There are a wide array of opinions about whether it is ever right for a Christian to kill another person, regardless of the circumstances. Some believe a killing can be justified, even murder, depending on the circumstances. Others believe that a killing can be justified only if it isn't murder. Some hold that no Christian can ever purposely take the life of another human. And many Christians hold fast to the rule that all killing is forbidden, whether it's done by a Christian or anyone else.

We know that in times earlier than Christ, there was no bright-line that would forbid a child of God from killing another person. David—a man after God's own heart—did it. Elijah did it. Moses did it. Joshua did it. Samson did it. Jael did it. All of these killed one or more men. God didn't seem to be angry about it.

But, in the times of Christ, we read nothing about any follower of Christ ever raising his hand against another human to take a life. Never. Not once. There's never even a suggestion that one did, or that if one did, it would have been an action approved by Christ.

In one instance, where Christ is taken by the Pharisees in the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter, one of Christ's disciples, draws a sword. He reaches out and hit a man, then took a swing at him with the sword. His aggressive swing was aimed directly at the head of the man. His intent was clear: to cut off the man's head. But, the man ducks and instead, Peter cuts off the man's ear. Christ reattaches the man's ear and tells Peter to put up his sword. The story is told in that ancient book written thousands of years ago, and reads as follows:

From this passage, we can make some conclusions. Briefly (not conclusively nor exhaustively), we can know the following observations:

RECONCILING THE OLD TESTAMENT GOD WITH CHRIST

Christ never repudiated that ancient book we know today as the Old Testament . He explained it. He taught it. He corrected the understanding of it amongst his followers and in synagogues. But he never repudiated it. In one significant vignette of his tenure, Christ tells his followers the following: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: (22) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Mathew 5:21-22

While there are many things one might learn from that little passage delivered by Christ, you inevitably come away realizing that down through the ages, men have not really understood the law as delivered by Moses. And, many Christians have not understood the word "kill" as translated in the King James Version of the Bible.

First of all, the word "kill," as supplied by the King James translators, actually meant far more than the English word "kill." The Greek word is phoneuo which means to "be a murderer," or to "do murder." Certainly, the implication carried within the Greek word means "to kill," since one who is murdered is killed, and one who murders, kills another person. But, not everyone who kills another, murders another. The concept of murder and the concept of kill are two very different concepts involving much different values and implications. Throughout history, men have murdered, and even the ungodly have taken offense and devised laws against murder. But, both our laws and the laws given by Moses understood that some killings were not murder, and thus, were not to be treated the same as murder in terms of consequences. God has always been against murder.

One argument that is fairly persuasive as to the notion that God is against any killing, is that God protected Cain by setting a "mark" of some kind on him lest anyone should "kill" him. The word used there is a broad one, encompassing far more than just killing, but includes striking, or hurting or beating, and includes murdering. The translators used a single, narrowly defined word: "kill." But, God obviously had in mind that no man would punish Cain for his crime. His punishment would come from God alone, and God had already decreed the punishment for Cain. Indeed, it was so great, Cain lamented that it was too great for him to bear. It would appear that death by the hand of another would have been a kindness. But, God had not given mankind the authority or the right to kill another man. That authority would come later, but at this point in time, God had not given it.

One might argue that the translations both in the Old Testament and the New Testament use the word "kill" (see, e.g., Exodus 20:13), and a look at the Greek and the Hebrew words used in the New and Old Testament show that one of the possible meanings is the word "kill." But, that is surely an unreliable perspective since we know absolutely that God authorized "killing" in the Old Testament. (See, for example, the following stories: Exodus 17:9-17 - story of Moses warring with Amalek; Genesis 14 - story of Abraham rescuing Lot; Joshua 8:1-29 - story of Joshua warring with Ai); 1 Kings 18:40 - story of Elijah killing 400 priest of Baal).

DID CHRIST ALTER THE RULES?

We don't see the disciples of Christ doing what the kings of Israel and some of the prophets did, to wit, killing other men. We see the Apostle Paul warring against the Pharisees and against Rome, but without a sword and without an army. We see virtually every one of the disciples waging the same war, with the ultimate same result experienced by Paul, namely: they all were persecuted, beaten, and ultimately killed. Not a single one of them defended himself with a sword or an army.

Does that mean that Christ changed the rules? Was God wrong all those years before? Why does Jesus appear so docile and the followers of Jesus so pacifistic in comparison to God in the Old Testament and the followers of God in the Old Testament?

The roots of the answers to those questions would seem to lie in the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane and the words spoken by Jesus. And, one always needs to remember to compare Scripture to Scripture. The principles of God are unshakeable. They do not warp with time. They do not change with the passage of time, nor with ever-changing circumstances. Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8).

We know also that Christ is God the Creator. As it is written: " Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Collosians 1:15-17. Thus, when God says "Let us make man in our own image...." (Genesis 1:26), there is an implied multiple in the word "us" and "our." Since God is the one doing the making, we can conclude that "us" made mankind, and if "us" made mankind, and we know that "us" means God, and we know that everything was created by Jesus Christ, then we can only conclude that it was God who came down to the planet called Earth, the same God who created mankind, in the form of a man, to reconcile mankind to Himself. We also know that God is one God in three manifestations.

