THE BIBLE AGAINST WAR
by Rev. Amos Dresser
|
Section 7 |
“But if thou do that which
is evil, be afraid; for he
beareth not the sword in vain;
for he is the minister of God, a
revenger to execute wrath
upon him that doeth evil.”
But it is said the remainder of the verse teaches that “God hath appointed magistrates to punish crime and protect rights; that we are not only to expect punishment from, through, and by them if we do evil, but we are to look to them for the redress of our grievances and for the defense of our sacred rights; that God has placed the sword in the ruler’s hand for this very purpose, and that the principle applies equally to nations and to individuals.” Hence such passages as “avenge not yourselves,” instead of militating against the above construction, are explained as forbidding “only private redress.”
Yet when pushed into extreme cases, they tell us that in the absence of the civil authority we are to take the sword into our own hand, and then the passages mean that “we should not exercise revenge!” Let us carefully examine each of these positions by the “law and the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” In each case the assertion hangs on its own merit. No proof is offered. The following are some of the passages in question, which we think forbid the above construction; coming as they do in the immediate context. “Recompense to no man evil for evil,” that is, “resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if a man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” “Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing, but the opposite, blessing, knowing that unto this ye are called, that ye should inherit a blessing.” “See that none render evil for evil unto any, but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves and towards all.” “Say not thou ‘I will recompense evil,’ but wait on the Lord, and He shall save thee.”
“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no one shall see the Lord.” “Depart from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it.” “For he that will love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile. Let him eschew evil and do good; let him seek peace and ensue it. For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.”
“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath.” (“This expression has been interpreted in a great variety of ways. Its obvious design is to induce us not to attempt to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to God. To give place, then, is to leave it for God to come in and execute wrath or vengeance on the enemy. Do not execute wrath; leave it to God. Commit all to Him; leave yourself and your enemy in his hands, assured that He will vindicate you and punish him.” – Barnes.)
“For it is written, ‘Avenging is mine, I will repay,’ saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thrist, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head, and the Lord shall reward thee.” “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you.” “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”
This is the duty Paul is urging when he introduces our text. The text must harmonize with the context.
Christians were in no case
directed to magistrates
for redress.
Avenging ourselves, resisting evil, rendering evil for evil, recompensing evil, etc. are here forbidden, and yet in no case are we directed to the civil magistrate for redress, nor is there the least possible intimation that God designed that we should seek redress from that source.
We find on record no instance where any of the apostles applied to the “powers that be” for redress. “Paul appealed to Caesar.” The only case quoted to the contrary is that of Paul, who after having been unlawfully bound and scourged, tried and examined, once and again, and found innocent, was about to be delivered by the authorities into the hands of his enemies. Against this he protested, urging that if he had done anything worthy of death, he did not refuse to die. “But if not,” said he, “no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal to Caesar.” And so he was taken to Rome as a culprit, not as a prosecutor. On his arrival at Rome he called together the Jews, and explained to them the reason of his chains. And notwithstanding he had been egregiously outraged by those in power and those not in power, he made no application for redress, nor did he urge that the “public good demands that the offenders be brought to justice.” He immediately hired him a house, obtained means for a livelihood, and began to preach the gospel of peace. I presume no peace man, be he ever so radical, would object to such redress – such avenging as this. But further, the Caesar, or king to whom Paul appealed was Nero, by whom Paul was afterwards beheaded. Sad protection!
The Christians at Corinth
were forbidden to go to law.
But not only do we find no instance where the apostles applied to the civil power for redress, yet we do find the Christians at Corinth severely censured for even going to law one with another. And in dissuading them from this course, Paul said, “Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” – 1 Corinthians 6:7. I know it is urged that the principle is restricted to brethren in the church, but why should we “take wrong,” and “suffer ourselves to be defrauded” by church members, and not by others? Furthermore, it is evident that …
The early Christians did not
understand Paul as teaching
that their protection was to
come from the sword,
… as they stood entirely aloof from every relation in life which demanded its use.
