This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
John 15:12
Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
Luke 10:36
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 12:17-21
Our Lord Jesus raises the standard from what Mosaic law stated about resisting evil.
From these few scripture verses, I think we can begin to see what God's will is concerning us taking vengeance into our own hands. Before we delve into this too far, though, let's clear up some common fallacies and misconceptions, as well as creating a biblical foundation for our explanation. I want you to walk away from this, feeling that you read something pointing you to the Bible, not just another work of man.
I would also like to say that I am not advocating that this is easy to implement into practicality. To the contrary, as most of God's laws are, they are diametrically opposed to the desires and "involuntary reflexes" of our flesh.
Common Misconceptions
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
(Luke 22:36-37)
The 36th verse has long been used as "permission" by Christ to take up arms, though it is seldom quoted in the context of the following verse. The apparent ambiguity is cleared when Jesus tells his disciples that this act was a fulfillment of prophesy. He was to be numbered among the transgressors, and be counted as a common criminal. I think the passage here is fairly self-explanatory, though I have included several other quotes on this just to show that I am not alone in my reasoning.
The further comment of Jesus explains in part the surprising statement, for he says: "It is necessary that the prophecy be fulfilled according to which I would be put in the ranks of criminals" (Luke 22:36-37). The idea of fighting with just two swords is ridiculous. The swords are enough, however, to justify the accusation that Jesus is the head of a band of brigands. We have to note here that Jesus is consciously fulfilling prophecy. If he were not, the saying would make no sense.1
Jacques Ellul
These words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said, as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient; which could not be enough for eleven men; or have forbid Peter the use of one, as he did in a very little time after this...2
John Gill
So let's move on to another commonly misunderstood verse, this time from the non-resistant side of the fence.
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages
Luke 3:14
This verse, a common favorite of the Anabaptists when arguing their doctrine of non-resistance, is one that is slightly difficult to understand based upon the wording in the original languages. In the KJV, it looks like it is a direct command not to do violence of any kind, though delving a little farther into it, or reading it in another translation, it appears that in the context John the Baptist was referring more to the violent extortion that was common to the soldiers of that day. Here are some thoughts by different commentators:
"do violence to no man," or "shake" him, or put him, into bodily fear, by threatening, hectoring, and bullying him, and drawing the sword upon him, which is usual, upon the least offence, for such persons to do;"
John Gill
John does not bid them lay down their arms, and desert the service, but cautions them against the sins that soldiers were commonly guilty of; for this is fruit meet for repentance, to keep ourselves from our iniquity. They must not be injurious to the people among whom they were quartered, and over whom indeed they were set: "Do violence to no man. Your business is to keep the peace, and prevent men's doing violence to one another; but do not you do violence to any. Shake no man" (so the word signifies); do not put people into fear; for the sword of war, as well as that of justice, is to be a terror only to evil doers, but a protection to those that do well.
Matthew Henry
Also, let us bear in mind that this is before the new testament standards are set for love being the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:10). John the Baptist was a forerunner of the Messiah, but he was still under the old Mosaic covenant.
So, with the aforementioned issues with this verse, I am going to mark it as one that is somewhat irrelevant for this topic, and move on without it.
Foundations
I would like to start out with a foundation of understanding some of the core changes to the law with the coming of Jesus. I personally feel that this is one of the greatest downfalls of those who are lopsided in their understanding of God's will towards Non-Resistance. A balanced view of both Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology (View definitions) is extremely important in understanding this concept properly. Without this, there is the inevitable "OT Warrior God" vs. "NT God of Love" arguments, which are neither edifying, nor profitable.
God himself has not changed (James 1:17) but His laws for mankind have. I think we can all agree on that point; we are no longer required to fulfill the entirety of Mosaic law, since Christ fulfilled many of God's demands.
Under the Old Covenant, the Israelites were the only nation that had God's full blessing.
Since the Israelites--who were God's chosen nation (Leviticus 16:12)--were limited to a single group, the enemies of God's people became the very enemies of God. This sets a very different stage for warfare than that of today, where the great commission bids us to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15) Because God's people are now global, it makes resistance, especially with respect to warfare, quite complicated. There is no longer a physical boundary of land that is for God's chosen people. We, as children of God, no longer defend "God's country," because it is all His. Furthermore, His children inhabit every tribe, kindred, tongue, and nation. (Revelation 5:9)
The preceeding point also clears up the common arguments for violence concerning Abraham's rescue of Lot, (sanctioned and blessed by God: Genesis 14:14-20) and king David being a "Man after God's own heart" while at the same time being a fierce warrior. (Acts 13:22, 1 Samuel 13:14) These were men who were fighting the very enemies of God, much as a Christian today has every right to bind and rebuke demons in the name of Christ, because they are enemies of our God and King.
