THE
CHRISTIAN RELATION
TO THE
STATE
AND TO WAR
By G. H.
LANG.
-------
1 THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE
At the present time, with
warlike preparations so general among the nations, the minds of many younger Christians
are much exercised as to the proper attitude and action of a follower of
Christ. Not much lead is given by
many older brethren. It was not
during the Great Wars, and what was given was in opposite directions. Yet it should be said that, as regards
public ministry on the subject, there is no example of this in the New
Testament; the topic is not openly or directly mentioned, so that a teacher
would need to be very sure in his mind that it was his duty to expound it
publicly. It is a further consequence
from this reticence in the Word that no bondage can be rightly laid upon any
conscience in the matter. One
marvels that a Christian should ever feel free of his own will to join the
forces of destruction; and one can respect the brother who feels a real
difficulty in refusing obedience to the law when service is compulsory: but in
either case there can be no New Testament authority for reproving one who so
acts as if he were an evil doer. It
must be from personal conviction that a man takes the strong ground of
declining a task to which the law orders him.
And the onus of justifying such
refusal lies upon the one refusing, for the general rule of the Word of God is
that the Christian is to obey the powers that be. Hence the need that a brother shall have
reasons from the New Testament at least as clear and emphatic as the general
command to obey. But of course it
is only the spiritual mind that can be expected to appreciate these reasons or
feel their force. Yet in truth it
must be admitted that the world really, at heart, scarcely
needs such reasons. It is a usual
thing for worldly men, if they know anything at all about Christ, to admit in
moments of frankness that a true follower of Jesus ought to take the path of
refusal. They know and feel that
Christ would not have been coerced into the business of slaughter.
When J. N. Darby, at the time of
the Franco-Prussian war, was asked as to this matter, he replied to the effect
that God gives us in Christ a new centre; that these things of the world moved
him no more; that he felt and knew himself to be outside of them. His letter is quoted in full in chapter 6. The heart that thus knows itself as
having been actually transferred from one moral realm into another will have no
difficulty in understanding this remark or in discerning its own course. It will be as real and simple to him
that he cannot fight for the kingdoms of the world as it would be plain to a
German by birth that he could not further fight for
But it is of vast importance to
be able to state distinctly the true ground of our position and action. It is given in 1 Cor. 1:
9 in words that cover the entire range of Christian life and work:
“God is faithful, through whom ye were called
into the fellowship of His Son Jesus
Christ our Lord.” It
follows that whatever is at any time the business of our Lord is at that time
the business of His followers, and whatever at any time is not His work is not
our work. At present Christ is not
governing the world, not even invisibly, nor administering its judicial
affairs: He is waiting patiently at
the right hand of God until the time foreseen of the Father shall have come
when His enemies are to be made the footstool of His feet (Ps. 110: 1), and the application of these words to
Him after His ascension shows that this attitude continues in this age (Acts 2: 34: Heb. 1: 13).
A day
will come when He will leave the throne of the Father and come to the earth and
will “in righteousness judge and make war,”
though not with carnal weapons, but by His word (Rev.
19: 11; Zech. 14. 1- 15); and at that time His saints also will judge
the world and angels (1 Cor.
6: 2, 3). When their Lord
changes His attitude and office they will do the same, for they are called into
fellowship with Him; but until He does this they should not, and for the same
reason, that they are called into fellowship with Him. This is the reason why saints in the
very end-days cry out for vengeance on their murderers (Rev. 6. 9-11); it is not that they belong to a different class
of believers, but that the dealings of God with men have altered from
forbearance to judgment, and they are in fellowship with His mind in the
matter.
As long,
therefore, as Christ continues to be the executor of the grace of God this is
the business of His people. It is really a more difficult office thoroughly to
discharge than is the work of vengeance, and at various times Christians have
suffered more terribly for their faithfulness to Christ and to this office than
even the miseries of war would have imposed upon them. Thus it may well be again before this
evil age ends, and their trials with it, at the descent of their Lord.
And of course
consistency demands that he whose conscience forbids him to mangle another
man’s body with a bayonet should riot earn his own living by making
bayonets. Making shells does not
differ in principle from firing guns.
