Scripture Passages with a Positive Portrayal of Force
This author has already noted two occurrences of martial arts in the lives of the patriarchs. Yet other passages exist which demonstrate that a regenerate person may use force in a way that glorifies God.
One of the more interesting passages in Scripture concerning violence is Job 29:17. In the midst of a strongly poetic passage (beginning in chapter 26), Job responds to Bildad the Shuhite (and his other friends) with another plea of innocence. In chapter 29, he details the uprightness of his dealings with others. He has delivered the poor and the fatherless (v. 12), helped the perishing and the widow (v. 13), caused righteousness to characterize his lifestyle (v. 14), assisted the blind and the lame (v. 15), helped the poor, and aided the cause of those he did not even know (v. 16). He then makes the following statement in verse 17: "And I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth."19 Old Testament scholar John E. Hartley aptly describes Job’s attitude:
Job went a step further. He not only helped the oppressed; he also sought to break the power of the oppressors. He wanted both to deprive these scoundrels of their spoil and to put them out of commission. The cruel harshness with which these charlatans afflicted the unfortunate is captured by the word fangs [this writer’s note—Hartley is interpreting the Hebrew word t’la]. They acted like fierce animals, ravaging their weak prey. Job, however, championed the cause of the abused, broke the fangs of the wicked, and snatched the prey from his teeth.20
While Job is definitely using poetic language (most of the book is a poem, after all), it remains clear that he took aggressive and violent measures against the wicked in order to rescue the perishing! How else could he have assisted those being ravaged by evil men?
Two other key points must be noted: first of all, Job’s statement that he "brake the jaws of the wicked" is listed among other signs of righteousness (helping the weak, etc.) as the basis for his plea for innocence. His declaration in verses 18-25 that he expected to live long and prosper stems from his upright lifestyle before God. Secondly, Job was a godly man. This can be denied only at the expense of the authority of Scripture. Both the prologue (1:1) and the words of Yahweh Himself (42:7-8) vindicate Job’s claim to a proper relationship with his God. While he was properly rebuked in chapters 38-41 for doubting Yahweh’s justness and daring God to grant him a hearing (what is man, after all, that God should be responsible to him?), Scripture still clearly notes that Job’s presumption, not his lifestyle, was at fault. Overall, Job was a righteous man, and his outward righteousness manifested an inward relationship with God his Redeemer. Thus Job’s violent defense of the innocent at the expense of the jaws of the wicked testifies positively to a man who had an excellent relationship with his Creator, a man who was "perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil" (1:1).
What a lesson to the believer! Anyone who claims to love God must be willing to come to the aid of the weak and helpless, even if that means utilizing force to protect them.
King David, however, provides a more obvious example of a biblical martial artist. While he was far from perfect, he was still a man after God’s own heart and fought the Lord’s battles at the Lord’s command. What is compelling, however, is the fact that King David attributed his martial skill to Yahweh Himself. In Psalm 144, he declares, "Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war and my fingers to fight." Furthermore, this statement opens a Psalm that primarily calls to God for help. Thus David, a warrior-king, not only attributes his own devastating fighting skills to Yahweh, he in the same breath implores the Lord to deliver him.
Two key notes must be made: first of all, this is not a reference to "spiritual warfare." David was a true warrior: he physically killed Goliath, he physically destroyed many Philistines, he continuously waged war on his enemies, and his greatest moral downfall only came when he did not go out to battle as he was supposed to (II Samuel 11). To declare that Psalm 144:1 refers to "spiritual" warfare is to make a mockery of proper exegesis. Is the deliverance in verse 7 also "spiritual"? Are the "foreigners" in the same verse to be spiritualized as well (perhaps they refer to demons)? Should we declare that David’s song, ten-stringed lyre, and music of verse 9 are also "spiritual" (i.e. do not occur in the physical universe)? What about the agricultural descriptions in verses 12-15? Is David praying that his people will have their "spiritual" sheep increased, their "spiritual" oxen drawing "spiritually" heavy loads, and their "spiritual" barns filled with "spiritual" food? Essentially, the picture drawn would be a "spiritual" king who never physically wages war (only "spiritually"), never physically plays music (only "spiritually," whatever that might mean), and trusts that God will deliver him from non-corporeal foes who threaten to take his people into some sort of "spiritual" captivity. One certainly must acknowledge that David uses poetic language such as similes and metaphors (e.g. verse 2—God is not, after all, a physical fortress of rock and stone); yet such poetic language is self-obvious. Proper hermeneutics demands a literal interpretation when at all possible. Those who wish to apply allegorical interpretation to verse 1 must do so consistently for all concepts in Psalm 144 which would otherwise be taken literally.