When Jesus shed his blood on the cross, it was for ALL men. Therefore, how can we, as children of God, put to death one for whom Christ died? (Romans 5:6,8)
Paul forbids us as Christians to bring one another to the court of law, (1 Corinthians 6:1-3) but rather to let ourselves be defrauded. (1 Corinthians 6:7) Moreover, he goes on to say that God is the judge of those things, and that the ungodly will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Then in 1 Cor 6:11, he says: "but such were some of you." In other words, YOU were one of those God-hating people. You were destined for hell. God's grace alone has brought you up from that pit.
Purpose of Life
Lastly, if we believe that our purpose on this earth, and the purpose of God's creation is for the sole purpose of God's glory, then our lives will reflect that in the choices that we make, and even under duress, this one thing will eclipse all other emotions, leading us to make the correct choices.
God's enemies no longer exist in physical bodies. We wrestle against spiritual enemies.
(Ephesians 6:12)
Two Kingdoms
Luther was the one attributed with starting the concept of the two kingdoms, though he himself never actually used the phrase.3 Jesus himself set the groundwork for the two kingdoms, in this scene before the Roman Procurator, Pilate:
Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
John 18:33-37
He was clearly drawing the line in the minds of all around him that God's kingdom was not of the earth. As Christians, we also are to be of a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one.
Dr. John Piper, clearly a non-anabaptist, calvinistic baptist, briefly touches this in a sermon with the following excerpt:
I must make explicit that the apostle who wrote Romans 13 also made crystal clear that Christians are not first citizens of any human nation but citizens of the kingdom of God. Philippians 3:20, “Our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” Colossians 3:2-3, “Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. 3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.” We are not our own, we were bought with a price (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) by the blood of Christ who rose from the dead and owns us and rules us. Therefore Peter says, “Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul” (1 Peter 2:11). Christians are aliens and exiles in America.[4]
John Piper
When we consider that we are not to join ourselves to a carnal world, country, government, or people, but rather be separate and set apart for the Lord, it puts a different light on what we read in the Bible. There are things that are not expressly forbidden, that are not profitable for us as Christians. We will go into more of that in the following sections on Legal Rights and Warfare & Serving the State.
"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." 1 Corinthians 10:23
The Sermon on the Mount
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Matthew 5:10-12
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away
Matthew 5:38-42
Several good explanations exist as to why Matthew 5:21 is not really relevant for this topic. One can argue that it doesn't really prove a point one way or another, since under the old covenant, murder excluded your enemies. (see above) Jonathan Winsley, in an article opposing the anabaptist view of non-resistance states:
In many other contexts, we learn that the teachers of Israel – the scribes and Pharisees – had taken it upon themselves to “soften” the Law, to make it apply to the visible parts of their lives while saying nothing of their hearts.
So when the Pharisees say “You shall not murder,” they left it at that – they said nothing of the heart attitudes, the anger that was the root of murder. When they say “You shall not commit adultery,” they mean only the physical act – lusting after a beautiful woman was fair game. Jesus continues down through this passage, giving examples where the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees fell short of the righteousness of the Law.
As if to seal this interpretation as the correct one, again at the head of the passage, we find Jesus’ promise: “I have not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them.” Jesus doesn’t change the Law or the Prophets; He reaffirms them.5
Jonathan Winsley
In a slightly different turn, Dr. Piper, in his series of sermons addressing civil disobedience, non-resistance, and passivity in several hypothetical situations, addresses Matthew 5:38-48:
Let’s look at the demands of love in Matthew 5:38-48. These are tough paragraphs about non-resistance and active love for your enemy. First, Jesus says:
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who asks from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. (vv. 38-42)
All of those verses are intended to show compliance to one who mistreats you or asks you for something. This looks like the opposite of resistance. Now here comes something a little different in verses 43-48: active love rather than non-resistance.You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. . . .You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (vv. 43-48)
Here a different note is struck. The emphasis falls on seeking the good of the enemy. Love your enemy. Pray for your enemy—presumably that he would be saved and find hope and life in Christ. Do good to your enemy the way God does with rain and sunshine.So in verses 38-42 the note of compliance is struck (don’t resist, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile). But in verses 43-48 Jesus strikes the note of positive actions for the good of your enemies with a view to their blessing.
