I will attempt to demonstrate that scripture through example and inference allows employment with civil government. Also that scripture allows for a man to be employed as a policeman, soldier or like profession able to perform the full measure of those jobs and responsibilities. In the same thought I will demonstrate that man has the right to defend himself and his family. In reading this, I expect you to realize that I am only a man and can be wrong. I ask only one thing -that you study to see if the things I say here are true.

The best place to start I believe is to ask the questions:

"Whom does the government belong to?"

"Who establishes a government?"

And "who controls the government?"

Read the following verses and answer the above questions for your self, based on what the Bible says.

These scriptures show that God is the establisher, owner, and controller of governments. He has set them in place to oversee, manage, protect, and discipline their citizens. Those who say that being a member of civil government is wrong might as well say that to being a member of the church is also wrong. Both are ordained by God. The fact that God himself set up government is indeed evidence that it is necessary and that it is righteous. It is the unrighteous individuals that cause a system to become warped not the system itself.

Those who oppose the view that a Christian can be in service to the civil government usually appeal to 1 Cor. 6:1:

They use this scripture to try to establish that civil government in all forms is wrong due to the use of the term "unrighteous ". They believe that to be in service to such is sin. I have already provided scriptural evidence that government in and of itself is not sinful. It is sinful and corrupt individuals that make a government system evil. Then what does 1 Cor 6:1 refer to? Since we have established that a government is not inherently evil then 1 Cor 6:1 must either be taken out of context by these brethren or the scripture must refer to something else entirely. It cannot apply to all government nor all individuals within a government system. If it did it would be in direct conflict Romans 13: 1. Such a conflict would make God the author of hypocrisy and sin.

1Cor 6:1 taken contextually is in reference to our dealings with each other as Christians. This scripture does not allow me to sue my Christian brother in civil court however is does not restrict me from taking a non-Christian to court (Paul seeks justice through the roman court system Act 25:11). It does this by showing that our relationship between one another (Christians) is purer and more just than our relationship to those who are outside the body of Christ.. Additionally, it could very well be that Peter is referencing the corrupt Roman authorities that would be in place during this time. Whatever the meaning; it would make God the author of sin to suggest that God has ordained evil institutions.

Inherent in the government are certain responsibilities; responsibilities that differ from those of elders, husbands, masters, and parents. None of these except the government has been given the responsibility to punish/ take vengeance on evildoers. Read the scripture below.

Established in Romans 13:4 is the responsibility of the government to punish evildoers. Inherent in this fact is the necessary inference that someone must carry out that punishment. If God has given authority to perform certain functions then who is to say that it is wrong to follow through with those functions? God has given government the sword to execute vengeance and judgment upon wrongdoers. Those whose job it is to carry out these functions cannot be held accountable as sinners for carrying out God ordained responsibilities unless they do so with evil intent. Many say that these types of actions are okay for the non-Christian but not for a Christian. As a matter of fact some go so far to say an individual who is not a Christian doesn't sin when they carry out the punishment of the wrongdoer and that Christians are in sin if they participate in such. Can't you see how conflicting this is? Are there two laws: one for the non-Christian and one for the Christian? Of course not! God established a pattern for all men. Whatever is sin for a Christian is also sinful for a non-Christian. God has made no distinction in his law. Adultery is wrong for both. Lying is wrong for both. Murder is wrong for both. We will all be judged by the same standard—Gods word.

Additionally, we realize from scripture that there are both evil and good nations. We find both punished for their evil deeds by other nations. In Jeremiah 9:25 God tells that he will punish the Israelites with ungodly nations for the evil that they have done. He also punished evil nations with good (1 Sam 15:2). Can nations be evil doers? I believe they can. Is the soldier who helps to exterminate Jews an evil doer? How about the soldier who helps to fulfill an evil rulers goals? How does God exact punishment on such? The same way he has always done -by using other nations. How were the Ammonites punished? How was Hitler punished? God has gone so far as to order the destruction of whole peoples down to the last child and beast (1 Sam 15:2). It is a shame that innocent people will always pay when they accept or tolerate evil rulers.

