How To Make Peace Like Jesus — Mt. 5.9
- by Aaron Purvis
- 16 hours ago
- 37 min read
This is a series on the Lord's "Beatitudes" (Mt. 5.3-12). Click on the following links to explore the various installments (part one, "Spiritual Beggars," contains an introduction to the Beatitudes):
Christianity is not just about living for the world to come. It is also about making a positive impact in this world (cf. 1 Tim. 4.8). While Christians should be heavenly-minded (Col. 3.1-2), it is wrong to be so heavenly-minded we are of no earthly use (Col. 3.5-4.6; cf. Mt. 5.13-16).
One way the Lord urges us to influence this world for good is by working to establish and maintain peace in a world riddled with strife. Isaiah predicted that the Messiah would be called “the Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9.6). Is it any wonder, then, that Jesus instructed his disciples to be “peacemakers?”
In his seventh beatitude, Jesus said:
“Congratulations to the peacemakers, for they shall be called ‘sons of God’” (Mt. 5.9; cf. Jm. 3.18).
What does Jesus mean when he promotes making peace? And how do we achieve this according to his teaching and example?
The Condition: Peacemaking
“Peacemaker” (eirevopoios) is a compound word, which denotes a “doer of peace.” Peacemaking is an active work. It is something we do — whether by working to maintain it or by restoring it when it is broken.
Peacemaking can occur vertically — establishing “peace with God” (Rm. 5.1) — and horizontally, i.e., between people (Mk. 9.50; 1 Th. 5.13; Heb. 12.14).
We make peace with God through accepting the gospel plan of salvation (see “Your First Steps Toward Heaven”) and through preaching heavenly peace through Jesus Christ to others (cf. Acts 10.36; Eph. 6.15).
But how do we achieve peace with men? Horizontal peace will be the focus of this study.
The world’s way of peacemaking is different from the Lord’s. Jesus told his disciples that his way of peace is “not as the world gives” (Jn. 14.27). Let’s explore the differences.
Not The Avoidance of Conflict
First, the world sometimes pursues “peace” by avoiding conflict. This definition of peacemaking is purely negative: Don’t ruffle feathers; never debate; stay non-confrontational.
Non-confrontational people try to avoid conflict in two ways.
Ignorance
On one hand, conflict-avoiders sometimes prefer to ignore the existence of conflict altogether. They bury their heads in the sand, pretending all is well. The false prophets and priests in Jeremiah’s generation were of this ilk. God said they
“dressed the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace” (Jer. 6.14).
In other words, they said: There’s nothing to see here; Babylon isn’t going to invade; conflict isn’t real! This was a superficial peace.
Ezekiel likened this worldly way of peace to someone who builds a “whitewashed wall” to pretend the problem doesn’t exist. Then they call that “peace” (Eze. 13.15-16). Sure, on their side of the wall, all seems well. But behind the wall, conflict rages. Peace hasn’t been made at all.
Conversely, Christian peacemaking doesn’t build walls or ignore conflict. It is active, not passive. It attempts to “make” (poios) peace (eirene) happen.
Jesus himself did not avoid conflict. Rather, he often confronted people — sometimes tenderly, sometimes firmly, and sometimes fiercely. Consider an example of each:
(1) When Martha was upset with her sister Mary, Jesus didn’t sweep the issue under the rug. Instead, he tenderly informed her that Mary had her priorities in order while Martha did not (Lk. 10.38-42).
(2) On the road to Capernaum, Jesus’ disciples disputed with one another. Who among them would be the greatest in authority? When they arrived at the house in Capernaum, Jesus did not ignore the fact that they had been arguing. Rather, he asked them to explain themselves. He then firmly proceeded to correct their misunderstandings and to expose their carnal desires (Mk. 9.33-37; cf. Mt. 20.20-27; Lk. 22.24-30).
(3) He engaged in ferocious debates with the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees (Mk. 11.27-12.27). He called them “hypocrites” and “blind guides” (Mt. 23.1ff). So heated were these confrontations that they eventually led his enemies to put him to death.
Jesus not only confronted conflict himself when he encountered it, he also instructed his disciples to confront our fellow believers when they wrong us (Mt. 18.15-17).
Therefore, Christian peacemaking is not non-confrontational. It doesn’t just ignore conflict.
Moral Compromise
On the other hand, conflict-avoiders sometimes avoid conflict by moral compromise. These pitiful souls think it is better to give up their integrity to appease others rather than take a moral stand against them. This is wrong.
To be clear, there are some things we can — and should — give up for the sake of peace.
For example, Paul suggested that Christians have every right to “eat things offered to idols” (1 Cor. 8.4). Meat is just meat. But just because we have the liberty to do something, doesn’t mean we should. If eating idol-sacrificed cuts of meat makes my brother think idol worship is acceptable, then Paul says I ought to give up the practice altogether:
“If food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble” (1 Cor. 8.13).
In other words, in matters of liberty, I can relinquish what I desire for the sake of the conscience of another — love takes precedence over personal liberties or preferences. Since eating idol-sacrificed meat is permissible but not morally obligatory, I can set the practice aside if necessary for the welfare of my brother. Sometimes it is wrong to insist upon our rights, particularly when doing so injures others.
Nevertheless, no Christian should ever compromise on things that are morally essential. We cannot sacrifice purity for the sake of calming a conflict.
Paul wrote that Jesus “made peace through the blood of His cross” (Col. 1.20). Christian peace can be painful — even bloody. Sometimes it requires us to stand our ground on what is right and “accept wrong” because of it (1 Cor. 6.7; cf. 1 Pt. 2.19; Mt. 5.39).
The author of Hebrews instructed:
“Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12.14).
Peace and holiness must go hand in hand. To “seek” the type of “peace” God wants, then, we must “depart from evil and do good” (Ps. 34.14). Indeed, the Lord opposes those who “do evil that good may come” (Rm. 3.8). We cannot compromise holiness for the sake of peace.
When false teachers tried to lead Christians away from the gospel, the apostle Paul said he “did not yield submission [to them] even for an hour” (Gal. 2.5). He even “withstood” Peter when he did wrong (Gal. 2.11ff).
Jesus spoke of some who receive his word “only for a while.” But “when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word,” they immediately “stumble” (Mt. 13.21). In other words, conflict will cause them to compromise their faith.
The wise man observed:
“The integrity of the upright will guide them,
But the perversity of the unfaithful will destroy them” (Prov. 11.3).
Moral compromise is self-destructive. Eventually, it will bring upon them the very conflict they sought to avoid (cf. Ps. 34.16; Num. 32.23; Gal. 6.7).