Now this raises the question whether the non-resistance and compliance of verses 38-42 is always the best way to love others and do them good as in verses 43-48. One focuses on passivity—don’t retaliate, be willing to suffer unjustly. The other focuses on activity—seek to do good for your enemy. Is passivity always the best way to do good?
The answer becomes more clear when we realize that in most situations of injustice or persecution we are not the only person being hurt. For example, how do you love two other people if one is the criminal and the other is the victim—if one is hurting and the other is being hurt? Is love passive when it is not just your cheek that is being smacked but someone else’s—and repeatedly?
Or what about the command to give to the one who asks. Is it love to give your coat to a person who will use it to strangle an infant? And how do you go the extra mile (lovingly!) with a person who is taking you along to support his bloodshed? Do you go the extra mile with a person who is making you an active accomplice to his evil?
The point of these questions is this: In these verses Jesus is giving us a description of love that cuts to the depth of our selfishness and fear. If selfishness and fear keep us from giving and going the extra mile, then we need to be broken by these words. But Jesus is not saying that passive compliance in situations of injustice is the only form of love. It can be a form of cowardice.
When love weighs the claims of justice and mercy among all the people involved, there can come a moment, a flash point, when love may go beyond passive, compliant non-resistance and drive the money changers from the Temple (Mark 11:15).6
Dr. John Piper
In the last paragraph, Piper cites the only instance in the Bible, or recorded history where Jesus showed any form of resistance. I think it is also important to realize that righteous indignation doesn't come naturally to humans. We would do well to carefully consider what motivates us to resist, if we are going to cite this time as Jesus' permission to actively resist.
He further goes on to say that in actively resisting someone for the good of another, one must make perfectly sure that he is not resisting the attacker with selfish motives, (i.e. a thief taking your possessions) but rather is resisting with the good of both the attacker and the victim in mind. Preventing a crime by "lovingly" resisting an attacker is the biblical way of self-defense. We will touch on this a little later in our section on self-defense.
Persecution
Quoting again from Jonathan Winsley:
There is "non-violent persecution," where Christians are persecuted by being called names, slandered, or boycotted for their beliefs; there is "vigilante persecution," where an individual takes it upon himself to kill Christians for their beliefs; and there is "state-sanctioned persecution," where the government organizes or supports either violent or non-violent persecution.
Jonathan Winsley
Here he considers three broad categories of persecution, the first, non-violent persecution, is dealt with clearly in many places in the Bible. We are to bear it with the utmost patience and forbearance. (1 Peter 2:23, 1 Corinthians 4:12)
Secondly, he refers to "vigilante persecution." He dismisses this version somewhat abruptly, saying:
There’s no reason to think that the Bible’s teachings on personal self-defense in this manner have been changed. It’s appropriate to use legal means to protect one’s life or the life of others.
Which brings me to ask the question: what does the Bible say about self-defense, and why might one man persecuting us be different from just a man who is mugging us? We will address self-defense in the next section down.
Lastly, he addresses state-sanctioned persecution, the kind most frequently seen in history and across the world even now. God has set the government in it's place of authority above us, (Romans 13:1-7) and we are told to render them honor in all cases except where they violate God's law. Drawing from that, it is quite clear that resisting them is not Biblical, but rather we are told:
But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another...
Matthew 10:23
Other Biblical examples show that Paul was persecuted, submitting humbly to their torture. (2 Corinthians 11:24-25) Hebrews 11 shows us examples of many more:
And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
Hebrews 11:36-38
I think it's pretty clear in the Bible that we are not to resist when it comes to being persecuted for righteousness' sake. Added to the top of all that is the blessing of Christ in the sermon on the mount.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:10
Self-Defense
Self-defense is one of the most touchy elements in this subject, because it is where it becomes the most personal for many of us. I think we have all heard of the hypothetical situations that abound in debates on non-resistance: "what would you do if a man broke into your house and was about to murder your children and rape your wife?" I think we have laid a foundation of what the Bible allows and does not allow when it comes to avenging ourselves. The Bible permits us to use our legal rights as citizens of an earthly country for protection as we see the Apostle Paul doing in Acts 22:25.