At this point I can just imagine someone reading this saying "Aha, didn't you just say murder is wrong." Of course I did. So I will take some time here to address that very subject: the taking of human life. As we discussed above only the government has been given the authority in the New Testament by God to take human life. So only within the confines of governmental authority can an individual take life. The ordinary citizen has no right to take personal vengeance on others.

The Old Testament and the New Testament use different words to describe the taking of life. In the chart below I have listed words that occur in the Bible (Old and New Testament) that can be translated from the original Greek or Hebrew text as the word kill or murder. Take a look.

If you notice in the above chart I have underlined two words "ratsach" and "phoneuo (phonos is actually derived from phoneuo)". These two words are used the fewest times in each of the testaments. They are the words that are used in the command translated "thou shalt not kill" and are directly parallel to each other. In most instances they carry the connotation of a deliberate, willful, and violent act that causes death. In essence they refer to the act of murder. They also carry a judgment inherent in them that the others do not. This judgment implies that the act of murder (as we know) is sinful. "Ratsach" is used primarily in the laws that were set down in Leviticus. It is a totally different word and connotation that is used in reference to the men that Joshua, David, the Judges (Samuel, Gideon…etc) put to death. Lets take a look at the difference between three separate words in the same chapter.

The point is that the term murderer (ratsach) is used primarily as an accusation and judgement that requires the death sentence. It is not used normally to define those who cause accidental death. If we can show by scripture that anything other than murder is not condemned (ie accidental death, warrior killed in battle, capital punishment) then we know that there are times when the taking of human life is not a sin. As you can see in the above scriptures accidental death is not called murder (verse 24). In the new testament the Greek words for murder are phoneuo is translated: Kill 7 times (Math 5:21, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Rom 13:9, James 2:11, 4:2),Killed 2 times (Matt 23:31, James 5:6), and Slew 1 time (Math 23:25). Phonos is translated: Murder 4 times (Mark 15:7,Luke 23:19, 23:25, Roma 1:29), Murders 4 times (Matt 15:19, Mark 7:21, Gala 5:21, Rev 9:21), Slaughter 1 time (Acts 9:1), Sword 1 time (Hebr 11:37). In each case they are used in a judgmental context - condemning those who do such a thing as murder.

When we use the term murder or murderer as a general rule we are speaking about someone who intentionally seeks to do a violent and malicious act by taking the life of another human being. We do not call a man who accidentally killed a child with his car (as that child ran out into the street) a murderer. We might say he killed the child in a general sense. Nor do we call a murderer the man who defends himself from another who seeks to do him harm. This same idea is suggested in the Bible. The word kill or killed when translated can be translated from several different Hebrew words. The majority of times the word does not cast a judgment upon the one doing the killing. We must then look to the context of the passage decide whether it was murder or not. For instance which of the below would you term a murderer based on the context.

So what is the difference between murder and killing? It is very simple murder is unauthorized killing. It is the taking of life by an individual whom God has not given the authority to do so. It can also be a premeditated, vengeful act by an individual taken to gain some worldly desire. We have shown from several passages above that one can kill and not necessarily be a condemned as a murderer. Although Herod had the authority by God to judge his people he committed murder by abusing that privilege just as David did when he killed Uriah. When David came against Goliath he did not commit murder because he came as God's agent. The man who accidentally causes a death is not a murderer. When we read the command "thou shalt not kill" this is actually a poor translation it is more accurate to translate this commandment as "thou shall not murder".

In the scriptures above who is held responsible for the death of James and of the Children? Did Herod himself go out and slay all the children less than two years of age? What about Pharaoh? The point here is that Rulers (Government) carry the ultimate responsibility for their orders and actions. No Herod did not personally go and kill every child less than two years of age nor did Pharaoh personally drown every male Hebrew boy child. However, these deaths were charged to them. This does not mean that those who did the killing are totally without fault. They had to know that what Herod and Pharaoh ordered them to do was not just. God has given almost everyone the ability to reason. This entitles and empowers us to make judgments before we take action. There is however a time that we may have to trust that what the Government is doing is right because we are not privy to the information. As an example suppose a man is employed as an executioner for the state. He is not privy to the trial or the evidence that has convicted the individual he is about to put to death for murder. Is it sinful for the state to take the criminal’s life? Is it lawful for the executioner to take the individuals life? Is it the responsibility of the executioner to take the criminals life? What if the state was wrong? Who is responsible? Who was responsible for the death of Uriah the Hittite, David or the soldiers that killed him?

