stated, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: Thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am Jehovah" (Lev. 19:17). Love was to be demonstrated to one's enemy, for "If thou meet shine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again" (Ex. 23:4; cf. Deut. 22:1-4). Both Jesus and Paul go back to the law for their highest principles.

Another misunderstanding perpetuated is: "Under the law, it was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. If someone knocked your tooth out, you could knock one of his out." But that is not a provision of the law. It did not permit personal retribution for crimes. Then who took action against injustices? This is a very crucial point which is so commonly overlooked.

To avenge is to inflict punishment for just retribution. God avenges. To take vengeance is to inflict pain or injury in resentful or malicious retaliation. Injustices were avenged, but not on a personal basis. It was through due process of law involving witnesses and trials before judges. "And if men strive together and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Ex. 21:22f; cf. Lev. 24:19f).

Injustice was avenged by due process of law in the court rather than individual retaliation. "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee, according to thy tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment" (Deut. 16:18). Difficult cases could be appealed to a higher court: "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which Jehovah thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come unto the priests and the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days: and thou shalt inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment" (Deut. 17:8f). A person could not be convicted without sufficient evidence: "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established" (Deut. 19:15f).

Was not the next of kin to a murdered person called "the avenger of blood?" Wasn't the avenger of blood given the right to avenge his kin by killing the murderer? Yes, there were circumstances where this was permitted, but there was a reason for it which is often overlooked. There were no police among Israel, so "citizen's arrests" were made by the complainant and he brought charges against the offender. Ordinarily, a person pressed his own charges, but a slain man could not perform such a thing. Someone else must do it for him, so the next of kin became the avenger of blood for the dead.

Ordinarily, this was a legal procedure for punishment of a murderer. The citizen was the complainant, witness, and executioner: "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness shall he not be put to death. The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people" (Deut. 17:6f).

When a person killed another, he could run to the nearest city of refuge, surrender himself for protection, and wait for proper trial. "Assign you the cities of refuge whereof I spake unto you by Moses, that the manslayer that killeth any person unwittingly and unawares may nee thither: and they shall be unto you for a refuge from the avenger of blood. And he shall nee unto one of those cities, and shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city, and declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city; and they shall take him into the city unto them, and give him a place, that he may dwell among them. And if the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver up the manslayer into his hand; because he smote his neighbor unawares, and hated him not beforetime. And he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before the congregation for judgment, until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days: then shall the manslayer return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he fled" (Josh. 20:2f). If, however, the man was guilty of murder, he was delivered to the avenger for execution: "If any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally so that he dieth, and flee into one of these cities; then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die" (Deut. 19:11f).

If the manslayer did not surrender himself at the city of refuge, "The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death: when he meeteth him, he shall put him to death" (Num. 35:18f). In this action, the avenger would be acting as an agent of the law-and of God's wrath -avenging injustice against society, rather than seeking personal revenge.

Some object to the taking of life under any circumstances, declaring that such is "playing God." They only betray their ignorance of Biblical teaching. Do we play God when we bring a new life into the world, or remove an appendix? God has put life and death in our hands and wants us to deal with both discreetly. Who can contend that it is more praiseworthy to bring life into existence without honorable purpose than to destroy life with honorable purpose?

We should now be ready to answer these questions: Could a righteous person fill the capacity prescribed under the Law of Moses as a judge, a soldier, or an executioner in capital cases? Would death rendered by these persons be justified? Could they perform these actions with love for their neighbor, without malice or personal vengeance? May we conclude that God gave the Jewish society and its members the right of self­protection? All these questions demand an affirmative answer.

Do not reject the foregoing on the ground that we are not under the Law of Moses. In it we have a context in which to interpret "Thou shalt not kill." That command was interpreted with the same love and lack of vengeance as that enjoined upon us. Our principle of self-protection is established.

Jesus and his Spirit­led apostles added little, if anything, new to the meaning of "Thou shalt not kill" of Moses' law. They taught, "Thou shalt not kill" (Matt. 5:21), and "Let none of you suffer as a murderer" (1 Pet. 4:15). Jesus taught, "Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). He took his greatest commandment and the second to it from Moses. When Paul warned, "Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place to the wrath of God; for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord," he was referring back to the law (Rom. 12:19i cf. Lev. 19:17f).

Paul assures us that God will avenge for us. How and when does God avenge the injustices against us? In the judgment and hell? Yes, but that is of little comfort to us now. We don't have to wait until eternity for avenging. God uses due process of law to avenge today even as he did under Moses.

God has always provided for social order through government to protect the rights of the individual and the society. In Romans 13:1-7, Paul orders that we submit to civil government because it is ordained of God. Rulers, he says, are ministers of God who do not bear the sword -the instrument of capital punishment -in vain, but they are avengers for wrath. The "powers that be" are ordained for avenging, and God works through them for protection of both the individual and the society. Each person is a part of the society; hence, he is a part of the powers that be. As such, his aid in punishing the lawbreaker is avenging injustice and upholding God's ministry. To exonerate the offender is to violate justice and to jeopardize the innocent.