As a side note on self-defense, if you are wronged by a brother in the church, Paul strongly discouraged from using legal measures against them. We are instructed rather to appeal to the elders of the local church body. (1 Corinthians 6:1-10)
However, addressing the scenario illustrated in the first paragraph of this section: defending yourself or your family against an attacker. One should be extremely careful, as a Christian, to have his motives and heart in the right place before something like this comes up. Defending yourself or your family for selfish reasons is not loving your neighbor as yourself. In this case, the attacker is your neighbor. How can you defend yourself lovingly? Firstly, using lethal force to defend yourself is seldom, if ever, necessary.
Personally, I don't see that the Bible ever allows for defending yourself with lethal force, though I know that can be considered controversial. I just cannot find any biblical support for Christians to kill under any circumstances. (see Warfare & Serving the State) Building off the concept we started in the last part of the sermon on the mount, I do think that you can "lovingly" disable or disarm an attacker, while protecting an innocent victim; though you should use the same level of force to disarm the attacker if it is your neighbor your are protecting--or your wife. This is an area where the flesh has opportunity to manifest itself. We will willingly shoot and kill the attacker who is after our wife or child, but would only deem it necessary to knock him down if he is assulting our neighbor. Such inconsistencies indicate that we are operating under the flesh, not being lead by the Spirit. What does it mean exactly to "lovingly" disable somone? I will illustrate it by likening it to the way that a shepherd breaks a sheep's leg to prevent it's death; it is not plesant, nor does the sheep consider it loving, but the end result is that the sheep is spared a tormenting death by wolves or falling off a cliff. So, in the same way, injuring another person to spare him from committing a heinous crime, is an act of love for his soul. As an added plus, you have spared his life, and given him another opportunity to repent. This resistance, if done in the Spirit, will be without a trace of bitterness or maliciousness, but rather of love and concern for the soul of another fellow man.
Furthermore, it is also to be observed that God sets those who shed human blood apart from others in the Bible. In the Old Testament, we can see that even though king David was a "Man after God's heart," that he was prevented from building the temple since his hands were stained with blood--the very blood that God had asked him to shed in the protection of Israel.7
Legal Rights
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Romans 13:1-8
We have noted above that the apostle Paul used his "citizenship" for his benefit, and this is in accordance with the teachings of Christ when he said that tribute was due to our rulers. This is not permission to join ourselves as part of the civil governmental rule, but rather a benefit we enjoy, even though we are only ambassadors here. (See Two Kingdoms, Foundations, and Warfare)
Warfare & Serving the State
Let us begin with another hypothetical (but likely) situation: John, a devout Christian, and American patriot, enlists in the US Marine Corp, and ships out to his first deployment in South Korea. Cheng, a devout Christian, and Chinese Patriot, joins the People's Liberation Army, and his platoon is sent to reinforce the North Korean side of the DMZ. After just over 60 years of the ceasefire, war breaks out on the DMZ. John creeps through the underbrush, but is seen by a spotter. Cheng, now a sniper, takes aim and fires, instantly killing his American "brother" in Christ. John's platoon, hearing the shot, launch a volley of grenades near Cheng and his spotter, blowing them up, as well as killing the support group behind them. Ironically, three of the men in that group were guys that John's cousin, a missionary to China, had been evangelizing. All of them were sent to a Christless eternity.
God no longer has a "country" that he calls His. (See Foundations) "For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof." (1 Corinthians 10:26) All Christians, regardless of race, are siblings because of the blood of Christ. On this basis alone, I do not see how one can serve in a military position. We are called to make peace. (Matthew 5:9) To share Christ's love. To be servants. (Galatians 5:13) To resist not evil. (Matthew 5:39)
Also, (as previously noted under Two Kingdoms), since we are not "citizens" of America, but rather citizens of a heavenly country, we are therefore ineligible to hold the office of any civil post. We are called "ambassadors;" who, by definition, don't have the same civil rights as citizens. Ambassadors are, however, protected by the government they are under as if they were citizens.
I will note here, since it may be brought up later, that it is not expressly forbidden to serve the state in an official capacity, but I do feel that the Bible warns against it in many different ways; some obvious, and others not so obvious. All that, added to the historical truth that governments are seldom righteous entities, and joining yourselves to such would be, at the least, extremely unwise.
