War Inconsistent with the Religion of Jesus Christ

by David Low Dodge

The question to be decided is whether these regulations are still in force, or whether they were disannulled by the gospel dispensation. The life and precepts of our Lord and his disciples while under the unerring guidance of his spirit must be our only authority in this inquiry. That many things were done away by the gospel dispensation, none will deny who believe the gospel. The ceremonial part, which was only a shadow of good things to come, vanished away when the substance appeared; and not only the ceremonial part was abolished, but many other practices. Polygamy was permitted under the law, but forbidden under the gospel. Divorce was allowed under the Mosaic but prohibited under the gospel dispensation, except in the case of adultery. Under the Mosaic dispensation the penalty for whoredom was stoning to death. This penalty was not enforced under the gospel dispensation, as may be seen in John viii. 11. That all kinds of war, revenge, and fighting were utterly prohibited under the gospel dispensation we think appears evident not only from the life of our glorious Mediator but from his express precepts. “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.” No comment can add force to this passage, for it is apprehended that no language can be more explicit against defensive war.

In Christ’s Sermon on the Mount he quoted a passage from Exodus, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whatsoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” The force of this passage has generally been obviated by saying that we are not to take all the words of our Lord literally. Although this is admitted, yet we are absolutely bound to take the spirit of every word, if we can understand them, by comparing the Scriptures with the Scriptures. That the spirit of this passage is directly opposed to the one our Lord quoted from Exodus, we think cannot fairly be denied; and, of course, it disannulled it, for he who had power to make laws under one dispensation had power to abrogate them under another.

The blessed Mediator did, in the most explicit manner, command his subjects to love their enemies and render good for evil. This command we are of opinion is totally incompatible with resisting them with carnal weapons. He says, “But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.” Let us for one moment compare this precept with defensive war and see if it can consistently be put into practice. Suppose our country is invaded and a professed disciple of the Prince of Peace buckles on the harness and takes the field to repel by the point of the sword his enemy. He advances amidst the lamentations of the wounded and the shrieks of the dying to meet his foe in arms. He sees his wrath kindled and his spear uplifted, and in this trying moment he hears his Lord say, “Love your enemy and render to him good for evil”; and his kindness to him is like Joab’s to Amasa; he thrusts him through the heart and hurries him to the awful tribunal of his Judge, probably unprepared. Dear brethren, be not deceived; for God is not mocked. Who amongst our fellow-men would receive the thrust of a sword as an act of kindness? Only let conscience do its office, and there will be no difficulty in deciding whether defensive war is inconsistent with the gospel dispensation or not. Carnal and spiritual weapons will no more unite under the gospel dispensation than iron and miry clay.

Our very salvation depends on being possessed of a spirit of forgiveness to enemies. “If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” If men invade our rights and trespass upon our privileges, is it forgiveness to repel them at the point of the bayonet? The honest Christian will find no difficulty in conscientiously deciding this question, notwithstanding he may be slow of heart in believing all that is written.

All the conduct of our Lord had meaning to it, and much of it was with an express view to teach his disciples by way of example. A little before he was betrayed, he ordered his disciples to take swords. The object of this must have been either to use them for defense, or for some other purpose. The event proves that they were not taken for self-defense. The question then is, For what were they taken? The event appears fully to answer the question, viz.: To prohibit, by way of example, the use of them for self-defense in the most trying situation possible. If any situation would justify self-defense with carnal weapons, it must have been the situation in which our Lord and his disciples were placed at the time he was betrayed. They were in a public garden, and they were assaulted by a mob, contrary to the statutes of the Romans and the laws of the Jews; and the object was to take his life. This the disciples knew, and Peter judged it a proper time for defense, and drew his sword and smote a servant of the High Priest and cut off his ear. As our Lord’s kingdom was not of this world, he would not suffer his subjects to use the weapons of this world in any situation. He therefore healed the wound they made and rebuked Peter for his mistaken zeal. “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my Father, and he would presently send me more than twelve legions of angels?” Here we see that our Lord not only forbade his disciples to use the sword in self-defense, but added a dreadful penalty to transgressors,—“all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” The disciples did not then fully understand that his kingdom was not of this world. As soon as they were prohibited using the weapons of this world they all forsook him and fled.[8]

The apostle James, in his epistle to the twelve tribes of Israel which were scattered abroad, asks them this question: “From whence come wars and fighting among you? come they not even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, and yet ye have not.” “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend to the world is an enemy of God.” From this we think it evidently appears that the warlike spirit of the world is directly opposed to God. The God of this world works effectually in the hearts of the children of disobedience and stirs up their lusts which war in their members and hurries them on to acts of cruelty, revenge, and fighting.

