Attack on America
Vengeance for America: Right or Wrong?.
Romans 13:1-6
By Dave Redick
(#2 in a Series)
"So does this mean we should call 1-800-FLOWERS and send Usama bin Ladin and his terrorist network a bouquet? Should we send the Afghani Taliban government a gift package of cheese and smoked salmon along with an embossed invitation to strike another of our nation's landmarks and kill some more of our people?"
Introduction
I'd like to play a little game with you this morning like that one where I give you a word and you tell me the first word that pops into your mind before you have a chance to think about it very long. I do want to change the rules just a little, though. Instead of giving me the first word that pops into your mind, I ask you to give me either a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" response, depending on whether you think the word represents good or bad. You may do the "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" in your lap if you wish because what I'm doing isn't dependent upon everyone seeing your response and I certainly don't want to embarrass anyone.
OK. Here we go. (I've put in a couple of words that are pretty easy as a sort of "dry run.") The first word is apple pie. (Unless you're not fond of apples, that was probably a "thumbs up.")
The second word: racial prejudice. (That one is a pretty clear "thumbs down.")
The third word: America. (I'll bet that was a "thumbs up" for about 90 percent of the people living in this land right now.)
The fourth word: Terrorist. (Now there is a definite "thumbs down.")
The fifth word: Security. (Probably all of us gave that one a thumbs up.)
The next word: Vengeance.
I won't try to guess your response to that one. If you're like me, in view of the recent attack on America, there is a visceral response that comes from deep inside when I think of the 3000 people who lost their lives. I turn "thumbs up" almost instantly. But then there is another response, one that seems to come from my new regenerated nature as a Christian that causes me to pause before thrusting my thumb into the air. Vengeance? Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it something a Christian should seek or is it one of those things that issues from the flesh which is supposed to be undergoing crucifixion in each of us?
More pertinent to the events on our national scene in recent days, we see the mobilization of arms and troops and widespread support for retaliation against those who struck the deadly blows against our people, our economy, and our defense system a week ago last Tuesday.
I predict that Christian people will be divided on the issue of national vengeance against terrorists and those nations who harbor them. I'm only cautiously optimistic that our nation will remain united. Let's take a look at the subject of vengeance this morning, with a view toward learning what the Bible says about it.
(A special note to those of you who were in my adult class last Sunday morning when I addressed this issue of vengeance… We covered it fairly well in the class. The only trouble was that many who are here this morning were not there with us and also need to hear what was said. So I am going to repeat at least some of the things I said there. I may say a few things this morning that I didn't have time to say then though, so I encourage you to listen to the message anyway.)
1. The Issue.
American Heritage Electronic Dictionary gives the following definition for vengeance: "Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution." It then gives the following synonyms: "retaliation, counterattack, counterstroke, quid pro quo, requital, revenge, satisfaction, reprisal." Roget's Thesaurus adds the following: "Avengement, getting even, evening the score."
2. The Difficulty.
Perhaps immediately, Christians who know some of what the Bible says will think of the words of Jesus in Matt 5:38-42: "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 him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you."
Seeing this, a reasonable person might say, "If we aren't to resist evil and we are to go so far as to turn the other cheek, then where is the room for vengeance? The 'eye for an eye' principle is something Jesus forbids."
Furthermore, Paul says in Romans 12:17-21: "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
· "Turn the other cheek."
· "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone."
· "Never take your own revenge…"
· "'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,' says the Lord."So does this mean we should call 1-800-FLOWERS and send Usama bin Ladin and his terrorist network a bouquet? Should we send the Afghani Taliban government a gift package of cheese and smoked salmon along with an embossed invitation to strike another of our nation's landmarks and kill some more of our people?
I'm not trying to trivialize the Bible's teaching here. Rather, I'm wondering how far these wonderful teachings were intended to go. I believe we should follow the teaching of Christ whether we like it or not. I just want to be sure that the thing I am doing is what He really intends, and I have no other way to know that than to carefully study His word.
3. The Resolution
One of the reasons that many people have difficulty accepting the Bible as God's word is because they read only part of it, not all of it. Consequently, they often take things out of their context and apply them where they should not be applied. I believe that may be the case here.
For instance, the person who has just read Paul's words about vengeance in Romans 12:17-21 needs to keep reading what Paul said. Having said, "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God…" at the end of chapter 12, he continues in chapter 13:1-5:
"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."
Notice the word "sword." What is a sword used for? It is an instrument of violence. It imparts wounds and death. Note also the word "avenger." An "avenger" is one who executes vengeance. Paul is saying that the civil government is an "avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil." And it does so not with flowers or gifts or even turning the other cheek, but with a sword.