In short, Christian peacemaking may give up many things for the sake of peace — including opinions and preferences — but morality is not one of them. Peacemaking does not compromise virtue or truth to avoid conflict. It stands for what is right, even if such costs us grief, pain, the loss of relationships, or death (cf. Mt. 10.21-22; 24.9; Lk. 21.16-19; Jn. 15.18ff).
Not The Destruction of a Contending Party
In the next place, the world sometimes swings to the opposite extreme when it comes to peace. While some think peacemaking is avoiding conflict (whether by denial or by moral compromise), others define peacemaking as violently putting an end to conflict.
Roman Peacemaking
The ancient Romans — and much of this world (both ancient and modern) — believed peacemaking occurs when you favor your friends and destroy your enemies, thus removing conflict through carnal combat.
Augustus Caesar (63 B.C.-14 A.D.) left a lake of blood behind him in his rise to power. He shed the blood of his fellow Romans, the Gauls, Egypt, and Spain, all to expand and stabilize his empire through military conquest. Yet they heralded him as a “peacemaker.” To describe both Augustus and Jesus as “peacemakers” is to make that word lose all meaning. If that is peacemaking, what does war-making look like?
The Roman historian Tacitus (c. 56-120 A.D.) wrote about the empire’s attempts to subjugate Britain. In the work (“Agricola” — named after the historian’s father-in-law who served as Roman governor of Britain), Tacitus recites a scathing speech delivered by a British leader named Calgacus, describing the empire’s lust for money and power. He famously said the Romans
“create desolation and call it peace” (Beard, pp. 515-516).
Likewise, the emperor Hadrian (76-138 A.D.) adopted the philosophy of
“peace through strength, or, failing that, peace through threat” (Speller, p. 69).
In the fourth century, the Latin phrase, si vic pacem para bellum, was popular, which means: If you want peace, prepare for war!
To the ancient Romans, then, peacemaking was about threatening enemies and, if possible, wiping them off the face of the earth, leaving the absence of conflict in their wake. Sadly, the modern world has not changed very much in this regard.
Old Testament Policy
Unlike the Romans, however, the Bible makes a clear distinction between war and peace (cf. Deut. 20.12).
During Old Testament times, the pagan nations judged the worthiness of their deities by their successes or failures in battle. The more triumphant the army, the more to be adored was the god they served. Therefore, God chose to deal with the heathen according to their own standard by using his people to punish them in war. When Israel was victorious, God “gained honor over them,” showing them that he — not any idol — “is the Lord” (Ex. 14.4). Israel’s war victories demonstrated to “all the earth” that “there is a God in Israel” (1 Sam. 17.46), causing his “name” to “be declared in all the earth” (cf. Ex. 7.5, 17; 8:22; 9.16; 14:4, 18; Ps. 9:16, 19-20; Ezek. 25.5, 7, 11, 14, 17; etc.).
For this reason, God forbade his people from “seeking the peace or prosperity” of their unjust enemies (cf. Deut. 23.3-6; Ezra 9.12). Rather, God sent the Israelites to serve him “by faith” as agents of his vengeance and wrath either to destroy them or to subjugate them (cf. Heb. 11.33-34; Num. 31.2; Jud. 11.36; Ps. 18.37, 40, 42; Ex. 23.22-23; Lev. 26.7-8; Num. 10.9, 35; Deut. 6.19; 7.1ff; 20.1, 3-4; Josh. 10.12-13, 19; 2 Sam 5.20; 22.38-43; Esther 8.13; 9.5; Ps. 44.5; Zech. 10.5; etc.).
Because their mission was not to make peace but to conquer their enemies, God instructed them to harden their hearts against the pagans (as well as certain apostates), so they would not show “pity” or “mercy” to them (Deut. 13.6-11; Ex. 34.11-16; Deut. 7.2f). Thus, the Holy Spirit commended Israelites who “hated” their evil “enemies” “with perfect hatred” (Ps. 139.21-22; cf. 26.5; 31.6; 54.7; Job 27.7f). J. W. McGarvey and Philip Pendleton rightly noted that
“it is a true representation of the law, therefore, in its practical working, that it taught hatred of one’s enemies” (McGarvey, p. 247).
Indeed, holy men like David and Elisha sought to inflict great pain and destruction upon their enemies, including forced labor (1 Chron. 20.3; 2 Sam. 12.31) and merciless destruction (2 Sam. 8.1.ff; 2 Ki. 13.19; Ps. 101.8; 137.8-9; 41.5-10; 143.12).
The point is this: God never called this peacemaking. On the contrary, he instructed national Israel to be war-makers — to be agents of “vengeance” (Num. 31.2) against those whom God sentenced to death in his righteous wrath.
New Testament Policy
However, under the New Testament, God has sent his people on a different mission. Christians are not to be agents of God’s vengeance, for we are to “give place” “to the wrath of God” (Rm. 12.19, ESV). Though national Israel could make wrongdoers pay at God’s behest (“eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life” [cf. Ex. 21.23-25; Lev. 24.19-20]), Christ instructed his followers not to do so (Mt. 5.39ff; cf. Rm. 12.17; 1 Pt. 3.9). Alexander Campbell put it like this:
“The right given to the Jews to wage war is not vouchsafed to any other nation, for they were under a theocracy, and were God’s sheriff to punish nations; consequently no Christian can argue from the wars of the Jews in justification or in extenuation of the wars of Christendom. The Jews had a Divine precept and authority; no existing nation can produce such a warrant” (Campbell, p. 39).
Instead, God now uses “unbelievers” and the “unrighteous” (1 Cor. 6.1, 6) people of this world — especially in human government — as “avengers to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Rm. 13.4; cf. 1 Pt. 2.13-14), just as he did with ancient Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome (cf. Isa. 10.5; Jer. 51.20). They may not realize it, nor do they act in that capacity “by faith” as ancient Israel did, but God providentially places human rulers in positions of authority for the benefit of his plan and people (Rm. 13.1ff; see “Politics: Some Things To Remember” for a more in-depth study of this concept).
Conversely, in Ephesians 2, Paul affirmed that while the Law of Moses cultivated “enmity” (echthra—hatred of enemies) between Jew and Gentile, Jesus came to establish “peace” between them by
(1) “abolishing…the law of commandments contained in ordinances” (thereby removing the source of the hostility) and by
(2) “reconciling them both to God in one body through the cross” — i.e., bringing them together in the church of Christ (Eph. 2.14-18; cf. 1.22-23).