The Ethiopian Eunuch was of high rank in the government. He managed the treasury for the Ethiopian queen. After hearing the word and Baptism by Philip he went his way rejoicing. There is no indication that he left his job. Nor is there any indication that Philip told him to do so.

Paul here salutes those Saints that are in "Caesar's Household". Who are these Christians? "Paul sends special greetings from the Christian brothers who are of Caesar's household. It is important to understand this phrase rightly. It does not mean those who are of Caesar's Kith or Kin. Caesar's household was the regular phrase for what we would call the Imperial Civil Service; it had members all over the world. The palace officials, the secretaries, the people who had charge of the imperial revenues, those who were responsible for the day-to-day administration of the empire, all these were Caesar's household" (William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, pg. 87). What is implicit in this is that they have not left their civil service jobs just because they became Christians. Undoubtedly they were from various occupations with in the Roman Government just as Christians today are from all walks of life

Paul, writing from Corinth, commends the greetings of his fellow workers to the Roman brethren. He mentions Erastus the city treasurer. In 2 Tim 4:20 Erastus is again mentioned as being left in Corinth when Paul moves on. It seems evident that Erastus was a fellow Christian who was in service to the City Government at Corinth. This just another example of a Christian in civil service.

A Proconsul was a Judge. This judge, Sergius Paulus, wanted to hear the gospel. He finally believed.

There have been some who have argued that we do not know what happened to the above brethren after they became Christians. They make the assumption that each and everyone left government employment after their conversion. They problem with this assumption is there is no proof. Was Cornelius a Centurion. Did he become a Christian. The answer is yes to both and that is where the bible leaves it. We must do likewise. Some try to use the converted Jews, Pharasees, and Saducees, as examples. Stating that " see they left what they were doing". To this I say "apples and oranges" it is the difference of "employment vs faith". It would have been requirement to leave any other faith when becoming a Christian whether Jew or Pagan. However a man who was a storekeeper would not have been required to leave his employ when he was converted. I would also ask how 1 Corinthians 7:20 ( Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.) fits? If a man becomes a Christian while serving in the government what happens?

Throughout all of scripture we find godly and ungodly warriors. We find God condoning the destruction of whole peoples because of their sin. (Joshua, Aaron, David) Jesus said to a soldier "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel"! (Matthew 8:10). Christians are at times equated with soldiers. (2 Tim 2:3, Phle 1:2, Phil 2:25). Just by this God condones as an example the profession of arms. It is amazing to me that with such evidence there are those who still believe that being a soldier is a sinful occupation.

Here soldiers ask John the Baptist what they should do. What a perfect opportunity for John to say quit your work and sin no more. But he doesn’t. Unfortunately the King James Version translated the Greek verb diaseio with the phrase "do violence to no man." This verb "literally means 'shake violently.' In those days it was a technical, legal term, meaning 'extort money by violence' much like our current slang expression 'shake down'" (Ralph Earle, Word Meanings in the New Testament, pg. 58) Many try to skirt the issue by saying that these were Jewish soldiers condoned by God to be soldiers (an obvious escapist thought process). The problem with this is that the Jews were conquered by Rome. No conquering nation in their right mind would allow its enemy to maintain an army. These were Roman soldiers, there to insure that peace was kept while the multitude went out to see and be baptized by John.

A Centurion was a military leader in command of 100 soldiers. Here we see that Cornelius is a holy and reverent man who is accepted by God in the state and profession that he is in. He is such a godly person that God sent an angel to insure the Cornelius heard the word. He and his household received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized and while Cornelius was still in service to the government.

