War Inconsistent with the Religion of Jesus Christ

by David Low Dodge

Answer. The inspired Proverbs are maxims of wisdom illustrated, for the most part, by some familiar subject that existed at the time they were delivered. The object here is not to inculcate the lawfulness of war but the necessity of sound wisdom in relation to the actions of men; and the subject of war appears to be introduced merely to illustrate this idea. The counsel and wisdom of men in relation to their temporal and worldly concerns are often worthy of imitation in reference to spiritual things; for the children of this world are, in some sense, wiser in their generation than the children of light, and the conduct of worldly men is often very appropriately introduced to illustrate Christian duty. Our Lord says, “What king, going to war with another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?” Doubtless our Lord’s design was to warn people to count the cost before they professed to be followers of him, that they might not be deceived and discouraged, and that they might act from principle and not from hypocrisy. But he inculcated these things by referring to the example of kings in their consultations about war. And it is believed that the passages before cited are of similar import. These references to war, being introduced merely for the illustration of other subjects, will no more prove the lawfulness of war than the reference of the apostle to the Olympic games, for illustration, will prove the lawfulness of those heathen feats. But if this explanation should not be satisfactory, it may be observed that the Proverbs were written under the Old Testament economy which tolerated offensive as well as defensive war; whence it does not appear that any war can be undertaken under the present dispensation, “by wise counsel,” except that which is spiritual; so that if the ancient was typical of the new dispensation, then the passages quoted will now apply only to spiritual warfare.

Objection eighth. When the soldiers demanded of John the Baptist what they should do, one of the directions which he gave them was to be content with their wages. If their occupation had been unlawful, then he would not have directed them to be contented with the wages of wickedness.

Answer. John the Baptist was under the Mosaic economy, the new dispensation not having commenced. He was but the forerunner of the Lord, a herald to sound his approach. But he gave the soldiers another direction, viz., to “do violence to no man,” obedience to which is totally incompatible with war, as that is nothing else but violence. Only hinder soldiers from doing violence to any man and you stop at once the whole progress of war; therefore, if the directions of John are insisted on as gospel authority, they will prove, probably, much more against the lawfulness of war than in favor of it.

Objection ninth. The Centurion and Cornelius were Christians and soldiers and highly approved of God for their faith and piety; nor were they directed by Christ or his apostles to renounce their profession; therefore the profession of arms is not inconsistent with Christian duty.

Answer. They were first soldiers and then Christians; and we have no evidence that they continued in the profession of arms; nor are we warranted to say that they were not directed to renounce that profession, as the Scriptures are silent on the subject. Peter, it appears, tarried a number of days with Cornelius, and he doubtless explained to him the spirit and precepts of the gospel; and it is very probable that neither Cornelius nor the Centurion continued soldiers in any other sense than they were soldiers of Christ, as the idolatrous rites enjoined on the Roman soldiers were totally inconsistent with the Christian character, aside from the unlawfulness of war itself. Besides, the Roman soldiers were as often engaged in offensive as in defensive war; therefore, if the argument has any force on the question, it will tolerate not only defensive but offensive war, and also the idolatrous rites of the Roman armies.

Objection tenth. Our Lord paid tribute money, which went to support military power, but he would not contribute to the support of a wicked thing, therefore war is not inconsistent with Christianity.

Answer. A distinguished trait of the Christian religion is peace. The command is, “Follow peace with all men.” “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”

Our Lord set the example of giving no just cause of offense to any. Tribute was demanded of him unjustly according to the existing laws, but lest fault should be found, he wrought a miracle and paid it. Money is a temporal thing, and belongs to the governments of this world, as the various coins bear the ensign of the nation by whom they were made; but the Christian’s treasure is not in this world, and when the rulers of this world call for that which bears their own image and superscription, Christians have no right to withhold from them their dues, for they must “render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s.” For this cause they ought to pay tribute and resign up temporal things without a murmur to temporal governments, and leave it with Cæsar to manage the things of Cæsar. Thus far are Christians warranted to act, from the example of Christ and the precepts of the gospel; but how does the lawfulness of war follow from Christians rendering to Cæsar his due? Is it because some of the money goes to support war? Probably, of the money which our Lord paid as much went to the support of idolatry and the games of the day as to the support of war. Now if the argument is sound, we may not only prove by it the lawfulness of war but the lawfulness of idolatry and many other abominable things practiced by the heathen governments.

Objection eleventh. Our Lord, just before his crucifixion, commanded his disciples to take swords, and, if any were destitute, to sell their garments and procure them, as they would no longer have his personal presence to protect them; and as they were to encounter great trials and difficulties, they must, besides relying on providence, take all prudent means for their defense and preservation.

Answer. That our Lord did not direct them to take swords for self-defense is evident because he told them that two were enough, and because the disciples never made any use of them after their Master directed Peter to put up his and pronounced a penalty on all who should have recourse to swords afterwards. But the design seems to have been to show by example in the most trying situation where self-defense was justifiable, if in any case, that the use of the sword was utterly prohibited under the gospel economy, and to show the criminality and danger of ever using deathly weapons against mankind afterwards. If Christ’s kingdom had been of this world, then, he tells us, his servants would have fought; but his kingdom being not of this world, the weapons of their warfare were not carnal but spiritual. He therefore rebuked them for their mistaken zeal, healed the wound they made, and forbade the use of the sword.