The Law was the “cause of enmity” (Thayer, p. 265) since it forbade Israel from pursuing “peace” with their pagan enemies (Deut. 23.6; Ezra 9.12). They were to show them neither pity, mercy, friendship, nor were they to work for their prosperity or wellbeing (Deut. 7.1ff).
By contrast, Jesus urges his disciples to “love [our] enemies” (Mt. 5.43-44). This means we must
“do good to those who hate [us], bless those who curse [us], and pray for those who spitefully use [us]” (Lk. 6.27-28).
Whereas God commanded ancient Israel to “have no pity” “nor show mercy” to “all the peoples whom the Lord [their] God” sent them to “destroy” (Deut. 7.16, 2), Christians, on the other hand, are to be “full of mercy” (Jm. 3.17; cf. Mt. 5.7).
Also unlike the Israelites, Christians must not “resist an evil person” (Mt. 5.39). “Resist” (antihistemi) means to “stand” (histemi) “against” (anti) — hence, to “oppose” (Mounce, p. 489). When used literally, it signifies physical opposition. In the ancient Greco-Roman world, the word was often employed in military contexts, meaning to fight physically against an adversary. While Christians must offer spiritual resistance to the devil and all those who do evil (cf. Jm. 4.7; Eph. 4:27; 6:11-13; 1 Pet. 5:8; Gal 2.11; Lk. 21.15; Acts 6.10; 13.8; Rm. 9.19; 2 Tim. 3.8; 4.15), Jesus was speaking in the context of violently standing against those who do wrong (as evidenced by the examples he gives, Mt. 5.39f), just as Paul forbids us from carnally “resisting” (antitasso—also “a military term;” Vine, p. 528) the rulers of this world (Rm. 13.2).
Indeed, under Christ, the people of God are to exchange carnal weapons for implements of peace (cf. Isa. 2.4; 11.6-9; Hos. 2.18; Zech. 9.9-10; Mt. 5.38-39; 26.52). Christians “do not war according to the flesh” with “carnal” “weapons” (2 Cor. 10.3-4).
Jesus himself “did no violence” (Isa. 53.9), nor did he even so much as “threaten” those who assaulted him (1 Pt. 2.23), which was meant as an “example” for us, that “[we] should follow his steps” (1 Pt. 2.21). Unlike Israel, Jesus did not send his disciples “to destroy men’s lives but to save them” (Lk. 9.56).
In 2 Timothy 2.24, Paul insisted that
“a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all.”
“Quarrel” (machomai) means to war, combat, or fight. Stephen used this word to describe the verbal and physical altercation that took place between two of Moses’ Hebrew brethren (Acts 7.26 “fighting”; cf. Ex. 2.13 “fighting…striking”). Hence, a servant of Jesus must not engage in fighting — whether in shouting matches or in armed combat.
In Titus 3.2, Paul commands us to be “peaceable.” The term (amachos) literally means “no” (a) “fighting” (machos); hence, to be amicable, without vicious disagreement or rancor. But if we are to abstain from verbal fighting, this all the more prohibits — via the a fortiori principle — fights that involve carnal blows or death. After all, the physical altercations in which the people of this world engage are just escalated disputes.
Furthermore, James wrote that the “wisdom that is from above” is “peaceable” (Jm. 3.17). The term (eirenikos) means to be “pacific” (Thayer, p. 183). Rather than nurse a conflict or contribute further to discord, Christians are to work toward reconciliation — i.e., being in a right relationship with others, if possible (see more below). Indeed, Christian pacifism (i.e., peace-making) is not passive.
James then sets the peaceable nature of Christian wisdom in contrast with the cause of human warfare and fighting (James 4.1ff).
“Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members” (Jm. 4.1)?
“Wars” (polemos) refers generally to the “whole course of hostilities” (Trench, p. 337, fn 2). It specifically identifies a conflict that “takes place with the hands” (Tittman, De Synonymis in Novo Testamento, p. 66; as cited in Trench, loc. cit., p. 338).
This is distinguished from “fights” (mache), which refers to the individual conflicts that arise during the course of a war, and can
“refer to any strife (i.e., of hands or words—AP)…even if it does not result in beatings and killings” (ibid.).
Hence, James insists that the carnal conflicts in which people involve themselves do not begin
“on battlefields or in war-rooms where strategies are laid out. No, they begin in the carnal passions of men, and they are sparked by selfish desires. They are germinated in the souls of the egotistical, the ambitious, and the self-centered. They spread into the home, the community, the nation, and beyond. It is a tragedy of enormous proportion that so many Christians will engage in these conflicts at various levels. There is but one warfare that is permissible for God’s people, and that is the spiritual conflict against evil and error (2 Cor 10.4ff; Eph 6.12ff)” (Jackson, 2019, pp. 529-530).
Indeed, when people today participate in a carnal fight against an adversary (whether national or personal), they do not do so by faith in the name of the Lord as ancient Israel did, taking marching orders from God. Rather, James says they do so on the basis of their own “passions” (ESV) and “from…” their own “members.” Human “wars” and “fights” are “sensual, demonic” (Jm. 3.15). And, again, if human “fights” with words are “sensual, demonic,” how much more so human “wars” and “fights" with carnal weapons?
In short, Christian peacemaking is not merely about avoiding conflict; nor is it simply the removal of conflict by physically destroying our adversaries. It is neither non-confrontational nor hyper-confrontational. So what is it?
Christian Peacemaking Is About Reconciliation
It is (1) addressing conflict; (2) in a non-destructive way; (3) by attempting to bring feuding parties together.
The Greek term for “peace” (eirene) suggests something like “at one again” (Vine, p. 464) or “to weave together” (Jackson, 2002, p. 131). It has to do with wholeness and reconciliation.
To be at peace within oneself is to be well or complete, regardless of external conditions. This
“does not mean that [we] will have a trouble-free life. Rather it means that [we] now enjoy a state of spiritual wholeness and well-being that gives [us] strength and calmness even in the midst of suffering and trials (Jn. 14.27; 16.33; Gal. 5.22; Col. 3.15; Phil. 4.7)” (Fleming, p. 331).
And to be at peace with others is to live in “harmony” or “concord” with them (Thayer, p. 182).
Hence, Christian peacemaking is not about avoiding others, nor about destroying them. It is about attempting to bring disputing parties together as one.
For example, Paul urged two Christian women “to be of the same mind in the Lord” (Phil. 4.2). To “live in peace” is to “be of one mind” (2 Cor. 13.11).
Indeed, we are to
“pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another” (Rm. 14.19).