Secondly, Psalm 144:1 essentially argues that God is the source of martial skill (like all other skills). This skill, then, must not be intrinsically evil; in fact, given the context, it is actually morally good. The suggestion that David would praise God for the ability to perform evil deeds would be an insult to the Spirit Who inspired him. Consequently the Christian must realize that martial arts, like music, can be either morally good or morally evil, depending on the context. This is hardly an assertion that "the end justifies the means." If Scripture declared that martial arts were intrinsically evil (like adultery, swearing, etc.), then no amount of good intentions or results would have justified David’s actions. Yet Scripture does not condemn the use of force as a sin anymore than it does worship. Only certain applications of force are condemned, just as certain applications of worship (even to the one true God) are condemned (Isaiah 1:11-15).
Once again this writer will utilize the analogy of music. No Christian would argue that music is inherently evil. Yet clearly music can be a part of evil or be used for evil purposes. Thus when neo-Nazis use stirring music at their rallies to stir up hatred towards minorities, music, by itself a positive creation, is being made to serve evil. Likewise, when a heavy metal band uses a heavy, moving bass coupled with immoral lyrics to incite the crowd to debauchery, music has become evil.
Consequently, one should view martial arts in the same way. Certain contexts render martial arts immoral, while certain contexts make it moral. This, then, is the difference between simply the use of force (which can be moral and just) and the "violence" which is routinely condemned in Scripture (e.g. Psalm 11:5, Ezekiel 8:17).
Yet what about the New Testament? In it one can see Jesus Christ, the Son of God and eternal Savior of all who trust in Him, providing the ultimate model for believers. Truly Christ was known to be meek and mild, even unto death. On the cross, He could have used either His own divine power to save Himself and wreck havoc on His enemies, or He could have called down a myriad of angels that were His to command. Yet He submitted to the Father’s will and allowed Himself to be crucified without putting up a fight.
Yet even Jesus Christ took up a whip and forcefully drove offenders out of the temple when He saw that His Father’s house was being improperly treated (John 2:13-17). If Christ Himself, perfect in every way, utilized force to accomplish a worthy goal, logically one must acknowledge that the application of force, even for a Christian, may be appropriate. God cannot contradict His nature; because He is truth, for example, He cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and this very characteristic of God is the basis for Scripture’s admonition that Christians always speak the truth. Likewise if the application of physical force were inherently evil then Christ Jesus would be contradicting His very own divine nature; such is a logical impossibility.21 As a result, one may conclude that something in the nature of God requires the application of force in certain circumstances.
Naturally such circumstances are rare for the Christian. The believer is not to be a brawler and not to repay evil for evil. Yet obedience to certain Scriptural injunctions may require a believer to use martial arts. How, for example, could a husband claim to truly love his wife as himself if he stands by and allows her to be raped by an attacker without trying to intervene? How can one claim to truly provide for his or her own family (I Timothy 5:8) if one fails to provide protection in addition to food and raiment? Finally, can the female believer claim to truly treat her body as the temple of the Holy Ghost if she allows a perversion of humanity to violently assault and defile it without defending herself with such skill as she possesses? Such basic biblical principles may demand that a believer use controlled force.