In fact, if you look more closely, there is something even more remarkable in this passage. Verse 4 says that the civil government is a "minister of God." A minister is a servant, that is, one carries out the wishes and desires of another. It is entirely possible that God will get the vengeance that rightfully belongs to Him by employing his servant, the civil government.
Jesus said, "turn the other cheek." Paul said, "never take your own revenge." Yet in the same context Paul speaks of the civil government as God's avenging servant. Are these passages contradictory? No, they are not. If the Bible is God's word, then it must not contradict itself. When passages appear not to harmonize, we must look more closely to see if there isn't something we have overlooked.
I believe Jesus' words in Matthew 5 about turning the other cheek and Paul's in Romans 12 about taking our own revenge were spoken to address personal, not national, or even judicial issues. Further, clearly seen in the words of Jesus, they applied to relatively minor injustices. Jesus spoke of a slap on the cheek, the taking of our coat, and being compelled to go one mile. These aren't life-threatening issues. The Lord wants us to use times when we are lightly mistreated and inconvenienced as an opportunity to reach out in love to the perpetrator of injustice. Such non-retaliation for the sake of love for the offender is rare and when it appears on a personal level where people can see it, they take notice. At least that is the hope. That's why Paul spoke of overcoming evil with good. Rather than balk at each little offense, we are to be willing to offer grace to those who wrong us because that is what God has done for us.
But these passages don't preclude our taking an extreme case where we have been wronged greatly or where we or our loved ones are threatened with serious harm to the proper authorities.
You may remember a certain parable of Jesus where an unjust opponent was harming a certain widow. In her despair, she appealed to a judge to give her relief. Let's read it in Luke 18:1-8:
Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart, saying, "There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God, and did not respect man. And there was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, 'Give me legal protection from my opponent.' And for a while he was unwilling; but afterward he said to himself, 'Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, lest by continually coming she wear me out.'" And the Lord said, "Hear what the unrighteous judge said; now shall not God bring about justice for His elect, who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? I tell you that He will bring about justice for them speedily. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"
The purpose of this parable, of course, was clearly spelled out in the first verse. It was told "to show that at all times they ought to pray and not lose heart." This parable was not primarily a commentary on vengeance or justice. Yet I want you to look at the story Jesus used to make His point. It is the story of a poor widow who could not defend herself, who was likely barely living above the subsistence level, who needed help. Thus, she went to the recognized (though corrupt in this case) civil authority to get protection. If she was supposed to turn the other cheek in this case, why didn't Jesus simply say that? He tells the story as though it was her right to seek such protection. And indeed, it was. If her seeking protection from the judge were something that violated His teaching about turning the other cheek, surely Jesus would have pointed it out.
Christian people are forbidden to take vengeance on their own. Said another way, if someone wrongs me, I cannot take my gun and go over and shoot the one who did wrong to me as though I am the judge, jury, and executioner. I cannot take the law into my own hands. There are to be no Christian vigilantes. Vengeance belongs only to the Lord.
Must we then wait for the Day of Judgment for things to be made right, all the while allowing the evil to continue? While that might be necessary in some cases where it is impossible to bring judgment, it is not always true. In many cases God will execute justice and vengeance here and now through His earthly servant, the civil government who bears an avenging sword. I recently served as a juror in two separate criminal trials. One of the defendants was found guilty. The judge did not defer sentencing to God on the Day of Judgment. He sentenced the guilty man here and now.
If you think about it, this makes for a much fairer system than one of personal vengeance. Have you even jumped to a conclusion about someone and then later found that you were wrong? That has probably happened to all of us at some point. In a case of personal vengeance, where tempers can flare and clear judgment can go out the window, the same possibility for error, or perhaps even an unfair recompense, is more likely. When you must take your case to a judge however, or make your case before a jury, it is far more likely that real justice will be done.
In my opinion, that is what we must do with regard to the recent attacks on America. We must bring our calls for justice to the civil government and let them render the verdict and extract the vengeance where possible.
Let's go back now and examine the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5 a bit more closely.
You will recall the Lord's words in Matthew 5:38-42: "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 him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you."
Albert Barnes, in his commentary on Matthew, points out that by the time of Christ, the "eye for an eye" and "tooth for a tooth" concept, which was originally given by God in a judicial context, that is, for fair and balanced renderings of a judge, had been brought over by the Jews into personal life.(1) In other words, they were misusing the principles to extract their own vengeance for perceived, often petty, infractions. Jesus spoke not to nullify the original principle of the Law, but to point out that in private, everyday life, they were not to apply this principle as they had been doing. Instead they were to be more peaceable. A person who feels he or she has to right every little wrong and avenge ever little infraction in kind is going to spend all of their life contending. We have a word for it. We call it "petty."