When the Lord was among men He
refused point blank to act as a judge in as civil case (Luke 12: 13, 14) and avoided the task in a criminal case (John
8). It was not that it was not
right that an estate should be justly divided, or that the law of God against
crime should be righteously enforced, but it was not the business upon which
Christ had been sent into the world by God at that time. Similarly we are
far from saying with anarchists that the administration of justice is not
proper: of course it is most proper and indispensable, it is a distinct and salutary appointment of
God; “the powers that exist are ordained of God”
(
Plainly these considerations
apply with direct force to the matter of war. As far as a war is an instance of human
greed and unrighteousness (which, alas, has been usually the case), it is clear
that a Christian ought not to support it; as far as it is associated with
deceit, barbarity, and vice, it is certainly no sphere for a child of the holy
God: but even viewed on its ideal side, as a species of international justice,
part of the governmental rule by which God punishes godless persons and
nations, then we say, as above, that it is not a work that is yet undertaken by
Him into Whose fellowship we have been called by God as the exclusive and
regulating fact of our life.
Therefore we do not with some
say that all war is inherently and necessarily wrong, for we recognize that God
has ordered wars, overruled them, and is Himself
described as Jehovah of hosts and as a Man of War. We do not urge with others that killing
is always sinful, for God ordained capital punishment for certain gross
offences, and Himself has passed on all sin the sentence of death. We say that all this is not the present
business of the associate of the Lord Jesus Christ, for it is not as yet His business. On the contrary, His work and our work
is to tell and to show that God wishes that all men should be saved, that He
waits to be gracious, is long-suffering, ready to forgive, and delights in
mercy. In pursuance of this it is
our task and risk to be patient, forgiving, loving to our enemies, and in short
to have and to display all those qualities which men call, or rather miscall,
the “weaker” virtues, and which, in
their nature and exercise, of necessity unfit a man for the cruel work of war,
yet are in fact, in such a world as this, far harder to show and more dangerous
to exercise. Our Lord said explicitly that He had not come to judge the world
but to save the world, by forfeiting His life for His foes. This is the opposite of war, whether viewed
ideally or in the dread reality (John 3: 17; 12. 47:
etc.).
In consequence of this relation
to Christ we know and feel ourselves
to belong no further to the system of this world of men out of harmony with,
God and His Son. “We are not of the world, even as He is not:” we
are distinctly commanded, in unequivocal language, not to be yoked with an
unbeliever (2 Cor. 6. 14
- 7: 1), and of all yokes the military, by reason of the dread
exigencies of the situation, is of necessity the most rigid and severe. A yoke is an instrument that compels two
creatures to move together and do the same work. The unbeliever in Christ cannot do the work of the believer as defined
above, and therefore the believer, if yoked with him, must go the way of and do
the works of the unbeliever, however contrary to the mind of God. It is thus that so many Christians that
have served in war have lost their testimony to Christ.
A one-time officer of the old
German Imperial Staff, a Christian, urged to me that he used to pray over his
activities. He narrated how he had
been enabled completely to wipe out a band of brigands, without the loss of one
of his men, and thought that to be an answer to prayer, and so far an
endorsement of his position and actions.
I answered that it might very well be that he had been helped of God in
such an affair, but that it was not Christian work. In that manner
David had cried to God about his battles and had received divine guidance and
aid; but that it was all foreign to the present business of Christ, and so of
His followers. It was not that it
was in itself ungodly, but it was
not Christian.
In view of this position and
line of conduct it becomes of the very essence of the matter that a Christian
shall be one, not in theory only, but in the deep, experimental realization of
his soul. He must know and feel
these things to be the actual present state of his heart Christward. He must be walking in a humble but
practical separation from this world, its politics, its trade societies, its
pleasure clubs, and so forth. He
must have his heart consciously full of that love of God which is toward all
men equally, and which therefore makes it an outrage of the deepest instinct of
his soul that he should slaughter, or in any lesser degree injure, any
man. He must be in the power of the
fact that he is a member of the family and the
Each of us should therefore
search his heart before God as to its actual spiritual state, for only such as
know the power of the truth, wrought into the soul’s affections by the
Spirit, will be able to endure unto the end the lot of those who walk in
fellowship with the Despised and Rejected of men. The first need is for each disciple to
believe, and to learn by experience through faith,
that the Captain of Jehovah’s hosts is El Shaddai,
the God who is enough.