“Edify” (oikodome) means “to build a house” (Vine, p. 194). Hence, peace does not destroy; it builds — i.e., it puts things together rather than tears them apart.
Likewise, God makes peace by “reconciling all things to himself” (Col. 1.20-22; Eph. 2.14-17). And he commands his people not to be ministers of wrath (Rm. 12.19ff) but “ministers of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5.18f).
John Wesley noted that peacemakers
“endeavor to calm the stormy spirits of men, to quiet their turbulent passions, to soften the minds of contending parties, and, if possible, reconcile them to each other. They use all innocent arts, and employ all their strength, all the talents which God has given them, as well to preserve peace where it is, as to restore it where it is not” (Wesley, 2015).
How To Make Peace?
Let us briefly explore a few practical principles for making peace.
Be Selective — i.e., Choose Your Conflicts Wisely
First, while staying non-confrontational is not peacemaking, it is also not wise to involve ourselves in every squabble to which we become privy (Prov. 26.17). To borrow the simile from this proverb, confronting our own “dog” may be wise since we know its temperament and how to handle it. However, “meddling” with a strange dog that is “passing by” and is “not [your] own” is imprudent, for that is a good way to get bitten.
In short, Christians must not be “busybodies in other people’s matters” (1 Pt. 4.15; 2 Th. 3.11). Instead, we are to “mind [our] own business” (1 Th. 4.11).
Have A Godly Attitude
Second, if a conflict arises within our own purview, the Christian peacemaker must ensure that our attitudes are in the right place. Paul commanded:
“Let the peace of God rule in your hearts” (Col. 3.15).
“Rule” (brabeueto) originally was a technical term that meant to umpire in the Greek games, though it broadened in significance later. Still, the idea is that when conflict arises, Christians must set aside our own preferences and, like a fair-minded arbitrator, let the peace we have with God govern our decisions.
Thus, peacemakers must not confront others out of selfishness, the need to vent frustration, or some sinful agenda. Rather, we should confront others in God’s ways, with a “spirit of meekness” (Gal 6.1; see “Harnassing the Power of Meekness”) and a willingness to set aside fleshly motives — even to self-sacrifice if necessary. We must humbly let God be at the helm of our ship of peace.
So, when conflict hits home, take a breath, think positively about the conflicting parties, and desire to bring both parties closer to God.
Have A Godly Goal
Third, the Christian peacemaker must also ensure that our aspirations are in the right place.
The goal of Christian peacemaking is not merely to feel good with one’s friends. Sometimes we think we have peace when our friends join us in placing a wedge between us and others — through verbal or physical distancing. On the contrary, meddlers, whisperers, backbiters, and gossipers may think they have peace when others share with them in the enjoyment of juicy reports about their neighbors, but such people stand in opposition to peacemakers (cf. Rm. 1.29-30; 2 Cor. 12.20). The goal is to bring parties together, not to leave them in their respective corners.
Acknowledge Feelings and Views
Fourth, if our attitude is humble, spiritual, agreeable, and even willing to suffer, and if our goal is to unite rather than divide, we can then begin to make peace by acknowledging the feelings and views of others.
When Jesus worked to establish peace between Mary and Martha, he first recognized Martha’s frustrations:
“…you are worried and troubled about many things” (Lk. 10.41).
Sometimes people just need to know they are being heard, even when they are in the wrong. Therefore, a peacemaker will make every effort to understand and accurately represent the feelings and views of the contending parties.
Find Common Ground
Fifth, once we have acknowledged others’ feelings, we can then seek to find common ground.
Martha and Mary both loved Jesus. Both of them were serving the Lord in their own ways. But Martha had become “distracted” (perispaomai—lit., “over-occupied”) with “much serving” (Lk. 10.40) and doing “many things” for him (Lk. 10.41). In response, Jesus reminded her that only “one thing is needed” (Lk. 10.42). But Martha had taken too much upon herself, and this led to a lack of focus on what was truly important.
In short, Jesus reminded Martha and Mary that they were not opponents, for they shared in their love for serving Jesus. And so he built a bridge between the two.
Give Incentives
Sixth, peacemaking gives incentives to contending parties to come together.
Jesus told Martha that her sister
“has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her” (Lk. 10.42).
This does not imply that Martha had chosen evil. Rather, “good part” means that, between two good ways to serve the Lord, Mary had chosen the better option. Why? Mary chose to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn from him. His teaching would stay in Mary’s life in such a way that she would be able to continue to serve Jesus the rest of her life. But Martha was robbing herself of teaching time. The food she gave the Lord certainly aided him, but only for a short while. Therefore, he encouraged Mary to continue doing what she was doing; and he incentivized Martha to balance her hospitable service to him — which was good — with spiritual service — which was even better.
Stay Detached
Finally, peacemakers must ultimately let others make their own decisions. Peacemaking is about persuasion, not coercion. Some people are willing to be persuaded; others are not.
Paul wrote:
“If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Rm. 12.18).
This passage implies that sometimes peace will not be possible. Sadly, not everyone wants peace. Some just want to watch the world burn. We cannot force others to accept peace if they do not want it.
What About Those Who Reject Peace?
So how do Christian peacemakers deal with people who are set on conquest and conflict? The New Testament teaches us the following.
Engage In Spiritual Combat
In the first place, when others breach the peace, we should not just let them get away with the wrong. Rather, we must attempt to correct the wrong and restore the peace through spiritual efforts.
To be clear, the phrase, “as much as depends on you” (Rm. 12.18), does not imply that if others are the aggressors, we can then set peace aside and take up arms against them. Several points militate against this notion.
(1) Jesus never authorized his disciples to deal with evil by violent resistance. Again, he and his disciples expressly taught against such (see above).
(2) In the immediate context, Paul insists that Christians are not to be responsible for either breaking the peace or returning harm for harm. In the verse prior, the apostle clarifies:
“Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men” (Rm. 12.17).
“No one” and “all men” include our enemies who break the peace. Hence, peace always “depends on” Christians. Even when the bullies of this world bring conflict upon us, we must not nurse the conflict through violent retaliation (“repay no one evil for evil”). Retaliation may sometimes put an end to conflict; but often it tends merely to escalate the strife, making matters worse. Instead, even when others wrong us, Christians are still required to take the high road as peacemakers — working to reconcile rather than divide or harm. Moses Lard put it like this:
“The Apostle clearly foresaw the impossibility of Christians being at peace always; and the whole history of the church proves him to have been right. Others will force difficulties on them. For this they (Christians—AP) are not responsible; but in all such cases they must be careful that no part of the blame attaches to them. By no improper conduct of theirs must difficulty be provoked. It must come gratuitously and wantonly from others. Not only so, but Christians must make every proper effort to avert difficulty. If it be possible, they must be at peace” (Lard, pp. 393-394).