Says Gibbon under the heading of “Their aversion to the business of war and government,”
“The Christians were not less averse to the business than to the pleasures of this world (that is, the business of war and government). The defense of our persons and property they knew not how to reconcile with the patient doctrine which enjoined an unlimited forgiveness of past injuries, and commanded them to invite the repetition of fresh insults. Their simplicity was offended by the use of oaths, by the pomp of magistracy, and by the active contention of public life. Nor could their humane ignorance be convinced that it was lawful, on any occasion, to shed the blood of our fellow creatures, either by the sword of justice or by that of war… While they inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defense of the empire. Some indulgence might be allowed to those persons who, before their conversion, were already engaged in such bloody and sanguinary occupations. But it was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the characters of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.” – Gibbon, p. 170.
“The humble Christians were sent into the world as sheep among wolves, and since they were not permitted to employ force, even in the defense of their religion, they should be still more criminal if they were tempted to shed the blood of their fellow creatures in disputing the vain privileges, or the sordid possessions of this transitory life. Faithful to the doctrine of the apostle, who in the reign of Nero, had enacted the duty of unconditional submission (see Romans 13), the Christians of the three first centuries preserved their consciences pure and innocent of the guilt of secret conspiracy or open rebellion. While they experienced the rigor of persecution, they were never provoked either to meet their tyrants in the field, or indignantly to withdraw themselves into some remote and sequestered corner of the globe.” – Gibbon, p. 253.
This testimony is doubly valuable, as it comes from one who utterly discarded their course.
I know it is affirmed by the advocates of the sword that Christians refused to take part in the army or government because of the idolatrous rites connected therewith. This, no doubt, was one good reason. But the reason Gibbon assigns, is, that they could not reconcile the use of the sword with Christianity. True, the sword and heathenism have always gone hand in hand together, and to the early Christian war was as truly an object of abhorrence as idolatry. It is as truly barbarous and devilish.
The reign of Constantine
Individual cases may be adduced where professed Christians were found in the army. But it was not tolerated by the church in her pristine purity, nor till the hypocritical Constantine amalgamated church and state. The church then received a protection (?) that well nigh worked her ruin. It was this protection that effaced every distinctive feature of the gospel, and made it worth nothing, because it differed nothing from the world. Under his reign multitudes flocked to the army and to the various offices of state, and here were sown all the vile features of Romanism and Papacy that have to this day cursed the earth with bigotry, lust of power, and persecution.
The reign of Julian
What would have been the result had this amalgamation of the church and the sword continued, none can tell. But Julian, Constantine’s successor, had no sympathy with it. Under him,
“The greater part of the Christian officers were gradually removed from their employments in the state, the army and the provinces; and the hopes of future candidates were extinguished by the declared partiality of a prince who maliciously reminded them that it was ‘unlawful for a Christian to use the sword either of justice or of war.” - Gibbon, p. 307.
It is good to be taught even by an enemy.
Christians never have
received protection
from the sword.
Hence, I remark again that if human governments were designed to protect Christians by the sword, the plan has proved a failure - at least this was true of all the governments of Paul’s day. The only protection they received was (as Gibbon says, page 157), “They derived new vigor from opposition.” The “persecutions only served to revive the zeal, and to restore the discipline, of the faithful.” – page 194. In this sense the rulers were the ministers of God for good to the faithful ones, and in this sense there was protection enough, most certainly. Says Gibbon, page 181:
“We should naturally suppose … that the magistrates, instead of persecuting, would have protected an order of men who yielded the most passive obedience to the laws, though they declined the active cares of war and government.”
After speaking of the “universal toleration of polytheism,” he then attempts to account for their efforts “to oppose the progress of Christianity,” and admits that:
“About eighty years after the death of Christ, his innocent disciples were punished with death by the sentence of a proconsul of the most amiable and philosophical character, and (that punishment of death was) according to the laws of an emperor distinguished by the wisdom and justice of his general administration… The Christians, who obeyed the dictates and solicited the liberty of conscience, were alone among all the subjects of the Roman Empire excluded from the common benefits of their auspicious government.