If someone steals your automobile, you avenge this wrong by reporting it to the police, bringing charges against the thief, and testifying against him in court. This process may be followed in avenging various wrongs. Even the slanderer may be sued in order to avenge, but not for revenge. "As much as in you lieth" (Rom. 12:18), we should seek to live in peace, but we cannot always do so because others will not allow us. As an individual disciple, one may have an offender arrested and brought to trial. As a part of society, the disciple may serve as a policeman, juror, judge, jailer, or executioner. The disciple may do any and all of these things without malice, hatred, or personal vengeance, still loving the offender and praying for him.

Let us suppose that someone is attempting to kill a member of your family. What can you do? You may call the police, but there is not time to call them. You may then wound or kill the attacker, acting in behalf of the powers that be. Both God and governments give an innocent person the right of self-protection. The action would be motivated without malice or desire for vengeance. To fail to protect the family would show more concern for the violator than for the violated.

Can one punish or kill an offender while keeping the Golden Rule? I am to love him always, and to do good to him as far as justice allows. Both the criminal and the victim must be considered. Shall I love the criminal more than the victim? The victim actually represents society which must be protected and avenged. If there is no avenging, law becomes meaningless, and the innocent lose their protection. Mercy may be shown a violator if it does not make law ineffective.

Governments do not bear the sword in vain in action against the individual criminal or the criminal nation when their actions are for self-protection and avenging. There is no justification for aggressive warfare, but a nation can no more rightly ignore injustice done against a weak nation than the neighbor can rightly ignore the aged widow next door as she is being attacked. It is true that these matters present a problem to the conscience because, due to our lack of accurate information, we cannot always be sure that we are supporting a just cause.

The "powers that be" are more than rulers; they are a system of government. We are parts of that system. As such, we pay taxes, obey laws, pray for the rulers, and honor our rulers. Each constructive action as a citizen aids the government in its role as protector and avenger, whether in peace or war. Jesus taught his disciples to pay taxes to Caesar even though they would be supporting a government which carried on extensive warfare and had a tax-supported pagan religion. Jesus did not demand that the soldier in the Roman army of occupation resign from, or desert, the army (Luke 3:14). God must expect each citizen to share as avengers of his wrath, while making allowance for his inability to know all the complex details which motivate the government and his inability to control all of its actions.

To some who study this issue, the non-violence and lack of self-defense of Jesus have been considered as sufficient evidence to show that no disciple should ever be violent or defend himself. Let us look at this further.

Although Jesus was generally non­violent in character, he did some aggressive, forceful, and destructive things. "And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: and he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers' money, and overthrew their tables;" (John 2:14f). Also, Jesus caused the death of about two thousand hogs when he cast the demons into them (Mark 5:1f).

While on trial before Pilate, Jesus declared, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight" (John 18:36). There we have it plainly stated that his servants do not fight. But, is that really what Jesus was declaring? The remainder of that sentence qualifies the first part: "...that I should not be delivered to the Jews." He was actually saying that, if his kingdom were earthly, he would not allow the Jews to kill him. He had already told Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Put up the sword into the sheath: the cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink of it?" (John 18: 11). Self defense would have frustrated his whole purpose in coming. He was giving himself willingly to the Jews to be crucified, thus fulfilling the scriptures. "Or thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels? How then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" (Matt. 26:53f).

These statements of Jesus have nothing to do with the rights of his disciples through the centuries. His kingdom was not promoted or supported by military power, but the Kingdom of Heaven and the "powers that be" are not identical. He speaks of his avoiding the cross by use of help from the Father or the disciples.

We have dealt with the right of the individual and the society. Now, does a minority within a society have that right also? Is civil disobedience ever justified? "He that resisteth the power, withstands the ordinance of God" (Rom. 13:2).

Generally, we are under obligation to obey the laws of the land, but, when there is conflict between the spiritual and the civil, we have the words and example of Peter and John: "Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard" (Acts 4:19f). "But Peter and the apostles answered and said, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

Christianity was not disruptive of such social conditions as slavery, but the slave was not hopelessly bound. "Every one should remain in the state in which he was called. Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity" (1 Cor. 7:20f RSV).

May a part of a society revolt against the whole? Did our forefathers sin in revolting against England? May a disciple rightly hold membership in a labor union which depends upon coercion to gain its purposes? Is it ever proper to take part in violent demonstrations of civil disobedience? While we uphold the right of self-protection for both the individual and the society, these questions concerning minority activities have no easy answers.

In searching for answers to these questions, we must ask and answer many more questions. How severe is the injustice needing correction? May the action being taken be expected reasonably to lead to the solution? Are our motives truly unselfish? Is greed involved? Are we motivated by prejudice against a race, a religion, the wealthy, or a regime? Are we simply taking by force what we are not willing to earn, buy, or negotiate honorably? Are we motivated by political preference? When a minority deals conscientiously with these questions, it should be rather peaceful.

In this treatise, I have not answered all pertinent questions. The conclusions that I have put forth have not all come easily. From my earliest childhood, I was taught that, not only would it be sinful to serve in armed forces, but it would be wrong also for a disciple to serve in any governmental capacity, or even to vote for those who serve. This concept had been instilled in my mind and conscience so deeply that, in agonizing sincerity, I registered in the World War 11 draft as a conscientious objector. It was not made into a real test, however, because I was deferred as a minister of the gospel. But I have written these things in all good feeling toward, and sympathy with, those who are conscientiously opposed to serving in the military. I only hope that this discourse may make decisions less agonizing for someone else than they were for me.

"Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in all ways. The Lord be with you all" (2 Thes. 3:16).