(3) Instead of carnal resistance, fighting, or warring, Paul instructs Christians to “overcome evil with good” (v. 21) as a means of restoring the peace, if possible.
Paul says we do this by “blessing” (eulogeo—“speak well”) them (v. 14), a term that means to seek their welfare or “invoke blessings on” them (Abbott-Smith, p. 187). This includes things like giving them food, drink, or clothing when the opportunity arises (v. 20). Jesus insists we must “pray” for and act for the good of those who wrong us (Lk. 6.27-28).
But Paul prohibits Christians from “cursing” (kataraomai—“pray against”) those who do wrong (v. 14), a term that means to seek their harm or to wish doom or destruction on them (cf. Vine, pp. 141-142; Thayer, p. 336).
In short, instead of shouting matches or physical fighting, Paul says we must engage in spiritual combat against evil, using the weapons of truth and benevolence (Eph. 6.10-20), which are “mighty in God” and can “pull down strongholds“ (2 Cor. 10.4) and are much “sharper than any two-edged blade” (Heb. 4.12). Paul notes that much evil has been “overcome” “with good” (Rm. 12.21). Acts of charity can melt the evil heart away like “coals of fire” (Rm. 12.20). This is how we “fight the good fight” and “wage the good warfare” against them (1 Ti. 1.18; 6.12).
Defend Yourself and Others Non-Violently
Second, not every bully can be swayed by truth and benevolence. Spiritual weapons are indeed more powerful than carnal ones, but only to those whose “conscience” has not been “seared” or “defiled” (1 Tim. 4.2; Tit. 1.15).
If, despite all our peaceable efforts, the wicked are still determined to inflict harm, Christians have every right to defend themselves and others. Consider several ways Jesus and his disciples protected themselves from harm.
1. They fled from the grasp of their assaulters (Lk. 4.28-30; Jn. 10.39; Acts 8.1ff; 17.10, 14; cf. the Lord’s command to “flee” in Mt. 10.23 and Mt. 24.16).
2. They hid from those who pursued them (Jn. 8.59; Acts 9.23-25).
3. They reasoned with those who aimed stone projectiles at them (Jn. 10.31-39; Acts 7.54ff).
4. On one occasion, the disciples even “gathered around” Paul after he was stoned, perhaps to protect him from further harm using themselves as human shields (Acts 14.19-20).
Hence, it is right and good to “lay down our lives” to protect others if necessary (Jn. 15.13), especially “for the brethren” (1 Jn. 3.16).
Some claim these passages authorize violent defense against evil doers. But this rationalization is a misfire. In each of these instances, the Lord and his disciples employed non-violent methods to protect themselves. Never did they authorize either “threatening” (1 Pt. 2.23) or “resisting” (Mt. 5.39). And on the one occasion where a Christian employed violence as a means of protection, the Lord rebuked the man for his efforts, reprimanding "all who take the sword" (Mt. 26.51-52).
Furthermore, Paul instructs:
“Do not avenge yourselves” (Rm. 12.19).
“Avenge” (ekdikeo) is not about exacting revenge. Noah Webster notes that there is a “valuable distinction” between the words “revenge” and “avenge.” “Revenge” is
“the infliction of pain or evil maliciously, in an illegal manner.”
Whereas “avenge” is the
“taking of just punishment” (Webster, p. 126).
In other words, to “avenge” is to give the wrongdoer what they justly deserve.
Ekdikeo in Romans 12.19 is best rendered “avenge” rather than “revenge.” First, the Greek term has to do with that which proceeds “out of” (ek) “justice” (dikee). Hence, it means
“to vindicate one’s right, to do one justice; to protect, to defend one person from another” (Thayer, p. 193).
For example, Jesus employed the term in his Parable of the Unjust Judge, who “avenged” the persistent widow by violently protecting her from her “adversary” (Lk. 18.1ff).
Stephen used the noun form (ekdikesis) when he referred to Moses, who “defended and avenged him who was oppressed” (Acts 7.24).
John Wycliffe (c. 1300) rendered Romans 12.19 as:
“not defendynge you silf” — “not defending yourselves.”
Hence, the term is principally about dispensing violent justice — whether such defends or punishes. In this very passage, God reserves the right of “vengeance” (ekdikesis) for himself — but God does not take revenge (malicious or illegal retribution). Hence, ekdikeo in this context is not about revenge. Bennie Lee Fudge put it like this:
“This prohibition is not against revenge, personal, resentful, malicious retaliation, which would be a violation of moral law itself. This is a prohibition against avenging, exacting justice, meting out that which is rightly and justly due the criminal” (Fudge, p. 25).
Second, Paul says, “do not avenge yourselves.” “Yourselves” is the object of “avenge.” The plural form (heautou) is reflexive and reciprocal, meaning each of you do not avenge yourself individually, nor avenge one another.
By contrast, both Roman Law and the Law of Moses permitted the people to avenge themselves, whether by violent self-defense or by deputizing a representative of the aggrieved family to punish the criminal (“the avenger of blood;” cf. Num. 35.19, 27; Deut. 19.6, 12). Historian Mary Beard noted that in the Roman legal system,
“…there was no police force to whom crimes could be reported or through whom redress could be sought. Most victims of crime would have relied on their own strong arms or friends, family or local vigilantes to get even with the person they believed responsible. There was no system for dealing effectively, through official channels, with ordinary wrongdoing, only a cycle of rough justice and brutal retaliation” (Beard, p. 463).
This “cycle of rough justice” was not so much about revenge — though it certainly could devolve into that. It was about the victims’ right to dispense punishment on the one who wronged them or their loved ones. Hence, even though it was legal for Romans and Jews to avenge themselves, Paul does not permit Christians to serve in this legal capacity either for themselves or for others. Instead, though the wrongdoer rightly deserves both violent resistance and corporeal punishment, Paul says we must leave such to the providential “wrath of God” (Rm. 12.19, ESV). Unlike ancient Israel, what God does (i.e. exacts just vengeance), Christians are “not” to do.
In short, saving men’s lives is honorable. It is right and good to protect yourself and others. But Christians are never authorized to do so by “threatening” (1 Pt. 2.23; Eph. 6.9), “cursing” (i.e., invoking doom upon them, Rm. 12.14), violently “resisting” (Mt. 5.39), “avenging” (Rm. 12.19), “repaying…evil for evil” (Rm. 12.17), “harming” (Rm. 13.10), or by “destroying” the lives of others (Lk. 9.56). The end does not justify the means (Rm. 3.8).