“By embracing the faith of the gospel, the Christians incurred the supposed guilt of an unnatural and unpardonable offence. (And even to the present day, by many, nonresistance is considered a much more heinous crime than blood-shedding.) It was in vain that the oppressed believer asserted the inalienable rights of conscience and private judgment… Malice and prejudice concurred in representing the Christians as a society of atheists (!) who by the most daring attack on the religious constitution of the empire had merited the severest animadversion of the magistrate.
“The Roman princes attempted, by rigorous punishments, to subdue their independent spirit, which boldly acknowledged an authority superior to that of the magistrate.
“They died in torments, and their torments were embittered by insults and derision. Some were nailed on crosses, others sown up in the skins of wild beasts and exposed to the fury of dogs; others again smeared over with combustible materials were used as torches in illuminating the darkness of the night. The gardens of Nero were destined for the melancholy spectacle, which was accompanied with a horserace and honored with the presence of the emperor, who mingled with the populace in the dress and attitude of a charioteer. (Tacitus Annal. XV. 44.)
“The impatient clamors of the multitude denounced the Christians as the enemies of the gods and men, doomed them to the severest tortures, and venturing to accuse by name some of the most distinguished, required with irresistible vehemence that they should be instantly apprehended and cast to the lions.” – Gibbons, p. 183-189.
Such admissions historians are obliged to make notwithstanding their apologies for the persecutors, and their efforts to show that the persecutions were only “inconsiderable!” Strange protection this! Strange defense of our sacred rights! Is this the method by which God designs to protect those who do good? Had it not been for the testimony they were called to give in behalf of the flesh-subduing, soul-elevating principles of the gospel, God would doubtless have sent his angel and delivered them. But it was necessary for them to seal their testimony with their blood. And they did it joyfully.
But it is said that “such instances are a perversion of the design of human government.” Amen! So is the use of the sword in all cases except where there is a direct command from Jehovah for using it. Admit if you choose, that evils will result without its use. They are as a drop to the ocean compared with using it at man’s discretion.
Still all is said to be irrelevant, because the passages quoted only prove that we should not exercise revenge. Says …
President Mahan,
“Revenge is evil intentionally inflicted after an injury, real or supposed, has been received or inflicted, not at all as a means of self-protection, but to gratify feelings and sentiments of hate and ill-will which the remembrance of the injury excites. Revenge, according to this sense of the term is, in all circumstances, actual or conceivable, morally wrong and wholly so.
“All scriptural prohibitions pertaining to revenge, such as ‘avenge not yourselves,’ ‘resist not evil,’ ‘be not overcome of evil,’ etc. have no reference whatever to self-defense. They refer to an entirely distinct and opposite thing, and are wholly misapplied when adduced against the principle of self-defense. It is also very singular that they should ever be so applied, when they are presented by Christ and his apostles, in almost every instance, as literal quotations from the Old Testament, in which the right of self-defense is expressly sanctioned.” – Moral Philosophy, p. 410.[56]
Indeed! When and where in the Old Testament is “the right of self-defense expressly sanctioned?” Will President Mahan cite one passage that throws the responsibility of self-defense upon God’s people? Self-defense, by violence, is as fully forbidden in the Old Testament as in the New. In every case where the work of destruction was committed to the Jews, it was because God’s honor was at stake, and hence the wars, if such they may be called, were usually aggressive, and never in self-defense only, as their preservation was connected with God’s reputation. And as previously shown, it was for the want of faith in God, and from their own choice that even this bloody work was assigned them. No, truly, so far from there being any command or permission simply to defend ourselves, from Genesis to Revelation, God is everywhere revealed as our Refuge, our Defense, our Salvation, our Strong Tower, our Avenger, etc.