Did Jesus also intend to apply the "turn the other cheek" teaching to nations? Again, I refer you to the several examples He used: a slap on the cheek, a taking of your coat, compelling you to walk a mile. These examples are not of the magnitude of flying airliners into buildings in order to murder thousands of people. I don't believe Jesus' words were ever intended to apply to nations. Neither were they intended to eliminate cases serious enough to be taken to court. The issue was personal vengeance ("taking the law into our own hands") regarding relatively petty issues.
4. Personal Application
Let's make some personal applications for Christians with regard to these attacks on America.
First, let me say that it is my judgment as best I can render at this time, based on Scripture as I understand it, that I as an individual and as a Christian, can support with a clear conscience the efforts of our President and our government to carefully investigate this case and bring the perpetrators and their accomplices in this terrible wrong to justice. Understanding also that there are those who would harbor and encourage these evildoers and others like them, I also believe I can support the use of force in order to bring about this justice upon them. No one wants to go to war. Certainly I do not. And in this case there are great perils and dangers involved for our nation and our military. But this evil has been thrust upon us. The perpetrator declared war on our country back in 1996.(2) He was behind the earlier bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Our nation was at peace on the morning of September 11 when the attacks came. We were not molesting those who attacked us. We did not provoke them. This evil will not simply go away. We cannot run the clock back to before that fateful morning or pretend it didn't happen. From Romans 13 we learn that there are clearly cases where vengeance by the civil government is appropriate. It is also sometimes the only means, aside from more direct intervention by God, whereby evil on a large scale can be eliminated.
Secondly, we should make every effort to spare the innocent in any campaign to eliminate terrorism. This may be difficult, but it should be our goal.
Thirdly, and this relates to what I just said about the innocent, we should not allow ourselves to be caught up in a fear that would cause us to lash out at innocent Arab-Americans who live at peace with us in this country. I remind you that sometimes Christians have been the recipients of such injustice in other countries. They are persecuted because of their beliefs. Jesus taught us in Matthew 7:12 the principle referred to as "The Golden Rule": "However you want people to treat you, so treat them."
Fourthly, Christians need to pray as we may not have prayed for a long time. Once you begin to get up to speed historically and understand the viscous nature of our attackers and their widespread world influence and intentions of destruction of Western civilization (3), you will see that this attack is likely only the beginning of many more like it on our nation if we do nothing. We should find a new fervency in beseeching God that good will prevail, that our nation will seek God, and that God will guide our leaders in the difficult decisions they must make.
Fifthly, while I have said here that I believe we can support our leaders in seeking justice in this event, I have not commented on how that should be done. There are great dangers involved and our response as a nation must be wise and carefully calculated. This is not a time for ill-conceived plans. For instance, it might not be wise to rush into a severely mountainous, landlocked country that is surrounded by nations that may or may not continue to be sympathetic to our cause, and has already defeated one world superpower, and start shooting.
Finally, these things I have said here today should not be construed as any "official position" of this church. I have not run this message by our elders or anyone else in our congregation. I did not get this message from any outside ecclesiastical source. It is the result of my own consideration. We do not canonize the teaching of men who lived after the original Apostles and Prophets of the first century. The revelation of God is closed and has been for about 1900 years. It is my job as a teacher to try to ascertain what God's writings mean and to present it to you, along with the evidence to support it. I have done my best to do so in the short time available. I will continue that effort. As is always the case, I am open to any questions you might have for me from the scriptures and also any insights that might challenge my conclusions. As in the case of Priscilla and Aquila with Apollos in the book of Acts (4), if you hear me teaching error, I invite you to take me aside personally and explain to me the word of God more accurately.
· May God bless us as our nation works through this crisis.
· May our countrymen turn back to God.
· May our nation survive this test.
· May justice and righteousness prevail.Amen.
Footnotes: (Use your "back" button to return to your place)
1. Barnes writes in his comments on Matt 5:38-41: "[An eye for an eye] This command is found in Ex 21:24; Lev 24:20, and Deut 19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates against this. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge, that it was given only to regulate the magistrate, and that their private conduct was to be governed by different principles." (from Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)
2. Fox News Online Multimedia Archive: 9/17/01: Who is Usama bin Ladin? A Short Biography http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34238,00.html
3. See FoxNews.com: " Experts Believe Hundreds of Terror Cells Exist Worldwide With Bin Laden Connections". http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34746,00.html
4. Acts 18:26
Dave Redick is Minister of the Hwy 20 Church of Christ in Sweet Home, Oregon and Editor of The Preacher's Study. He may be reached at pstudysupport@comcast.net.
Copyright © 1996-2008 by The Preacher's Study. Permission is granted to subscribers to use this document in total or in sermon preparation in the context of the local congregation only. Publishing it in a book, on the Internet, or anyplace beyond the local congregation is prohibited.
All Scripture quotations and references are from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise stated.
[Archive] [Home] [Comments] [Search]