THE BIBLE AGAINST WAR

by Rev. Amos Dresser

The original text

This view of the subject is confirmed by the original.  The term translated ministers, is “liturgoi,” which according to Bloomfield, “is applied in the scriptures to the public offices of religion:  1st that of the priests and Levites under the Mosaic Law, and 2nd that of Christian ministers of every sort under the Christian dispensation.”  In every instance in the Bible, it is used religiously, not politically.  (See Hebrews 1:14 and 10:11.)  The reason then, why the Christians at Rome were to pay tribute, was because it was demanded.  The reason why they were to do it cheerfully was because the rulers whom they thus supported, were, though unwittingly, accomplishing God’s purposes.

“Render therefore to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, and honor to whom honor.”  “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things which are God’s.”

These seven verses are all that are usually urged as authority for the use of the sword.  I must say I need a commission much more definite and explicit before I can – directly in the face of many other plain injunctions – imbrue my hand in my brother’s blood.

1.  The usual construction teaches obedience to and support of all human governments, under which the Christian may be placed, as creatures of God’s appointment and approval.  This necessitates so many exceptions as to make the directions of no effect, especially when applied to the Christians at Rome, if not nugatory, they were worse than nugatory.

2.  It also teaches that God has appointed magistrates to act as avengers in his stead, and Christians are to look to them for vengeance and protection.  This is in the face of all God’s word, and of historical facts.  Here as in other places in scripture, rulers are spoken of as instruments, and not as agents.  Precisely the same expressions are used in speaking of Babylon, and other heathen nations, as are used in this chapter.  They are to be understood as teaching the same in each case, unless the context forbids it.  The context not only does not forbid the same construction, but it requires the same.  And yet God punished Babylon, Egypt, etc., his avengers upon Israel, for the very acts of violence by which Israel was chastised.  Can this be reconciled with his justice, if they were acting as his regularly appointed agents?

3.  It assumes that the sword is necessary for the protection of Christians.  God says, “I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and I will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.”  It thus overlooks the glorious truth that “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble,” and that we are to be saved from “violence” and “the hand of all that hate us,” by faith in Jesus Christ.  We have seen what kind of protection the sword has given.  If the Christian has no other, his case is indeed hopeless.  The representation of the Bible is that “by patient enduring, ye shall save your souls,” while “they who take the sword shall perish by the sword”; and it speaks of the “mighty which are gone down to hell with their weapons of war.”  - Ezekiel 32:27.  See the whole chapter.

It is not by using the sword, but from suffering by the sword, that the Christian enters the portals of heaven with his “white robes, to rest from his labors,” “where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest.” – Revelation 6:9-11.

4.  This construction is opposed to the precepts and practice of Christ, of his apostles, of the early Christians and all true reformers.  They have uniformly been subject, though they have refused to obey and support wicked rulers.  It makes Paul guilty of preaching one thing and practicing another.

5.  It does not meet the exigency of the Roman Christians to whom Paul was writing, whereas the literal construction does exactly meet their case and comports with other teachings of the Bible on the same subject.

6.  This construction does violence to the plain and literal meaning of the text, and could never have been resorted to but for the support of a pre-established theory.

7.  But lastly, this construction is at variance with the gist and marrow of the whole gospel.

“God commendeth his love to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” – Romans 5:8.  He died for all, that they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him who died for them and rose again.” – 2 Corinthians 5:15.  “For it becometh Him for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation, perfect through suffering … and having been made perfect, He became author (of the plan) of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him.” – Hebrews 2:10, 5:9.  “He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth.  He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth…  And He made his grave with the wicked, and was with the rich in his death, because He had done no violence, neither was there deceit in his mouth.” – Isaiah 53:7,9.  And beloved, “even hereunto are ye called.  ►► Because Christ also suffered for you leaving you an example that ye should follow his steps!” – 1 Peter 2:21.  “Hereby have we a true manifestation of love.  Because He hath laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our loves for the brethren.” – 1 John 3:16.  The sun, by which this dark world is to be enlightened, arose from behind the cross.  The Christian as crucified with Christ is called to reflect the same glorious light.  Self-sacrifice for another’s good, and the voluntary surrender of personal rights, in connection with faith in Jesus Christ as our refuge, is the life giving principle of the gospel.  It is this that distinguishes it from all other systems of religion.  This was the doctrine in which Paul gloried.  (2 Corinthians 12:9-10.)  This is the duty he is urging upon the church at Rome.  How tender and soul humbling his instructions:

