Is Violence Ever Justified: A Biblical View

I sat through a service this moring. The topic is that mentioned above, and, using many Old Testament texts, the Pastor proceeded to state that, while vengance and self-promotion are never justifiable cause for violence, there are times when men are used as "God's instrument of wrath"

Before I go further I want to make clear that this is my response and thoughts towards this topic. I am not trying to say that this pastor, or anyother, is promoting violence.

As I mentioned, many passages from the Old Testamnet were used to support the idea of righteous violence. Yes, it is true that in history nations have come against other nations, directed by God. But that was under the old covenant, before Jesus. It is my understanding that under the new covenant, we are not to put anyone to death, but instead hold to and teach what is right, letting the deeds of the evil condmn themselves. This would work in a perfect world, but unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world.

Saying that Christians can fbe God's method of judgement gives reason for the crussaids and many other horrendous acts commited when people refused to convert, the witch trials included. No one has the right to inflict violence on any and consider themselves to be justified. There is, however, a responsibility to judge between the evil of a dictator (Hitler for example) who demands the opression and killing of many innocents, and that of rising agianst this leader in an act of war. Both involve killing of innocents, both are evil.
My point being, while war kills as much as allowing such a situation to continue, it must happen (as a last resort and following rules of humanity). Nesesity does not be mistaken for justification.

 

"The Sermon on the Mounts is the last word in Christian ethics. Everyone respects the Quakers. Still, it is not on these terms that Ministers assume their responsibilities of guiding states. Their duty is first so to deal with other nations as to avoid strife and war and to eschew aggression in all its forms, whether for nationalistic or ideological objects. But the safety of the State, the lives and freedom of their own fellow countrymen, to whom they owe their position, make it right and imperative in the last resort, or when a final and definite conviction has been reached, that the use of force should not be excluded. If the circumstances are such as to warrant it, force may be used. And if this be so, it should be used under the conditions which are most favourable. There is no merit in putting off a war for a year if, when it comes, it is a far worse war or one much harder to win. These are the tormenting dilemmas upon which mankind has throughout its history been so frequently impaled. Final judgment upon them can only be recorded by history in relation to the facts of the case as known to the parties at the time, and also as subsequently proved."

- Winston Churchill, "The Gathering Storm."

 

Are we talking about violence only in terms of war? There are times when war can be justified. I don't believe that necessity and justification can be seperated. If it is a necessary thing, it almost has to be justifiable. Some wars are necessary, some are not. The American Revolution was necessary. World War II was necessary. Vietnam was not necessary, and therefore not justifiable. The Crusades were not necessary and therefore not justifiable. It would seem to me the justification for war depends on the goal of said war. Warring with another nation because they believe in a different version of God is definitely not justifiable. Warring with a different nation because their leader is an out of control lunatic who threatens the safety of the entire planet is justified.

But is the violence we are discussing to be limited to just war? What about the more common everyday violence? The type that for the most part has a more direct impact on our lives. Is it possible for that to be justified? I say yes, sometimes it can be. Suppose someone breaks into your home. Now if all they want to do is steal your TV, then violence against that person probably isn't justified there. But what if in the process of stealing your TV, they threaten your family? Is violence justified there? I would say without hesitation yes. If some nut has a gun pointed at my son, and I have the opportunity to remedy the situation by taking one of my Katanas and removing the arm holding the gun, I will not hesitate to do so. And I will be justified in doing so. A lot of people have trouble admitting things like this, and I may catch some flak for it, but in a situation where it comes down to choosing between someone like that, or my family, I would have absolutely no problem taking a human life. Necessity provides the justification for it. Maybe it seems like a simplistic 'us or them' mentality, but if you believe in God and all that, then my life is a gift from the Ultimate Being, as are the lives of my family. And I will protect those gifts in any and every way I can and must.

It's probably not justifiable to hunt someone down after they do harm to your family. But if the violence stops the harm from occuring, then yes, I do believe it's justifiable. It may not be a pleasant thought, but sometimes violence is necessary, and when it's necessary, it can be justified easily.

But going back to the war example, we can take current events and ask this question about it. Saddam Hussein has in effect directly threatened our society. He is also a lunatic who has had plenty of chances to come clean, but has decided not to. He lied about having weapons 12 years ago, but they were found. At least some of them were. Then he was given 12 years to try and do things peacefully, and has wasted that opportunity. He has lied repeatedly recently about having mass-destruction weapons, and then mustard gas missiles are found.

Saddam Hussein is at best an unstable lunatic with possession of some very dangerous weapons, not to mention probably ties to another lunatic group that wants to do our country harm for no good reason. No justifiable reason. In the international arena, the greater good has to come first, and there comes a time when talking is not going to get it done. We have just about reached that time, and if Saddam can't get along in the world peacably, then something more drastic needs to be done to remedy the situation. And it will be necessary and it will be justifiable.

The people who say violence doesn't solve problems are only partially right. It cannot solve all problems, but in some instances it is quite necessary, and it can be justified.

What happens if we pass on this opportunity to go and relieve Saddam of his methods for hurting us? And then he decides to use his chemical weapons on one of our major cities, like say Los Angeles? Millions of lives could be lost, even though we had the opportunity to avert it. To me, that is the bigger crime, that is what is not justifiable. Yes

 

Two things to note about the Old Testament and killing before this discussion continues. First, God only gave a very specific command to make war: never a general rule. Second, the general rules were laws for the Jewish government, not allowances for personal vengeance.

The fact is, I believe Christians can take either position on just war and capital punishment without being necessarily inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. Likewise, there are warmongers who fight because of bloodlust and pacifists who are acting on cowardice.

 

Uh......I think it says somewhere in the Bible that nation's have the right to defend themselves (say Germany invades your country for no reason. You <NATION'S LEADER> have the right to defend your country)

 

You seem to be obsessed with burning...

 

But is the violence we are discussing to be limited to just war? What about the more common everyday violence? The type that for the most part has a more direct impact on our lives. Is it possible for that to be justified? I say yes, sometimes it can be. Suppose someone breaks into your home. Now if all they want to do is steal your TV, then violence against that person probably isn't justified there. But what if in the process of stealing your TV, they threaten your family? Is violence justified there? I would say without hesitation yes.

As would I, without any hesitation. If you can do so without killing the person, then by all means go that route. When God blesses me with a family, I will do everything in my power to protect that family.


It is true that justifiable war was kinda reserved for the Old Testament, and that when Jesus came, the need for God's people to be the instruments of His judgment was not really needed anymore.

The New Testament says a lot about living in peace with everyone. As you said, im_posessed, this would work in a perfect world. Unfortunately, us humans kinda screwed that one up. However, without tryin to prooftext here, the New Testament passages that deal with living in peace with one another seem to be conditional. There is some if's that need to be considered. For example:

"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."

We can try, but sometimes peace is not an option (ie the Iraq situation). The hard part in all this, and the part that screws us up the most, is point of view. What seems justifiable to one person, or a group of people, is not gonna be justifiable to everyone. I've never seen the person to whom the violence is directed sayin, yeah, I deserved that. Go ahead, kill me. (well, not at the time it was happenin, anyways...maybe in retrospect)...

I think I made sense?

 

Sar-Tamber-lac, you made absolutley perfect sense. All around peace is impossible with humans. Strife and conflict go where we go, no matter the circumstances. I believe that violence is not justifiable by means of the Bible. I don't think the Bible ever was meant to be an implementing tool of violence. It's more a tool of learning than a tool of violence.

Yet I do believe that some insinuating circumstances can only be resolved by violence. Such as someone threatening my family. That is more than a justifiable reason for me.