This subject is of so much practical consequence that it requires a few observations in reply to some of the arguments of worldly and unenlightened Christians in favor of using carnal weapons. It is said that government is an ordinance of God which exists throughout his vast dominion. In heaven above there are angels and archangels; and upon earth there are magistrates and powers; and in hell there is the prince of devils. That God in his holy providence has so disposed of events that governments of some kind or other do exist in all parts of his dominion, none but skeptics will deny. But who would pretend that the governments in heaven and hell are not diametrically opposite? One is the spirit of peace and love, and the other, rebellion and war. Perhaps the manifestation of these different spirits here on earth may fairly be the dividing line amongst its inhabitants, and show to which kingdom they belong. They say all powers are ordained of God. Thus far they are correct, but it is apprehended that they do not make a proper distinction between the ordination of God and his preceptive will for man. So far as the former agrees with the latter, it is a rule of duty and cannot be any further. One is the rule of God’s own procedure (if the expression is proper), and the other the rule of action for his creatures; but the counsel of God and his laws for man are often diametrically opposite. It is not improbable that this is part of the mystery of God which will, by and by, be finished.

The Lord Jesus Christ was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God; and yet, by wicked hands, he was crucified and slain. Here, as in the case of Pharaoh, and many other instances recorded, the divine counsel and the duty of man were directly opposite. To ascertain our duty we must look at the preceptive will of God and not to his eternal counsel. Although all powers are ordained of God, yet it must not be inferred that all the laws of the heathen or civilized world are to be a rule of duty for the Mediator’s subjects, or that their spirit is agreeable to the spirit of the gospel dispensation. It is said, We are commanded to obey magistrates and every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake. All this is admitted. But these injunctions are either limited by other precepts or they are unlimited. If they are unlimited, then all who have died martyrs fell a sacrifice to superstition instead of duty. Notwithstanding these directions were intended as a rule for Christians in all ages, yet they were promulgated while the disciples were under idolatrous governments, and were never intended to encourage them to worship idols.

These commands must, therefore, be limited. The question is, How are they limited? We apprehend, by the spirit and other precepts of the gospel. We have already shown, we trust, that these absolutely prohibit war in every form. If so, then none of these injunctions can counteract the position we are examining. They only enjoin strict obedience to all human laws under which we live that do not contradict the spirit or precepts of the gospel; when they do, they are not binding and must be resisted; not, however, with carnal but spiritual weapons; we must take joyfully the spoiling of our goods and count not our lives dear unto ourselves.

It has been often said that he who refuses to comply with the commands of the magistrate resists the powers that be, and, according to the apostle’s reasoning, resists the ordinance of God and will receive to himself damnation. And, further, as all powers are the ordinance of God they ought to be supported, and if they cannot without, they must be even at the point of, the sword. Here the subject of the Mediator must make a distinction between resisting the “powers that be” by force of arms and refusing to obey their unlawful commands. It is not supposed that in one case he would obey and that in the other he would disobey the commands of his Master. No martyr ever considered himself as violating this precept in refusing to sacrifice to an idol at the command of an earthly power; neither will any subject of the Mediator view himself as violating it by refusing to use carnal weapons while he believes that his Lord has utterly forbidden his using them. It is apprehended that if this proves anything upon the principles of war, that it will prove too much for its advocates. The command is to obey the powers that be and not the powers that ought to be. If it is taken in an unlimited sense, it must prohibit resisting even tyrannical powers, and would, of course, condemn every Christian who engaged in the American Revolution. To say that all power is in the hands of the people, and, of course, it is the people who are the powers that be, is thought to be but a quibble. We will suppose a very possible case,—that a foreign power completely overturns the government of the people and disannuls their laws and gives a new code; in that case, the command to obey the powers that be would not be annihilated. The precept originally was given while the disciples were in the midst of tyrannical governments. It is thought that it is so far from tolerating defensive war that it is opposed to it. The precepts of the gospel cannot be dependent upon the convulsions of the nations. If Christians are bound to aid with carnal weapons in suppressing a rebellion, then, if the opposing power gains the predominance, they must turn directly about and fight the very power they were before supporting. Such conduct would not become the citizens of Zion. If it is said the powers that be are Christian rulers, then we say, let them govern only by the laws of the Mediator’s kingdom, and we will bow with reverence before them, and not teach for commandments the doctrines of men, as we cannot receive human laws for divine precepts.