“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, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.  Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.  Let every soul be subject to superior powers; for there is no power but of God.  Even the existing authorities are ordered (or controlled) of God, so that he, who arrays himself against the power, opposes the arrangement of God.  (And those who oppose shall receive to themselves, or by themselves, the punishment.)  For rulers are by no means the fear of good works, but of evil.  Desirest thou not to fear the power?  Do good, and thou shalt have praise of the same, for he is the minister of God to thee for good.  But if thou doest evil, fear; for not without cause does he then bear the sword; for he is God’s minister, an avenger in wrath unto him that doeth evil.”

“Hence the necessity of being subject not only on account of wrath, but even for conscience’ sake.  For the same reason also pay ye tribute.  For as God’s ministers they are constantly accomplishing his purposes.  Render therefore to all their dues – tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear (Matthew 10:28-31 and Luke 12:4-7), honor to whom honor.  You owe no one any thing, but to love one another; for he who loves another fulfills the law.  For the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not give false testimony, thou shalt not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, it is summed up in this one precept, that is Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  ►► LOVE DOES NOT INJURE A NEIGHBOR.  Therefore LOVE is the fullness of the law.  And obey this command (especially at this time), knowing that this is a critical season,[62] that it is time we were already awake from sleep, for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.  The night has advanced; the day has approached.  Let us therefore lay aside the works of darkness, and let us put on the whole armor of light (Ephesians 6:10-18).  As in daylight, (when all are looking at us) let us walk becomingly, not in revels and intemperance, not in adultery and licentiousness, nor in contention and strife.  But ►► put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the body, to gratify its lusts.”  ►► See James 4:1.

The conclusion of Romans 13

We find then that the thirteenth chapter of Romans is in harmony with other parts of the Bible.  Interpreted in the light of the context, the circumstances that called it forth, and by parallel passages, it not only does not give authority for the use of the sword, but it positively forbids its use.  It is not only not a stronghold for the advocate of war, but it is a stronghold for the advocate of peace; we need no stronger.  The apostle, instead of teaching us to use the sword, is urging “passive submission,” or the patient enduring of evils resulting from its use.

Objection: “Christ commanded
his disciples to buy swords.” –
Luke 22:38.

With an air of triumph it is asked, “Why purchase swords if forbidden to use them?”  An important inquiry, I admit.  But in turn permit me to ask, “If designed for use, how could two suffice for the whole?”  Yet when they say, “Here are two swords,” the Lord replies, “It is enough.”  Is this being “armed and equipped as the law directs?”  Were some favored two to be selected as bodyguards for the twelve?  Or were they each in turn to use them till exhausted, then rest while his fellow was doing execution?

But laying aside all pleasantries, let us meet the question candidly.  The Savior does all things wisely, and has good reasons for this, as well as for all of the other things he does, whether we see them or not.  A careful examination of the context presents, I think, at least one good reason – one consistent with all his previous teaching and future practice.  The peculiar circumstances in which he was placed offered an excellent opportunity for giving lessons to be long remembered.  It was on the eve of his crucifixion, just after courageous Peter had “pledged his life and sacred honor” in defense of his Master.  “I am ready to go with thee both into prison and to death!”

No doubt his heart beat with martial joy as they were enjoined to sell their garments and buy swords.  He hastened to show his loyalty, and swords were presented.  Of the two we know Peter had one, possibly unbelieving Thomas had the other.  Judas had previously left, or we should naturally expect to find it with him.

Sword in hand, impatient for the onset, Peter inquired, “Lord, whither goest Thou?  I will lay down my life for Thy sake.”  The Savior instituted “the Lord’s Supper,” and, while at the table, unburdened his heart in part, adding, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.”  Then, leading them forth to Gethsemane, He took the favored Peter, James, and John, and went apart for special prayer.  While in the agony of his soul he cried, “O my Father!  If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.”  The courageous Peter was sleeping upon his sword, and heeded not the repeated warnings to “watch and pray,” lest he enter into temptations.  Soon an approaching mob was announced.  This roused Peter and he rushed forth to the rescue, struck with the sword, looked for his Master’s approval, and found the compassionate Jesus healing the wound he himself had made!