Yet Christ did indeed command that the believer "turn the other cheek." Since Scripture does not contradict itself, one must examine how Christ could have made such a statement while at the same time actively opposing evil (including the utilization of force when cleansing the temple).
Turning the Other Cheek in Relation to Force
In Matthew 5, Jesus Christ sets down some basic principles for life as a member of the kingdom of heaven. In essence, His "Sermon on the Mount" offers the listener (and reader) "ethical guidelines for life in the kingdom" or a "glimpse of kingdom life."22 Thus the principles set forth are ideal for all Christians of all ages.
Within this Sermon on the Mount, Christ declares that believers are to turn the other cheek to those who smite them on one side (5:39). Some would argue from this that Christians ought never to fight against evil, but rather passively submit in the spirit of Christ to whatever might come.
As always, context must be the guide in interpretation. The reader will immediately note that the passage refers to the law of retaliation set forth in the Mosaic law. The lex talionis provided the common Israelite with a way to meet out justice on one who had harmed him. Christ is not attempting to contradict the Old Testament, but rather declares that a Christian should never seek revenge (the same point Paul makes in Romans 12:19). Instead of seeking out what should be his legally, the Christian is to forgive those that harm him. The setting is judicial, and contextually the natural way to take this is in reference to a court of law.23
This, then, is a long way from declaring that a Christians should not defend themselves from harm. In fact, the Greek ?ap??e? refers to a slap (likewise the participle t?pt??t? in the similar command in Luke 6:29 also refers to a slap; see it’s use in Acts 23:3). The action, then, is painful and insulting, but not threatening. The point is that "instead of seeking recompense at law under the lex talionis, Jesus’ disciples will gladly endure the insult again."24
Two principles must be gleamed from this. First of all, a Christian must bear all insults, even painful ones, in the Spirit of Christ. No Christian must ever retaliate when reviled, slapped, spit upon, etc. Secondly, no Christian must ever seek revenge, no matter what the harm done. Revenge never undoes the crime or protects the innocent; it merely serves to satiate one’s ego ("How dare they do that to me! I’ll show them!").
Yet no statement of Christ’s precludes a Christian’s using force to defend his or her body or those in need of assistance. An illegitimate interpretation of Christ’s teaching should not cause one to ignore the rest of Scripture.
Conclusion
Martial arts have become a fixture within American society, and kung fu is no exception. While many Christians may be concerned to see others practicing kung fu or even using it in ministry, a careful study of both Chinese history and key passages of Scripture will demonstrate the following: 1. kung fu and martial arts in general did not originate from pagan philosophies, is not intrinsically connected to them, and may be practiced apart from them, and 2. Scripture does not condemn the proper use of force; in fact, Scripture encourages force when used justly and for moral purposes. Nothing in Scripture prohibits a Christian from practicing martial arts or using it in ministry. Martial arts, in the proper context, is a moral and godly practice.
Today’s Baptist churches utilize many methods to interest children and youth in spiritual matters.
Puppets, illusions, awards—all these have been successfully promoted and used as a bridge to the gospel. Kung fu likewise offers many unique opportunities to apply Scripture to the lives of the lost (e.g. a sword can represent "the Word of God," breaking concrete can represent God breaking the sin barrier to rescue man, etc.), and the wise pastor will not discount its possibilities. Indeed, this author has seen more than a few souls come to Christ as a result of martial arts demonstrations.
Kung fu has provided protection and physical fitness to countless people worldwide. How much more important, then, that it be used to glorify God and help edify the body of Christ? Truly kung fu, like all other aspects of a Christian’s life, must be and can be done to the glory of God.
(Footnotes)
1 Note: this paper is mostly designed for Fundamental Baptists; as such, certain concepts and beliefs that may be discussed later, whether analogically or not, will be taken for granted: i.e. standards in music, standards in separation, etc. These issues would be irrelevant if this paper were designed for a wider spectrum of Christianity, but since this author’s sphere of ministry is within the realm of This writer trusts, however, that even those Christians from a broader, evangelical background will benefit from this discussion.