So then, if Christ does not change, then we can conclude that the manifestation of Christ on earth was the manifestation of the God of the Old Testament on earth, and the two are one and the same. Thus, Christ would not have come on the earth to contradict himself or to acknowledge that He (God) was wrong all those years during the Old Testament period.

If God was for the killing of certain people (and the evidence is crystal clear that this was His position), then not all killing is absolutely wrong.

Why then, didn't Christ authorize the killing of others to defend His disciples and others who ultimately became martyrs? Why didn't God authorize them to fight and war, and assist them in their wars with their enemies, as He did with Israel? Clearly, Christ did not authorize them to do that, else there would have been an army raised, and it would have been obvious from Scripture and history that He has assisted in this war. Instead, what we see is Christ assisting in empowering them, making them bold, protecting them in a limited fashion, and in spreading their power and influence throughout the world. We do not see Christ nor the followers raising up armies. He did not assist them in waging war. (The issue with the Roman Emperor Constantine is a murky one and cannot be said to have been a true "Christian" war, though he did wage war in the name of Christ. The question becomes one of whether he was a true Christian, and if so, whether his actions were of God, or whether he acted on his own.)

We know Islam has a very different view of these issues than does Christianity. The Christian does not believe in waging war to convert "infidels" to their cause. Christianity has, at its roots, a message of peace, a leader who proclaimed peace, and who never beheaded enemies, who did not espouse violence, and who cautioned His followers against violence. We don't see Christians blowing themselves up to kill innocent victims of another faith, or of another nation or government. We do not see Christians terrorizing innocent people with acts that defy decency and are outrageous slaughters of women and children.

True Christianity is a passive religion insofar as uprisings against governments or in rebellion against authority. Indeed, the Apostle Paul specifically taught, as inspired by God, that we are to obey those in authority over us. (See Hebrews 13:7). Christians are not taught to defy authority. Islam would subjugate the entire world to itself by force, since a true Muslim convert is merely one who conforms to the tenants of Islam. Christianity would reject forced conversions since Christians understand that a forced conversion to Christianity is no conversion, since conversion is an act done between God and man, and cannot be legislated. Islam is an outward religion, manifesting itself in rituals and adherance to strict rules and laws. Christianity is an inward explosion of change that manifests itself in love for humanity, which is why one does not and never will see explosions of "suicide bombers" who are true Christians.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ bade Peter put up his sword. However, he amplified the command with an explanation or rationale that was alien to the mind-set of the day. He said that those who take the sword will perish with the sword. But, what does that mean? It cannot mean that anyone who takes up a sword will die by a sword, since history has proven that there have been many who have taken up arms and not perished by such. King David was a bloody man who'd taken up the sword against the enemies of Israel. He died in bed and not from a sword.

Obviously, Christ has a deeper meaning that the surface meaning. It was not unusual for him to speak in cryptic terms, or to use allegory, and often he'd give stories that contained deeper truths. Here, the truth Christ was conveying was one of the temporal nature of earthly powers. A man who takes up a weapon in reliance on its power to deliver him, would eventually die, along with his weapon. In other words, both the man and the weapon will perish. The power of a weapon and the weapon itself is temporal. Far better is to trust in the deliverance of God and rely upon the weapons of heaven. They will never perish. And, the man who trusts in the Lord will never perish.

Thus, the true lesson of the Garden is that waging war against our enemies with all the worldly weapons at our disposal is not the answer. We cannot afford to rely upon our weapons, our strength, and our skills. It isn't that we cannot defend ourselves. We can. The disciples were permitted to carry swords. But, our reliance cannot be on our weapons, nor our prowess with those weapons. We cannot force the world to accept Christ with a sword, nor can we subjugate the world to the tenets of Christianity by weapons. It isn't that we cannot ever kill another human. It may be necessary under certain just circumstances. But, that ought to be the exception-the rare exception-and not the rule. If a man comes into my home and is going to do violence-evil things to someone I love, then I would have no qualms about stopping him with violence, if need be, even to the point of death. However, if I have the mind-set that it is my skill, my weapon and my abilities that will gain me the victory, then I've placed my faith in something that will perish: my weapons and myself. Without God and heaven's power, I'm but a dead man. I cannot win. I cannot prevail.

Again and again, God demonstrated to Israel that it was God who made them victorious against their enemies. It was not their skill. It was not their armies. It as not their weapons. It was God who brought victory, not their weapons. (America has far too much reliance upon her armies and weapons and needs to learn the lesson of the Garden of Gethsemane.) It is the weapons of heaven upon which we must depend. Christ taught the Jews to listen for His presence in the Mulberry trees and then to follow him to victory.

We need to listen to that rustle in the trees of life.

That's kind of hard to do if all we hear is the rattle of our own swords and the boasting of our own mouth.

Copyright 2008 Voyle A. Glover