Have The Courage To Suffer Wrong
Third, if we (1) cannot restore the peace benevolently, and (2) if we cannot protect ourselves non-violently, the Lord instructs us to have the courage to suffer with a patient faith.
Peter reminds us that “if it is the will of God to suffer for doing good,” then this “is better” than suffering “for doing evil” (1 Pt. 3.17). In the context (cf. 1 Pt. 2.18ff), he notes that some Christians suffer secular injustices — not because of any wrong they have done, nor even due to religious hatred, but simply because they must deal with someone who is “harsh” (skoliois—unreasonable, unfair, crooked; 1 Pt. 2.18). Of these people, Peter writes:
“When you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps” (1 Pt. 2.20-21).
Some argue that Christ suffered without violent resistance simply because that was a necessary part of his mission to save the world. And since Christians cannot remit sins through suffering, it is claimed that Christians do not have to respond to wrongs perpetrated against us in the same way.
But Peter debunks this notion, for he argues that Christ suffered not only to save the world, but also to leave “us an example” of how to respond to wrongs perpetrated against us. His suffering was meant as a model for us to “follow” (cf. 1 Jn. 3.16). Indeed, Peter says that “since Christ suffered for us in the flesh,” we must “arm [ourselves] also with the same mind” (1 Pt. 4.1). By “following his steps,” we will “partake of Christ’s sufferings” (1 Pt. 4.13) and experience “the fellowship of his sufferings” (Phil. 3.10; cf. 2 Cor. 1.5).
Thus, God has “called” us to emulate Christ when it comes to our response to evil by not returning insult for insult or injury for injury (1 Pt. 2.23). “On the contrary,” Peter says we should, like Jesus, be prepared to “suffer wrongfully” and “take it patiently” (1 Pt. 2.19-20), responding to such with
“blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing” (1 Pt. 3.9).
In addition, with regard to religious bigotry, Paul said that when we are “persecuted” (dioko—to be pursued with hostile intent), we must “endure” (1 Cor. 4.12). The term (anechomai) means to “put up with” it (Bauer, et al., p. 65); hence, to “suffer” and “forbear” (Vine, p. 53). Sadly, sometimes Christians may have to “accept wrong” (1 Cor. 6.7) — even to “joyfully accept the plundering of [our] property” (Heb. 10.34, ESV).
In short, it is part of the Christian calling to develop an inward discipline that, like Jesus, has selflessly committed to suffering injury — whether for religious or profane reasons — without inflicting it in return (cf. 1 Cor. 6.7; 2 Tim. 3.12; Jn. 16.33; Phil. 3.10; Heb. 10.34; Mt. 5.39ff; 1 Pt. 1.6-7; 2.18ff; Acts 5.41; etc.).
Trust The Vengeance of God
Finally, when we suffer injustice, Christians are not without redress.
First, God has promised to dispense punishment in his own time and way.
“Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (Rm. 12.19; Deut. 32.35).
The right of vengeance — punitive justice — has always belonged to God, not man (Ps. 94.1).
Second, there are several avenues of justice that God makes available for our benefit.
In the past, he used believers to exact vengeance for him by faith. Sometimes, however, he lets unbelievers do the job, though they do it for their own purposes (not by faith). And sometimes he uses the natural forces of this world (whether providentially or — in Biblical times — miraculously).
Even under the OT, when God used believers to be agents of his vengeance, they were not permitted to avenge whenever they wanted. Rather, they had to march “by faith,” fighting “for the Lord” (Num. 31.3), and they had to take their marching orders from the Lord (cf. Lev 24.17-22; Ex 21.12ff; Num 35.9-34; Deut 19.4ff, Deut 19.21; 2 Sam 14.6ff; 1 Sam 23.2, 4; 1 Sam 30.8; Heb 11.33-34).
Sometimes, however, they were not permitted to punish the wrongdoer at all. Instead, they were expected to leave the execution of the penalty to the providence of God (cf. Gen 4.14-15; 1 Sam. 24.12; Job 5.8; Ps. 27.14; Prov. 20.22; 24.29; Jer. 21.3-10; 50.33-46). Consider a notable example of this:
David and Saul
When King Saul unjustly persecuted David, Saul deserved punishment. The Lord had already pledged to remove the king from office (cf. 1 Sam. 15.23, 26; 16.1). In Saul’s stead, he promised David the throne (1 Sam. 16.1ff). On two occasions, David had an opportunity to bring God’s plans to fruition himself by killing the king — opportunities brought about by the Lord (1 Sam. 24 and 26). Still, David knew it would have been wrong for him to be Saul’s executioner. Instead, he let God use others for that purpose. Reflect upon his reasoning:
“But David said to Abishai, “Do not destroy him; for who can stretch out his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?” David said furthermore, “As the Lord lives, the Lord shall strike him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall go out to battle and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 26.9-11).
God can remove Saul in a variety of ways, without needing David to do the job for him.
1. God can “strike” (nagaph) him — i.e., inflict a fatal injury, whether by accident, disease, or sudden stroke (cf. 1 Sam. 25.38).
2. God can bring about “his day…to die” — i.e., natural death (cf. Gen. 47.29; Deut. 31.14). Or,
3. God can providentially allow violent men to slay him in “battle.”
In Saul’s case, God employed the third option, using the sinful Philistines to afflict him (1 Sam. 31.1-6). The Philistines were not “guiltless” when they stretched out their “hand against the Lord’s anointed.” King Saul may have deserved to die, but that did not give either David or the Philistines the right to be his executioner. So David let sinful men make the sinful choice to be the instrument of God’s vengeance against Saul. David, however, would not be responsible for the execution:
“the Lord forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 26.11).
Thus, God can avenge himself without needing his own people to intervene on his behalf. And sometimes he lets unbelievers serve as his avengers to execute wrath on those who do evil, even though they neither realize it nor act by faith, but employ the sword for their own purposes.
Here is another example:
Assyria and Babylon
The nations of Assyria and Babylon both just wanted to watch the world burn. They couldn’t be reasoned with. But God used their carnal conquests to discipline his people and punish the wicked (cf. Isa. 10.5ff; Jer. 51.20). Hence, sometimes God uses the sins of the wicked for his own purposes.
In response, the Jews believed they were justified in taking up arms against these godless invaders. After all, they were much more righteous than these pagans were (cf. Hab. 1.13). And the pagans were the aggressors, while the Jews were simply defending their homeland.
