President Barack Obama says that the Defense Department could not survive an application of the Sermon on the Mount.  But Matt. 5:38-44 deals with personal relationships (here).  The Defense Department is not supposed to use this passage.  Rom. 13:4 says that the ruler has the power of the sword, so he can even execute people.  But we can't use the sword in our personal relationships.  In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is addressing Bible passages that the Pharisees had taken out of context.  The same thing happens in Matt. 4 and Luke 4 when Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness by quoting legitimate Bible passages, but took them out of context.  Jesus sees this happening in Exodus 21:22f. where the phrase "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is found.  This passage is talking about two men fighting and one of them hits a pregnant women.  The passage says that "he shall pay as the judges decide."  The Pharisees were taking this passage that was designed for the civil magistrate and applying it to personal relationships.  Jesus sets them straight.

-          - Gary DeMar, The Defense Department is not Supposed to Turn the Other Cheek (July 16, 2010), at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYB-KvqpaI&feature=player_embedded and

http://americanvision.org/3196/the-defense-department-is-not-supposed-to-turn-the-other-cheek/.

Old Testament Israel granted certain exemptions from military service: the "fearful and faint-hearted" (Deut. 20:8), newlyweds (Deut. 20:5; 24:5), engaged persons (Deut. 20:7), and persons in certain occupations (Deut. 20:6). These persons had their minds on other things besides fighting, and their inattentiveness could be a danger to others in the ranks. The "fearful and faint-hearted" were not conscientious objectors; their fearful temperament would affect others and hinder good discipline.
- John Eidsmoe, God & Caesar: Political Faith & Political Action 53 (1984).

The ethical concerns of the Bible for prisoners of war are found in Ps. 102:20, Zech. 9:11, Matt. 25:36. Christians who cherish the image of God in mankind will support resolutely the various conventions aimed at according war prisoners humane treatment and will seek to maintain Christ’s attitude toward persecutors and dictators (Matt. 5:44-45).
- C.J. Millard, Prisoners of War in Encyclopedia of Christian Ethics 326-27 (1987).

Concerning the lawful coercive power of the civil ruler to suppress heresies, I distinguish between bare opinions or speculations, and scandalous or pernicious practices. The conscience simply considered in itself is for God, the Lord of the conscience alone to judge. But it is the proper function of the civil ruler to punish a man’s practices, if they be against any of God’s commandments of the first or the second table. Rom. 13:3-4 teaches that the object of civil power is actions good or bad, not bare opinions, not thoughts, not conscience, but actions. The ruler should punish men for preaching, printing, spreading of dangerous opinions, for schismatic, pernicious and scandalous practices, for creating factions among the people contrary to the covenant, for resisting the reformation of religion, for lying and railing against the covenant, the State, or against the Reformed Churches.

- George Gillespie, Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty (1644), at http://www.naphtali.com/articles/george-gillespie/wholesome-severity/.

Must we cast off any ordinance of God to punish heretics because of the abuse of it? If the thing were indifferent, the abuse might take away the use, but not so when the thing is necessary. When Jeremiah was accused and arraigned as worthy to die, his defense is not this, “You ought not to vindicate religion with the sword, nor put any man to death for the cause of conscience,” but this is it, “Only know for certain that if you put me to death, you will bring innocent blood upon yourselves and upon this city and its inhabitants, for in truth the LORD sent me to you to speak all these words in your ears” (Jer. 26:15). Neither did the apostles (though often persecuted) plead the unlawfulness of persecuting men for heresy, but they pleaded the goodness of their cause, and that they were no heretics.

- George Gillespie, Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty (1644), at http://www.naphtali.com/articles/george-gillespie/wholesome-severity/.

Even a David may have cause to complain that the sons of Zeruiah are too strong for him [2 Sam. 3:39], the Christian Magistrate, is not guilty of tolerating heresies; provided always, that he has endeavored so far as he can to extirpate heresies, and to establish the true religion only.

- George Gillespie, Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty (1644), at http://www.naphtali.com/articles/george-gillespie/wholesome-severity/

The parable of the tares is objected against the coercive power of the Magistrate in matters of religion: Christ will not have the tares to be plucked up, but to grow together with the wheat until the harvest (Matt. 13:29-30). The tares are taken to be meant neither of hypocrites in the Church, whether discovered or undiscovered; nor yet of those who are scandalous offenders in their life and behavior, but only of Antichristian idolaters and false worshippers, which is a most false interpretation. Christ himself expounds it generally (Matt. 13:38). “The good seed are the children of the kingdom: but the tares are the children of the wicked one.” And (Matt. 13:41), the tares are expounded to be “all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness.” This being the clear meaning, it must follow that if the Magistrate must spare those who are meant by the tares in the parable, then he must spare and let alone all scandalous offenders, murderers, adulterers, drunkards, thieves, etc., when any such are discovered in the visible Church. If one responds that this cannot be the meaning of the tares in the parable that the wicked, as opposed to the children of God, should be understood; for then, when Christ says, “Let the tares alone,” he should contradict other ordinances for the punishment of evil doers by the Magistrate. But this objection begs the question; for they well know that those against whom they dispute hold that this interpretation of the parable contradicts the ordinance of God for punishing idolaters and heretics, the question being whether or not this is a rule against the punishment of those who live in open scandal. Besides, if the tares are Antichristian idolaters, and they must not be plucked up, but suffered to grow till the harvest, this contradicts other Scriptures, which say that the sword must be drawn against Antichristian idolaters, and they thereby cut off (Rev. 13:10;17:16).

Second, if by tares is meant idolaters, heretics, and false worshippers (which is an interpretation contrary to the text, as I have demonstrated), their argument will not allow the toleration or sparing of such, except only in such cases, and so far as the true worshippers of God cannot be certainly and infallibly distinguished from the false worshippers, as the wheat from the tares: as Jehu would not destroy the worshippers of Baal, till he was sure that none of the servants of the Lord were among them (2 Ki. 10:23). The reason why the tares are not to be plucked up, is, “while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them” (Matt. 13:29). Now when a man is sure that he plucks up nothing but tares, or rather thorns, without the least danger to the wheat, how does the parable strike against his so doing?

Thirdly, this command (“Let them alone” [Matt. 13:30]) was expressly spoken to the messengers or ministers of the gospel, who have not civil power or authority in their hand, and therefore not to the civil Magistrate, King, or Governor. Therefore one cannot reason from this parable to opposition to the coercive power of the magistrate in matters of religion. If there must be a restraint of any severity, we must restrain Church censures and excommunications as a way of rooting out the tares. The parable therefore suggest unto us that when the Magistrate has done all his duty in exercising his coercive power, yet to the world’s end there will be in the Church a mixture of good and bad. So that it is the universal and perfect purging of the Church, which is put off to the last judgment, not the punishment of particular persons. Neither do the servants in the parables ask whether they should pluck up this or that visible tare, but whether they should go and make the whole field rid of them; which field is the general visible Church sowed with the seed of the gospel.

Fourthly, and if the utter extermination of heretics by capital punishments, should be understood to be forbidden in the parable (as it is not), yet the stopping of their mouths, the scattering and suppressing of them, or some other coercive way, is not forbidden.

- George Gillespie, Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty (1644), at http://www.naphtali.com/articles/george-gillespie/wholesome-severity/