There are some interesting things to note about these passages:

1. The Philippian Jailer carried a sword (vs 27)

2. He was baptized and was saved (vs 33)

3. The next day he was still on the job (vs 36)

The Philippian Jailer would be equivalent to prison guard, policeman, or soldier today with duties just as deadly. He had charge of Paul and Silas. We see him prepared to kill himself after the earthquake when he thinks his prisoners have escaped. However Paul and Silas stayed and convinced the Jailer and his family to be baptized. And then we see him on the job the next day after being saved. Paul was not one to mince words. If it were a sin for the Philippian Jailer to be in such a profession I am sure Paul would have said so.

How many of you would baptize someone who you knew had not repented of a sin? If you knew someone was in an adulterous marriage would you baptize them then teach them they are wrong? Would you make their baptism ineffective by allowing them to continue in that sin while you taught them later. I wouldn’t' nor do I believe the apostles would. Cornelius, the Philippian Jailer, and the Ethiopian Eunuch were all saved while they were yet in sin if what our brethren state is true concerning civil service. More importantly Cornelius received the Holy Spirit just as the Apostles did while yet in sin (even before his baptism) thus making God an approver of sin (if what they say is correct). Scripture teaches us that we must repent of our sins before we can be saved. Neither Cornelius, the Philippian Jailer, nor the Ethiopian Eunuch repented of their sin of being in the employed by the civil government and therefore (according to the logical progression some of our brethren's way of thinking) where never saved.

The conclusion here is that as a Christian I am to have no fellowship with sin . I cannot on one hand say something is sin and then on the other hand let it enter my life when convenient. Those who believe it is sinful to be a policeman or soldier are hypocrites if they call on such to perform the inherent duties. You cannot call something sinful and then condone it by participating – this is Hypocrisy in its finest form.

Paul was not averse to using soldiers to protect his life. In this scripture he accepted the protection of 470. It would have been hypocritical to accept this protection if Paul believed that it was wrong to be a soldier. In accepting their protection he condones their action that could have lead to the deaths of those who had made the vow to kill Paul. Paul would have been just as guilty of their deaths as the Roman soldier who might have actually taken a life in the defense of Paul.

Paul in essence calls those who seek his death liars. He then appeals to Caesar on the basis that he is a Roman Citizen and not governed by the laws of the Hebrew nation. Paul realizes that the Hebrews have no authority over him nor do they intend to do him justice. He uses his citizenship to his advantage and to deliver himself from them. I am sure he also realizes that he has his best chance for justice from those who have no love for Jewish law. He seeks the protection of the Roman Government. He goes to court on these accusations against the unbelieving Jews. Think about this for a second. Paul goes to court against unbelievers in front of unbelievers! Was he in sin for doing so?

There are many symbolic uses in scripture for the word sword but many in the church don’t realize the Jesus actually condoned the use of the sword. In the above scriptures Jesus first tells his disciples if they don’t have a sword to sell their clothes and buy one. Why? The context eliminates that they were to use the swords to go hunting with. Then we see Peter cut the off the ear of the high priest's servant. Peter was ready to defend Christ. Christ then says, "put away your sword", not because what Peter did was wrong (what he was doing was not hate filled or vengeful) but because God had other plans for Jesus, Jesus knew this. Why would Jesus condone even handling a sword if it was a sin to use one? This is the same as saying "sell your cloak and buy a gun". Why would Peter feel free to use it against the High Priests’ Servant when he and his group felt threatened? And finally why would Jesus not rebuke Peter for the sin of this viscious attack? The answers lie in the reasoning of what Peter was doing. He was prepared to give his life in the defense of those around him. Christ said "Greater love hath no man than to give his life for his friends". The evidence dictates that a man can defend himself from those who seek to do evil.

The question here is " Did Peter have any thing whatsoever to do with Annanias and Saphira’s death"? We know from the context that the "holy spirit" actually carried out the sentence but not until Peter had convicted both Annanias and Sapphira. Peter acted as a judge during a sentencing hearing. Peter was not guilty of killing them yet he had a part and approved of the deaths of these erring Christians. Does this make him sin? No, of course not. What Annanias and Sapphira did was wrong and they knew it. This same thought could apply to Acts 13:8 when Paul strikes Elymas blind. In both instances a Christian pronounced judgment on individuals and approved of the punishment.

