When is killing my enemies justified? The one-on-one idea

If you’re a Christian pacifist, no doubt you’ve come across advocates for war who challenge our understanding of the words of Jesus in the Sermon of the Mount (Mt. v-vii or Lk. vi). One challenge in particular has to do with the application of these words from Jesus:

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the person who takes away your coat, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away. Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you. (Lk. vi.27-31 NET)

Or you can look at the similar statements in the Matthew passage. What I’ve been told is this command from our Lord is on a personal level. Not the same as the idea of this being some spiritual ideal that we cannot achieve. I mean that Jesus was telling us to love our enemies within the context of a personal, one-on-one relationship. Me and my enemy.

For example, let’s say I was in the middle of a conversation with William, the Christian advocate for war. I get to a point where I say this: "Bombing our enemies with unmanned drones, killing some combatants while destroying the homes and lives of women and children who have nothing to do with the war: is that loving? Is that how we love our enemies? By bombing them?" Well, William comes back and says, "You’re not understanding what Jesus said. What he said has nothing to do with war. It’s not meant for the context of a war between two countries or people groups. Jesus was talking about a one-on-one situation: you with your enemy."

In various forms, those words have been tossed my way, rejecting and denouncing my interpretation of Jesus the Nazarene’s words about who I am to love and cannot kill. The idea is that these words do not apply within the context of war.

(They do agree, however, that there is nonviolence being commanded here. Of course, they will also defend the idea of killing someone who is trying to kill you or a loved one. Isn’t the case of someone trying to kill you a one-on-one situation? I’m not seeing the consistency real well here.)

But, for the sake of argument, let’s run with this idea that the command of Jesus to love our enemies is not for the context of war, but only for one-on-one situations. When does the nonviolence stop being so personal? At what point are we supposed to cease nonviolence and take up the sword against our enemies? How many people need to be involved?

What if it’s one on two, me versus two enemies? Can I stop loving them, start killing, and feel justified?

Or does it have to be a country versus country situation? Once my government declares war against another country or a particular group (e.g. Al-Qaeda) do I need to stop loving my enemies and start taking up the sword?

Or, are they only considered my enemies if my government declares them my enemies? But that would take us right back to the previous idea having to do with when the government declares war.

See, I have a lot of questions. I’m sure a Christian advocate for war has the answers, can bring some clarity to the conundrum in my head, but I would just ask someone to present the responses. I am not sure how many people believe—truly believe—this concept, but I think the inconsistencies are far more than just evident. That’s a major struggle. But I also think anyone within that camp needs to take some time and do real exegesis of the passage, to study the history and context, and to read some commentaries from folks who do not subscribe to that same idea. Get some more persepectives and ideas about what is going on. Truth is far more valuable than tradition.