2 This author holds a 3rd Degree Black Belt in Sheng Dian Quan, granted by the Temple Chinese Boxing Association ("temple" here does not refer to any pagan temple, but rather to the fact that the believer’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; also, this organization was originally started by black belts who graduated from the fundamentalist Tennessee Temple University). This author also grew up in Japan, and thus has a first-hand experience of Asian culture.
3 Bob Larson, Larson’s Book of Cults (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1985), 299.
4 One could argue that the original purpose of music was to glorify God; yet that would be the same for all activities, including eating, drinking, and martial arts. As will be demonstrated later in this paper, martial arts is a naturally developed activity of humanity, much like singing. The difference is that martial arts stems from violence and war; hence it is a natural result of fallen humanity. This hardly renders it evil, however; both pain in childbirth and difficulty in farming seem to have sprung from the curse (Genesis 3:16-19), yet that does not make them it a sin for a woman to experience pain or a farmer difficulty.
5 Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd ed., Stuart Berg Flexner, ed. (New York: Random House, 1993), s. v. "Martial Arts," p. 1180. Note: this definition, as noted, is disappointingly inaccurate.
6 Some examples—France developed Savat, Great Britain developed it’s own style of boxing, and various native American tribes, like countless other cultures, developed various styles of wrestling.
7 As mentioned earlier, Cain’s murder of his brother hardly fits any definition of martial arts, for he did not have any systematized fighting style, only bloodlust; if Cain was a martial artist, then a child who throws a temper tantrum must also be considered a martial artist.
8 This is not to downplay the spiritual significance of this encounter. More was at stake than bragging rights to a wrestling match. Yet Yahweh, in His divine wisdom, utilized an actual empty-handed, physical fight with Jacob to bring about His gracious blessing of Jacob.
9 Mike McClure, Lessons from the Boxer Rebellion (Martinsville, IN: GMAU Press, 2002), 4.
10 Claiming that Bodhidharma was the originator of Chinese martial arts is essentially akin to claiming that the Beach Boys were the originators of American music!
11 Jane Hallander, The Complete Guide to Kung Fu Fighting Styles (Burbank, CA: Unique Publications, 1985), 14.
12 David Chow and Richard Spangler, Kung Fu: History, Philosophy, and Technique (Burbank, CA: Unique Publications, 1982), 2.
13 Ibid., 2, 6.
14 Ibid., 3.
15 Hallander, 14. Emphasis is this writer’s own.
16 Hallander, 28.
17 Chow and Spangler, 36.
18 Hallander, 110.
19 All quotations in English are from the authorized version, unless otherwise noted.
20 John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. M. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 392.
21 The law of non-contradiction applies here. "(A) cannot be (A) and (anti-A) in the same sense and at the same time." Thus if A = moral perfection, and Christ = A, then Christ cannot be morally perfect yet at the same time perform an immoral act (= anti-A).
22 D. A. Carson, Matthew, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 128.
23 Ibid., 155.
24 Ibid., 156.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carson, D. A. Matthew. Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing Company, 1984.
Chow, David, and Richard Spangler. Kung Fu: History, Philosophy, and Technique.
Burbank, CA: Unique Publications, 1982.
Flexner, Stuart Berg, ed. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd ed. New York: Random
House, 1993. S. v. "Martial Arts."
The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. Germany: United Bible Societies, 1998.
Hallander, Jane. The Complete Guide to Kung Fu Fighting Styles. Burbank, CA: Unique
Publications, 1985.
Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.
The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament. John R. Kohlenberger III, ed. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987.
Larson, Bob. Larson’s Book of Cults. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1985.
McClure, Mike. Lessons from the Boxer Rebellion. Martinsville, IN: GMAU Press, 2002.
[http://www.kiksteam.com/CMA%20and%20the%20christian.pdf]