This scripture is written to the individual who is not to take vengeance upon those who do him wrong. God has set up Himself and Governments to avenge those who are persecuted against. He has given someone else the job of justice (Romans 13:4). A soldier or a policeman is the executor of the authority that God gave a government. He does not repay someone for evil done to him but uses the God given authority of the Government to defend it citizens and administer justice.

Again this is an action directed towards the individual not to take personal vengeance upon someone who has hurt him or her or done him wrong. The government , however, is not under obligation to turn the other cheek but is obligated to exact vengeance upon evildoers based on God given authority.

The word wrestle is sometimes translated war. Many try saying, "look Christians don’t go to war against others" in their efforts to prove that it is a sin to be a soldier. The word wrestle here signifies struggle and in context here is addressing the Christians struggle against evil. It explains who the Christian is struggling with in his role as a Christian and does not address his roles other than that. An easier way to say this is "I'm not fighting men but Satan"

The context of this scripture tells us what a Christian does in the performance of his duties as such. It is a giant leap to add the assumption that a man may not be involved in the defense of his country or others because he is involved in a spiritual struggle.

Many read these passages and wonder that God finds David inferior or tainted is some way. This is not the implication of this passage David was a man after God’s own heart. David was approved by God. It is interesting to note that of the thousands and thousands of men, women, and children that King David killed only one time is he condemned. It is the when he deliberately planned to have Uriah killed so that he can have Beth Sheba. Because of it he is told that his kingdom would never know peace. He would continue to be a man of war for the rest of his days.

Gene 16:9 2Sam 22:45 Psal 18:44

Psal 66:3 Psal 68:30 1Cor 16:16

Ephe 5:22 Colo 3:18 Hebr 13:17

Jame 4:7 1Pet 2:13 1Pet 5:5

As you can see the word submit occurs only 12 times throughout the entire King James Bible. Many try to use the fact that the Christians are told submit to mean that we are to submit to every man. Some even go so far as to say that since we are told only to submit to governmental authority we therefore have no authority to be employed such. The problem with this is then this "rule" should be applied across the board. We are told to submit to elders but only Titus was told to ordain elders. Where is the authority for a Christian to be an elder if not ordained by Titus (Titus 1:5)? I am required to obey my parents yet where is one scripture that authorizes me to be a parent. God has given us guidance telling us whom specifically he wants us to submit to. Can I be a member of a governmental system and still submit to that same system? Of course I can. Nowhere in scripture am I required to submit to a man who seeks to do my family or I bodily harm that has no authority to do so. It is an assumption that just because Christians are required to submit in certain instances then we must submit in all. This of course is binding where God has not bound and is heretical and pharisaical. This also applies to the word "Obey" which occurs 66 times in the King James Version of the Bible. We are told to obey, God, ordinances, masters, magistrates, rulers, parents, elders, and husbands. But never are we told that we must obey someone who holds no authority over us.

God's Sense of Justice.

In all of scripture has God changed his ideas on what is right and wrong? The many differences between the Old and New Testament stem from the very fact that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin permanently like the blood of Christ. Christ's fulfillment of the law was the washing away of sin instead of the covering up. Look at Romans 7. The law was called holy and just. The eye for an eye sense of justice is still in place it has just changed hands. Instead of a man or revenger executing vengeance on the evildoer it is now the Governments responsibility.

CONCLUSION

God has ordained three institutions, the government, the Church, and the home. Each one has separate responsibilities. The government is to defend and avenge its citizens from evildoers. The church to edify, teach and lead people to heaven. And the home as a social group to raise godly children, prevent fornication etc. Every individual has his responsibilities to each group. Some have greater responsibilities depending upon their function within that group. Men sin on their own due to their evil desires.