Did he say to Peter, “This is a peculiar case.  It behooves me to suffer.  Ordinarily, when thou art attacked by ruffians, or thy family is in danger, protect them, and stand for your rights!”  Nothing of this, but, “Put up thy sword into its place.  He that taketh the sword shall perish with the sword.  Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” – Matthew 26:52-53.  This shows that in the most extreme case it is neither safe nor Christ-like to trust in the sword.  So Peter understood it, but neither he nor the other disciples had yet learned how to overcome evil with good; and finding they could “do nothing,” that is, that they could not fight, the “all forsook Him and fled.”  But however ignorant they then were, when taught of the Holy Spirit, they preached and practiced nonresistance, alleging that to this they were “called, because Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps.”  – 1 Peter 2:20-21.  Hence we find Christ wished them to obtain a sword that He might have an opportunity to forbid its use under circumstances that would never be forgotten.

Another passage referred to is John 11:15, where Christ uses his scourge of small cords.  From our translation it is naturally enough supposed that the Savior drove from the temple men, cattle sheep, and fowls en masse.  But the Greek gives no such idea at all.  The original reads thus: “He drove all from the temple, that is, the sheep and the oxen … and said to them that sold doves, “Take these things hence.’”  He addressed the men in language that they understood, and gave them a scourge more effectual than small cords.

Albert Barnes in his “notes” on this passage has the following: “This whip was made as an emblem of authority, and also for the purpose of driving from the temple the cattle which had been brought there for sale.  There is no evidence that he used any violence to any of the men engaged in that unhallowed traffic.”

Objection: “God is
called a man of war.”

Not for our imitation, but for our defense; as our “Avenger.”  The phrase is found in the song of Moses after the notable deliverance from Pharaoh, and has the same meaning as the parallel passage in the context – “The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.  Fear ye not; stand still and see the salvation of the Lord.” – Exodus 14-15.

Objection: “God did give
positive commands to fight.”

He also commanded them to go into captivity.  At first He commanded them to “stand still and see the salvation of Jehovah;” to follow the pillar of fire and cloud for protection.  This was God’s plan which they rejected, so He sent them according to the “stubbornness of their hearts, and bade them walk according to their own plan.”  (See Psalm 81.)  They rejected the statutes and judgments by which they might live, so he gave them “statutes that were not good and judgments by which they should not live.” – Ezekiel 20.  They refused to comply with the condition on which He had promised to shield and protect them.  Hence He said, “Ye shall know my breach of promise,” or as it reads in the margin, “the altering of my purpose.”

Objection: “David is said to be
a man after God’s own heart,
and yet he was a man of war.”

This was said of David while he “followed the flock,” not after he became a man of war.  See 1 Chronicles 22:7-10.

Objection: Again, it is urged
that war is not inconsistent
with Christianity because
Cornelius “the centurion,”
and “a solder” under him
are called “devout.”

“Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” – James 2:25.  “By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.” – Hebrews 2:31.  See also Joshua 2:1 and 6:17.  But does this prove that licentiousness was consistent with Christianity?!  Simon is also called the “leper” (Matthew 26:6) and Matthew the “publican” (Matthew 10:3) to designate their former conditions or occupation.  So also we hear of Captain A, Colonel B, and General C, not because they are now to be seen in their regimentals, but as once they filled these offices, they still retain the name.  Persons would be horror-stricken at the idea of having harlots in the church.  This is as it should be, and shows a proper estimate of the guilt of that sin.  We have only to acquaint ourselves with the abominations of war, and we find it as incongruous with Christianity as licentiousness, and if possible even more so.

────

These are the main reasons given as authority for taking the life of man in war.  We ask, are they sufficient?  True, we may use the sword – but it is “the sword of the Spirit.”  We may fight “the good fight of faith.”  We may war “a good warfare, as good soldiers of Jesus Christ.”  But our battle is to be bloodless.  We are to conquer enmity by love.  Then let us be “strong in the Lord and in the power of his might.  Let us put on the whole armor of God, that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.  Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked, and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.”

────

Peace, with her olives crowned, shall stretch
Her wings from shore to shore;
No trump shall rouse the rage of war,
Nor murderous cannon roar.

Lord, for those days we wait – those days
Are in thy word foretold.
Fly swifter, sun and stars, and bring
This promised age of gold.[63]

[62] Translation of Dr. Bloomfield.

[63] The Latter Day, a hymn by Thomas Gibbons.