However, Jeremiah instructed his countrymen to lay down their arms. If they resisted Babylon militarily, God promised to
“turn back the weapons of war that are in your hands, with which you fight against the king of Babylon and the Chaldeans who besiege you outside the walls; and I will assemble them in the midst of this city. I Myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and with a strong arm, even in anger and fury and great wrath” (Jer. 21.4-5).
To resist Babylon was to resist God’s arrangements and to incur his ferocious anger against them (cf. Jer. 21.3ff).
Still, neither Assyria nor Babylon were justified in their conquests. Rather, the wicked Tiglath-Pilesar (of Assyria) and Nebuchadnezzar (of Babylon) both waged war on their own authority, striving “against the Lord” (Jer. 50.24), for they did not act by faith (i.e., at God’s behest; Hab. 1.9-11). Certainly, Assyria was God’s “rod,” “staff,” and “ax” to punish Israel (Isa. 10.5), and Babylon was his “hammer” to punish Judah (Jer. 50.23; cf. 51.20ff), but the “ax” had “boasted itself” against God; and the “rod” and “staff” had “wielded itself against” God (Isa. 10.15). This was loathsome, since the implement is supposed to be subordinate to the implementer. When the implement develops a mind of its own, though it may happen to do what the implementer deems useful, it has acted proudly and defiantly against his authority. Hence, God pronounced a “woe” upon them for this role:
“Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger, and the staff in whose hand is my indignation” (Isa. 10.5).
“Woe” is an interjection that expresses “dissatisfaction and pain” (Brown, et al., pp. 222-223). It is often used in pronouncing judgment and doom (cf. 1 Ki. 13.30; Amos 5.16; Isa. 1.4, 24; 17.12; 18.1; 28.1). Though God used their sinful conquests to accomplish his purpose (i.e., as a “rod” to discipline and punish), he promised to punish these implacable heathen in due time (cf. Jer. 25.12-14; 50.23, 33-46; 51.20ff).
In the meantime, however, God’s people were not to resist them. Rather, they were to suffer — and trust that God would take vengeance on them in his own time and way, without needing his people to intervene on his behalf. Instead, he used other unbelievers to punish them (i.e., Babylon to punish Assyria; Medo-Persia to punish Babylon, etc.).
Therefore, when God calls upon his people to take up arms and physically resist the wicked, it is right for them to engage in physical combat for him by faith, just as Moses, Joshua, and David did. But when God calls upon his people not to resist, it is wrong for them to do so. Rather, people of faith must respond to evil — not by following our own passions and judgments about what ought to be done — but by listening to the commandments and following the example of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
In short, God can inflict vengeance on those who breach the peace — even on those who care nothing for peace — using either nature or the sinful will of unbelievers, without needing believers to do the job for him.
Third, since (1) God has promised to dispense punitive justice in due course, and since (2) he is capable of accomplishing this task without needing believers to take vengeance for him by faith, Christians who suffer injustice must trust God in this promise, without serving as agents of “the wrath of God” themselves (Rm. 12.19, ESV).
In this regard, Peter reminds us of Jesus’ “example.” When he suffered wrongfully, “he did not threaten” the offender, “but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (1 Pt. 2.23). The Lord’s continual habit was to (1) absorb the wrong; (2) work and pray for the good of the offender; and (3) pass the injustice out of his hands and leave punishment to the heavenly Father. And that is what his disciples must do as well.
“Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good” (1 Pt. 4.19).
In short, whether God uses nature, unbelievers, or waits for the final judgment to punish those who do wrong, Christians must trust that he will avenge all wrongs, if not in this life, then certainly in the next.
Fourth, Christian peacemaking does not give a legal shield to criminals. Instead, God uses human rulers to exact vengeance and maintain justice and order within society for the good of his people and plan (cf. Rm. 13.1ff). And Christians have every right to use the services of civil government for our benefit, as well as for the benefit of Christianity itself (cf. Acts 23.12-35; 25.11).
Under the Christian era, the enforcement of carnal “law” has not been assigned to “saints” but to the “unrighteous” and to “unbelievers” (1 Cor. 6.1, 6). While the Lord charges Christians to be ministers of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5.18f), he providentially permits the rulers of this world to “bear the sword” as instruments of his “vengeance” and “wrath” against criminals (Rm. 13.4). Just as he used the Philistines to punish Saul, Assyria to punish Israel, Babylon to punish Judah, Medo-Persia to punish Babylon, etc., even so God, through the unbelieving rulers of this world, “judges those who are outside” the fold of Christ; whereas Paul said that Christians have nothing “to do” with that responsibility (1 Cor. 5.12-13). Note the distinction between the second person pronouns (“you,” “your”) and the third person pronouns (“he,” “they,” “their”) in Romans 12.14-13.7.
Still, when others breach the peace and engage in illegal action against us, Christians can tell the truth to government agents, informing them of the crime, just as Paul and his nephew informed the Roman authorities of the Jews’ plot against him (Acts 23.12ff). Though Paul neither took up arms against the Jews himself, nor did he ask the authorities to do it in his behalf — for his nephew merely asked Lysias not to “be persuaded by” the Jews’ request to have the trial moved (Acts 23.21, ESV) — still Paul accepted the benefit of their unjust arrest to keep him from the more immediate threat of the Jews (cf. Acts 25.11; 28.19; and see “I Appeal To Caesar”). No peacemaker has to yield to the unjust demands of the wicked, nor do peacemakers have to insulate criminals from receiving the vengeance they are justly due.
Likewise, David accepted the benefit of the Philistines’ assassination of Saul (1) to rid himself of Saul’s threats against him; and (2) to accede to the throne of Israel. Yet, David refused to slay that persecuting tyrant himself and thus was not responsible for Saul’s demise.
Similarly, when the Jewish and Roman authorities crucified Jesus, they sinned against the Lord (cf. Acts 2.23; 5.30; Lk. 22.53). Yet, Paul says that “through their disobedience” we have “obtained mercy” (Rm. 11.30). Indeed, we all accept the benefits of the sinful choice those rulers made every day, though we could not have justifiably put the Lord on the cross with our own hands.