But “avenge not yourselves,” means that we should not “gratify feelings and sentiments of hate and ill-will.” Is that their meaning? “Dearly beloved, do not gratify feelings and sentiments of hate and ill-will, because God says it belongs to Him to exercise such feelings. Do not exercise malice and hate. ‘I will do that!’ saith the Lord!!” Such interpretations as this have led individuals to say, “Your God is my devil.”
The term translated avenge, is “ekdikountes,” from “ekdikeo,” which according to the lexicon means “avenge, vindicate, punish,” etc., from dike, which means “justice.” The word translated vengeance is from the same root, and as the connection would demand, of the same import. As if Paul had said, “Dearly beloved, seek not redress for injuries, for God says, ‘I will see that justice is done. I will vindicate your cause.’” Hence Albert Barnes, in commenting on “Vengeance is mine, I will repay:”
“This expression implies that it is improper for men to interfere with that which properly belongs to God… Its design is to assure us that those who deserve to be punished shall be and that therefore the business of avenging may be safely left in the hands of God. Though we should not do it, yet if it ought to be done – it will be done. This assurance will sustain us, not in the desire that our enemy should be punished, but in the belief that God will take the matter into his own hands, ►► that he can administer the matter better than we can, and that if our enemy ought to be punished, he will be. We therefore should lease it all with God. That God will vindicate his people is clearly and abundantly proved in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, Revelation 6:9-11, and Deuteronomy 32:40-43.”
Passages are explained
by the context.
Now the plain and evident meaning of such passages is that we should not be careful about protecting our “sacred rights,” as God will see to them if we seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. This is evident from the context of each passage.
“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath, for it is written, ‘Avenging is mine, I will repay,’ saith the Lord, therefore, etc.” Here the question is not at all whether the person deserves punishment, or whether the public good demands that he should receive it, but we are not permitted to avenge, as it is God’s special business. Therefore, we are to seek the good, the well-being, not of ourselves, but of our enemy. God has our well-being in charge, and so to speak has committed our enemy’s well-being to us. Our work is to bless wholly and curse not at all. O blessed calling!
“Say not thou, ‘I will recompense evil,’ but wait on the Lord, and He shall save thee.” – Proverbs 20:22. The meaning of “recompense” here is determined by the antithesis, as the correlative of “save.” The Hebrew word means “to finish” – hence to stop or prevent. “Say not thou, ‘I will by violence prevent the wrong,’ but wait on the Lord and He shall save thee.”
Again those who love life are directed to seek peace as a means of preserving it, because “the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open to their cry.” They are expected to find salvation from the Lord.
And “who is he that will harm you, if,” etc. If there is safety at all, it is in acting on the peace principle. “Yielding pacifieth great offences.” “A soft answer turneth away wrath,” etc. But if we suffer, this only increases our blessedness. We shall be protected and saved if it is best. If the greater good demands patient suffering, the Christian counts it all joy to have the privilege of thus showing the power of the sustaining grace of Christ, and thus recommending the gospel as he could in no other way.
God is our refuge.
These passages, then, forbid something more than the exercise of “feelings and sentiments of hate and ill-will.” They forbid not what is improper to be done, but what it is not our province to do. And while they do not refer us to the civil ruler for protection and the vindication of our “sacred rights,” they do refer us to God for redress and give this as the reason why we should not seek it ourselves. They refer us to Him who “judgeth righteously” “who will avenge his own elect speedily.” And shall not the judge of all the earth do right? And may we not safely and confidently leave our cause in his hands? That God frequently uses wicked men and wicked rulers, too, to punish the guilty and protect the righteous is evident, as we shall soon see. But in no case are we to regard them as his representatives, except where they bear a commission direct from God.
Promises to deliver from
violence are explicit.
To me it is strange that persons can advocate faith in God “in every possible circumstance of life,” hold up Jesus Christ as a perfect Savior, made perfect through suffering, and advocate the consecration of all our “sacred rights” to Him, and then be unwilling to leave their defense in his hands. His promises to “deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also that hath no helper,” to “redeem their soul from deceit and violence” – “that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us” – “and be delivered out of the hand of our enemies,” are as full and explicit as are the promises of salvation from sin and hell.