So, the question is not: "Can I ___________" (become a police officer, join the military, run for the presidency) but rather, what is God's will for my life. How will my life most honor and glorify HIM. If we truly believe that our purpose on earth is for the Glory of God, and the furtherance of His eternal kingdom, we should not "entangle ourselves in the affairs of this life," (2 Timothy 2:4) but rather deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him. (Luke 9:23)
I know it seems that I am reiterating and repeating my points, but the Gospel message is simple, and pointed. We make life dangerous for ourselves when we ignorantly wrestle with the scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16)
Conclusion
In conclusion, I think it is of utmost importance to remember the overshadowing theme of the Bible: God is over all things. He is not sleeping, oblivious, or unaware of life's happenings. All things are done according to His plan and without his permission, not a hair of your head will fall to the ground. (Matthew 10:29) He is the protector of the fatherless, the widow, and the orphan. (Psalm 146:9) Sometimes He uses man to step in and fulfill His omnipotent will, other times He uses supernatural force. We are not in control, but are given the challenge by the apostle Paul: "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." Galatians 5:16
May God bless you!
Definition of Terms
Non-Resistance
: The belief that one is not to take up arms at all, in civil service, or in defense of his country, or defend himself from personal violence, with violence.
Pacifism (as defined by Anabaptists)
: The belief that one is not to resist violence at all; in any way, shape, or form. No sort of passive or active intervention in the case of protecting ones self or another person, but rather standing aside and praying or asking kindly for the attacker to stop.
Covenant Theology
: Obedience to the entirety of the Old Testament is required, unless explicitly forbidden in the New Testament. See the following quote from Covenant Theologian Greg Bahnsen:
"Our obligation is to obey any Old Testament commandment unless the New Testament indicates otherwise. We must assume continuity with the Old Testament rather than discontinuity. This is not to say that there are no changes from Old to New Testament. Indeed, there are — important ones. However, the word of God must be the standard which defines precisely what those changes are for us; we cannot take it upon ourselves to assume such changes or read them into the New Testament. God’s Word, His direction to us, must be taken as continuing in its authority until God Himself reveals otherwise. This is, in a sense, the heart of “covenant theology” over against a dispensational understanding of the relation between Old and New Testaments."8
Greg L. Bahnsen
Dispensational Theology
: The entirety of the Old Testament law is irrelevant to us, unless explicitly reinstated in the New Testament. See the following quote from Dispensational Theologian Charles C. Ryrie:
"Now the Mosaic Law was done away in its entirety as a code. It has been replaced by the law of Christ. The law of Christ contains some new commands (1 Tim. 4:4), some old ones (Rom. 13:9), and some revised ones (Rom. 13:4, with reference to capital punishment). All of the laws of the Mosaic code have been abolished because the code has. Specific Mosaic commands which are part of the Christian code appear there not as a continuation of part of the Mosaic Law, or in order to be observed in some deeper sense but as specifically incorporated into that code, and as such they are binding on believers today. A particular law that was part of the Mosaic code is done away; that same law, if part of the law of Christ, is binding." 9
Charles C. Ryrie
Disclaimer
Though I have quoted the works of many authors, I am not expressing or implying that I endorse, believe, accept, or otherwise promote their complete works as truth. All is fallible except the Word of God, which will stand forever. (Isaiah 40:8)
References
- Ellul, Jacques (1988). Anarchy and Christianity. p. 64
- Gill, John (1746). An Exposition of the New Testament.
- Gritsch 1986, p. 47.
- Piper, John (2005, July 17). Subjection to God and Subjection to the State, Part 4 [Sermon Transcription] Retrieved January 1, from http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/subjection-to-god-and-subjection-to-the-state-part-4
- Winsley, Jonathan (2013, Nov. 16). Nonresistance: A Biblical Theology of Violence, Part 5 [Blog post]. Retrieved January 1, from http://motnw.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/nonresistance-a-biblical-theology-of-violence-part-5/
- Piper, John (2005, July 10). Subjection to God and Subjection to the State, Part 3 [Sermon Transcription] Retrieved January 1, from http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/subjection-to-god-and-subjection-to-the-state-part-3
- MT, The Biblical View of Self-Defense [Online Article] Retrieved January 4, from www.biblicalselfdefense.com
- Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, second printing, 1991), p. 3.
- Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Colorado Springs, CO: ChariotVictor Publishing, 1982), p. 305.