Equally so, God can use unbelievers — especially those in human government — to punish those who care nothing for peace. And it is right to accept the benefits of that vengeance. But, like David, peacemakers must let God use the Philistines of this world to make them pay as he sees fit. If accepting this benefit makes us complicit with their violent actions, then Paul sinned when the Romans threatened the Jews, David sinned when the Philistines assassinated Saul, and all of us sin when we accept salvation by the murder of Jesus. Such, of course, is absurd. McGarvey, writing about Paul’s request to Lysias, put it like this:
“[Paul] did not, in the exercise of his freedom, voluntarily call for military interference; but the military had already interfered, without consulting his wishes, and taken violent possession of him; and his request was, that they should exercise the power which they had chosen to assume, for his safety rather than for his destruction. If a man were confined within the den of a gang of robbers, he might, with all propriety, request them to keep him out of the reach of another gang who were seeking his life. Such a request would be no more an endorsement of highway robbery than Paul’s request, expressed through his nephew, was an endorsement of military service” (2005, p. 271).
In short, when we are wronged, and the people of this world employ arms to exact vengeance on those who commit the wrong, Christians are not obliged to stop such efforts, nor is it wrong to benefit from the protection and vindication that such vengeance yields.
Finally, this point must be stressed. Sometimes there is no justice in this world. Sometimes the wicked burn the world down — and government agencies are in their pockets (or they are the arsonists themselves). That was the sad reality for ordinary crime during the Roman empire.
Though Paul says that God can use the tyrant Nero to be “a terror…to evil” (Rm. 13.3), he does not say that Caesar always serves that function without corruption. Historian Mary Beard notes that, sadly,
“…in general the law was out of the reach of most of the population, who…often looked on trials and legal processes more as a threat to be feared than as a possible protection” (Beard, p. 465).
Instead, “ordinary people” looked to “family and friends” and “to the gods” “for help” by praying for curses to fall upon their enemies (ibid.).
In such a lawless environment, peacemakers must not give in to the temptation of taking matters into our own hands, nor to pray for doom to fall upon our enemies as the pagans did. Rather, we must pray and act for their welfare, letting vengeance remain in God’s hands.
Summary
If it is possible to achieve peace, we must work to establish it, maintain it, and restore it. If it is not possible, and conflict is inevitable, we must never be responsible for nursing the conflict when our enemies bring it upon us. Rather, we must “commit [ourselves] to him who judges justly” (1 Pt. 2.23), letting God execute vengeance upon them when and how he sees fit. Even when we suffer wrongfully, peace is our responsibility; vengeance is the Lord’s (Rm. 12.19; 1 Th. 4.6; Heb. 10.30).
The Blessing: Sons of God
Jesus calls “peacemakers” “the sons of God” (Mt. 5.9).
On the whole, sons are like their fathers — genetically, characteristically, etc. Hence, to be a “son of God” is to be God-like.
God himself is indeed “the God of peace” (Rm. 15.33; 16.20; Phil. 4.9; Heb. 13.20). He is “not the author of confusion but of peace” (1 Cor. 14.33). When he works for peace, he does so by reconciling and uniting (Rm. 5.10; 2 Cor. 5.18; Eph. 2.16; Col. 1.20).
However, for those who refuse his attempts at peacemaking, he has every right to judge and administer vengeance against them as he sees fit (cf. Ps. 94.1; Rm. 9.19ff; 12.19). In that light, he is not only a God of peace, he is also a “man of war” (Ex. 15.3).
Does that mean we, his spiritual children, can administer vengeance against evil doers just like him? It does not. Rather, sons also must be subordinate to their fathers. When we make peace, we are not only acting like God, we are submitting to our father’s orders. But God alone has the right of vengeance. If he uses the unbelievers of this world as instruments of that vengeance — just as he let the Philistines punish Saul, the Assyrians punish Israel, and the Babylonians punish Judah, etc. — that is his right. But where Christians are concerned:
“He has not…assigned that role to us (cf. Mt. 13.28-30)” (Jackson, n.d., p. 10).
In short, the sons of God must make peace like Jesus, but we must never do that which our heavenly father has not sent us to do by faith. Indeed, we must do everything — whether “in word or deed” — “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3.17) and “to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10.31). Whereas the Israelites were permitted to exact vengeance on evil-doers in the Lord’s name and for his glory, the New Testament is clear: Christians cannot fight carnally by faith in the Lord’s name nor for his glory; hence, we cannot serve as agents of God’s vengeance and wrath at all (Rm. 12.19).
Conclusion
Sadly, the world around us has a penchant for watching conflicts unfold — on talk shows, social media, soap operas, or in politics. In such a conflict-laden environment, Christian peacemakers are more essential than ever. We are to “live in peace” (2 Cor. 13.11), “be at peace among yourselves” (1 Th. 5.13), “have peace with one another” (Mk. 9.50), and “pursue peace with all people” (Heb. 12.14). Hence, it is our God-given task to help ease tensions, whether in helping people find peace with themselves, with God, or with others.
Contrary to worldly peace, however, Christian peacemaking is not about avoiding conflict (i.e., by denial or by moral compromise). Nor is it about physically destroying contenders. Rather, it is about reconciling people to each other. This requires:
(1) discernment — i.e., the ability to choose which conflicts are ours and which are not;
(2) a godly attitude — i.e., humility, spirituality, agreeableness, and a readiness to suffer wrongfully if necessary;
(3) a godly goal — i.e., to unify rather than enjoy the comfort of cliques;
(4) empathy — i.e., the ability to understand and acknowledge the feelings and views of others;
(5) common ground — i.e., the link that binds competing factions together;
(6) incentives — i.e., things that motivate people to come together rather than stay apart.
Last of all, peacemaking requires a certain level of detachment. After all our efforts to reconcile others, we must let people make their own decisions. If they choose peace, great. If not, then perhaps God is using the conflict for some far-reaching purpose.
In that case, rather than just let the wicked have their way, Christians (1) fight evil through truth and benevolence (cf. 1 Tim. 1.18; 6.12; Eph. 6.10; Jude 3). And if they reject these spiritual attempts to live in peace, then we must (2) attempt to protect life without carnal “fighting” (2 Tim. 2.24; Tit. 3.2; Jms. 4.1f) or “resisting an evil person” (Mt. 5.39); (3) be prepared to “suffer wrongfully” (1 Pt. 2.19), following Jesus’ “example” of “taking it patiently” (1 Pt. 2.18ff); and (4) trust the vengeance of God to right all wrongs without serving as agents of vengeance ourselves.
If we “pursue peace with all people” (Heb. 12.14) — which includes both friend and foe — we will be privileged members of the family divine. We will share in the likeness of the “God of peace.” And if we suffer wrongfully as we “pursue peace” with others, we can also rest assured that, as the “sons of God,” we will “inherit a blessing” from our heavenly father (1 Pt. 3.9).