Faith is the condition
of the promises.
Each is alike conditioned on faith in God, and the reasoning that would annihilate the one class will annihilate the other. Hence the saints of all ages, while in a state of faith, have taken God as their Refuge and their Hiding-place, here and hereafter. Their language has been “Show thy marvelous loving-kindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them who put their trust in thee, from those that rise up against them. Keep them as the apple of thine eye; hide me under the shadow of thy wings from the wicked that oppress me, from my deadly enemies who compass me about.” – Psalm 17:7-9. “The Lord is my Rock and my Fortress and my Deliverer. The God of my rock, in Him will I trust. He is my Shield and the Horn of my salvation, my High Tower and my Refuge, my Savior. Thou savest me from violence.” – 2 Samuel 22:2-3. And this salvation has been independent of their agency when they have had faith to be “saved by the Lord their God,” as in the case of Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, etc.
The case of Peter
So when Peter was thrust into prison by the “civil magistrate,” “prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him, and when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and the keepers before the door kept the prison. And behold an angel of the Lord came to him, and a light shined in the prison, and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, ‘Arise up quickly.’ And his chains fell from his hands.” – Acts 12:5-7. So also:
Paul and Silas in their prison,
Sang of Christ the Lord arisen;
And an earthquake’s arm of might,
Broke their dungeon-gates at night.[57]
So also Moses in his straits cried unto the Lord, and Israel was delivered. And
In that hour when night is calmest,
Sang he from the Hebrew Psalmist,
In a voice so sweet and clear
That one could but choose to hear,
Songs of triumph and ascriptions,
Such as reached the swart Egyptians,
When upon the Red Sea coast,
Perished Pharaoh and his host.
And the voice of his devotion
Fills one’s soul with strange emotion
For its tone by turns were glad,
Sweetly solemn, wildly sad.[58]
The Savior often reminds his disciples that their “sacred rights” will be invaded; but instead of directing them, in these circumstances, to apply to the military power for protection, He tells them that it is by patiently enduring that they shall save their souls. When He announced the voluntary sacrifice of his life which he was about to make at Jerusalem, Peter did not believe in the doctrine at all, but “took Him and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘Be it far from thee Lord. This shall not be unto thee.’ But He turned and said unto Peter, ‘Get thee behind me Satan. Thou art a scandal to me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.’ And when he had called the people with his disciples also, he said unto them all, ‘Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me, for he who desires to save his life shall lose it, but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel, the same shall save it. For what is a man profited if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul, or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul.” (See Matthew 16:21-26, Mark 8:31-38, Luke 9:22-35.)
Does this look like teaching self-defense? What is the import of this quotation, taken with the context, unless it is that a man endangers his soul by violent self-defense? And what could justify the Savior in calling Peter “Satan,” unless it is that in his love for self-defense he had shown himself a stranger to the heaven-given doctrine of self-sacrifice?
So when Peter was rebuked for using the sword in defense of his master, he was not told that that case was an exception to the general rule, that he could under ordinary circumstances use the sword, nor that he should in such cases seek help from the magistrate. No. But “Put up thy sword into its place, for all who take the sword, by the sword shall perish. Thinkest thou that I cannot immediately pray to my Father and he will instantly give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (See 2 Kings 6:17 and Daniel 7:10.) It is as if He had said, “If it were best I should be defended, God is not wanting a means. But how then shall the scripture be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” – Matthew 26:51-54.
It was hard for Peter to give up the idea of self-defense. But such were the lessons he received from his Savior, that when he was “converted,” he “strengthened his brethren” on this point. See 1 Peter 2:19-25, 3:8-18, 4:12-19, 5:10, etc.
[56] Mahan, Asa. Science of moral philosophy. Oberlin, J. M. Fitch, 1848.
[57] The Slave Singing at Midnight, a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.
[58] Ibid.