Our Duty to Peace

“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” (Ro 12:18 AV)

If we are not diligent in studying this verse out, it might appear as though this verse permits us to do just the opposite.  It might appear to give us an out.  If it is not possible and we simply don’t have it within us, then let them have it.  However, this is not what Paul is saying.  In fact, if that were so, he would be undermining the purpose of the letter to the Romans.  He wrote the letter to Romans for a church that was struggling with multiculturalism.  They were trying to figure out the relationships between Jews and Gentiles and how it all worked out.  The Jews struggled with anti-Gentile biases ingrained in two millennia of culture.  The Gentiles struggled with pride knowing Israel was now placed on a shelf and Paul had turned to them to further the gospel.  Paul’s effort was to conclude all men are under the condemnation of God and to all men the gospel had come.  Both Jews and Gentile alike.  So, if the verse above permits someone with a short fuse to act in strife toward all men, it would undermine all that he is trying to accomplish by the entire letter to them both.

First, it is not always possible to live peaceably.  Some things justify strife.  Self-protection or the duty to protect those for whom one is responsible is paramount.  If the lives of those for whom I am responsible are threatened, then it would necessitate that I do not live peaceably with all men.  Ecclesiastically, the same is true for a pastor of a church.  If false doctrine threatens the sheep, I am bound to take action to protect them.  Some circumstances require we respond in kind.  Paul knows this.  He lived this.  The first part of the verse instructs that if peace is not possible, then our actions must be founded on the principles of the word of God.  Peace must come first.  We should find any way possible to live in peace with all men.  The second phrase is what gives us a bit of a quandary.  As most commentators suggest, this phrase is the moral obligation of the people of God to pursue peace and not to initiate strife.  They see that second phrase as the command to take the high road and pursue peace, avoiding strife when strife is not absolutely necessary.  This makes total sense.

There are too many attacks on the body of Christ from the devil and the world to occupy ourselves with shooting our own.  Yes, there needs to be robust discussion over doctrine and philosophy of ministry.  Paul had his differences with Peter.  He had a problem with Barnabas and John Mark.  The church at Galatia had to hash out basic doctrines of salvation.  These things must happen.  But when the discussion was over, they separated friends.  They understood that disagreements happen.  But these disagreements cannot be allowed to severe the commitment we should have one to another.  This is Paul’s point.  In addressing both sides of this strife, he puts it on both of them.  Both Jew and Gentile should live peaceably with one another without either one initiating strife with the other.  Yes, there were doctrines of the first century that had to be resolved.  No doubt, there were very heated discussions.  But when all was said and done, the work continued and Christ was glorified.  This principle is not reserved for the saints.  Paul says, “all men”.  That would include the Lost as well.  We are not permitted to initiate strife no matter the cause.  We are told to make bridges where we can and not to be the force that begins the problem.  This is good and sound advice.  Something which we would be wise to consider.