Being a member of any God ordained institution cannot be considered sinful. A government becomes sinful only when sinful men run it. A church becomes sinful when sinful individuals govern it. And a home becomes sinful only when its members are sinful. However, even when sinful persons rule each organization there may still be righteous individuals within (Revelation 3:4). Sin is not inherently molded or planned for by God within any of the three organizations. To say that God gave the sword to the government and then say it is sinful for members of the government to use it is to make God the author of evil and temptation. In simple terms it is like giving a man a new car then telling him it is a sin to drive it. God does not tempt man (James 1:13).

Many try to entrap others with statements like "show me one scripture that says it’s alright to do…" This is a very good attitude when we look for the authority for our actions in reference to God's plan. Yet many take this too far. They use these types of statements to force their own opinions on others and to bind these opinions as law on the unwary believer. Show me one scripture that says it is okay to be a football player, a construction worker, a writer. You cannot find specific or generic authority for any of these. We must be careful or else everyone in the church will be limited to either being a "seller of purple" or a "tentmaker".

It seems to me that some in the church have forgotten what the "spirit" of the law is and have become bible lawyers. Convicting and condemning as fast as they can - forgetting love, mercy, kindness. They study to show themselves approved of men instead of God. They look for every jot and tittle ready to drive home the pain of the mote in others eyes because they can't stand to be alone in the pain of their own.

To be a civil servant, whether it is a clerk, policeman, or soldier, is an honorable and respected profession. This is evident by the way God equates Christians to Soldiers. The bible shows many godly examples of individuals within these types of professions. What makes any of it sinful are those same things that make anything sinful. lust, pride, envy, deceit, murder etc….all can be found within every profession. But they are individual sins. They are not inherent within the profession of a civil servant or organization of the government.

The Christian who works for the civil government must still abide by scripture and must do so in good conscience

Finally a Personal Note.

It seems that the predominance of those who disagree with the military are those who really don't understand it. This is evidenced by the questions and statements they make. Here are some that I have been asked.

If the president walked in here and told you to kill that man over there, would you?

You have to be able to lie to be in the army.

They (the government) can tell you to sleep with someone to get information.

Just the fact that some have made statements like these shows that they put to much credence in television shows and have not made the time necessary to look into the military and its regulations or its people before they condemn it. Soldiers are not warmongers. They don't desire war. They predominantly strive for peace. They live by stringent codes. They give up freedoms that others take for granted just to serve their country. They live under a more strict code of laws. Where dishonesty and laziness can be punished.

If you have at least glanced at the news in the past 50 years you should have noticed something very unique about he U.S. Military. We do not go to battle to conquer other nations. We go to protect others from the aggression and violence of men after worldly power. I cannot say that there have not been mistakes. Yet on the whole our military might is used for good. Some have asked the question "Who are we to judge what is evil". To this I answer "who is a Christian to judge what is sin?" Human beings know what good and evil are. The difference is written on our hearts. That man who is responsible for the death and torture of some 6 million Jews and some 8 million others is he and those who support him evil? Or how about the man who steals another country -- who rapes, pillages, and plunders -- who uses Sarin Gas on his own people -- who seeks atomic weaponry to actively destroy other people and nations. It is easy for me to see the evil in these instances --it is a shame others cannot.

Many find that the military is hypocritical. They have seen soldiers in news reports who were convicted of murder yet the government sent them to other countries to "kill". What a lot of people don't understand is that our military community also has laws that it must abide by. For the American soldier it is unlawful to deliberately kill non-combatants and to fire on religious or historical structures. As a matter of fact we are required to provide for the protection of civilians and prisoners alike giving our lives in their defense if need be. Soldiers can be convicted if found guilty of violating these "laws of war". Our military personnel "lay down their lives for strangers". They live by codes and laws that are more stringent and in a sense more godly than their civilian counterparts. Codes Like: "An Officer does not lie, steal, or cheat nor tolerate those who do" And define leadership (LDRSHIP) as Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless service, Honesty, Integrity, Personal Courage. It is no wonder less and less people are joining the military. Our society frowns on codes like this, our children are growing up in a society that only cares about personal gain. We should be glad there are those who are willing fight to maintain a country that allows us the freedom to worship as God intended. There are so many countries that don't.

Major Michael Lockwood

Christian Soldier