2 THE
GROUND OF AND LIMIT OF OBEDIENCE
It is not surprising that some
see in 1 Peter 2: 13 a difficulty in the way
of disobeying the law; for “Be subject to every
ordinance of man” is a wide expression which, taken superficially,
seems not to allow any liberty of disobedience to constituted authority. But several considerations show that
this is not really so.
1. The word
“ordinance” is not a strict translation, and also is itself
ambiguous. It means something that
is ordained; and while laws that rulers make are somewhat that is ordained, so
also, and equally so, is the office of the ruler. Of these two meanings it is the latter
that is here intended, as the next clauses show: “Be subject to every human ordinance ...
whether to the king ... or unto governors as
sent by him”. It does
not say, whether to statutes by rulers or orders by governors. This may be seen in Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, where it
is expressly pointed out that it is not the laws that are in view but the
offices instituted for good government.
The R.V. margin gives the correct rendering as “creation”, something created, which can be used
of an office or institution, but not of a law. We speak of creating a government
department or post, but not of creating a law or rule. The verse therefore teaches subjection
to every rank of rightly appointed ruler, but not a blind obedience to every
order they may give.
2. And this is implied of
necessity in the accompanying reason for obedience. Obedience is to be rendered “for the Lord’s sake:” that is, as a proof
that Christ does not allow His subjects to be revolutionaries, a danger to
rulers or to society. But suppose a
case that has, alas, frequently occurred, that a king orders a private
assassination: how could a Christian obey such a command “for the Lord’s sake”? What honour would come to the Lord by
such a deed? Was God glorified when
Joab obeyed king David, and
arranged the death of Uriah? On the contrary God showed His great
displeasure by avenging the deed to the end of David’s life (2 Sam. 11 and 12). Thus the reason for the subjection
creates its own limit thereof.
3. The attitude of Holy
Scripture is that “there is no authority but of
God” (
(a) That those who own the
supreme authority of God submit to lower authorities that He appoints or
permits, for they will not fight against God. Thus the Son of God submitted without
strife to the unrighteous and illegal acts of Pilate against Himself, for He
would not contend against that which God allowed (John
19: 11; 18: 11). So the duty
of the follower of Christ is obedience, even though he must suffer much thereby. But this is passive submission to wrong,
not active co-operation in doing evil.
(b) It also follows that the
lower authority must act, and can claim obedience only so long as it acts, within
the limits and for the purposes that the higher authority has commissioned it,
which in this case is defined as “for vengeance
on evil doers and for praise to them that do well” (1 Pet. 2: 14, and Rom.
13: 3, 4). Therefore if a
ruler commands deeds which encourage evil-doing he forfeits claim to
obedience. No subordinate authority
may do or order acts that are ultra vires, that is, beyond the powers delegated to it. For example, if in this country a court
of petty sessions were to order a man to be hanged, the hangman would have a
duty to disobey the order, that court having no legal right to make it, nor he to obey it.
These considerations show that
no ruler other than the Most High Himself may claim absolutely unlimited
obedience. Nor can an individual
claim exemption from the penalty of a criminal act on the plea that a superior
had ordered it, for the one had no right to give, nor the other to obey such an
order.
There is therefore a general
duty to obey, but it is limited on occasion by a particular duty not to
obey. The doctrine that the individual is to be deemed as merged into the
State, so that whatever the State demands becomes his duty irrespective of its
moral nature, is deeply immoral, ungodly, and is to be resisted unto death. The separate, inalienable responsibility
of each individual to God direct is heavily emphasized in Scripture. So then “each one of us shall give
account of himself to God:”
“each one shall receive the things done through the body:”
“they were judged every man according to their works”
(Rom. 14: 12; 2 Cor. Cor. 5: 10: Rev. 20: 13). This is inevadable, and it applies to
many acts of deceit or violence unavoidable in war.
It becomes therefore a matter
for careful discrimination as to the exact point on each occasion where the
general duty to obey must yield to the particular duty to disobey. And, as was above remarked, the duty to
justify disobedience rests on him who disobeys. Here no one may decide for his neighbour
or condemn the other for not acting as he may act. But this does not hinder the privilege
and duty to seek to enlighten or to persuade another.
Several situations will arise:-
1. Where a ruler is enforcing a
command of the Word of God applicable to a given circumstance he is, of course,
to be obeyed without question.
2. When a ruler is exercising a Divinely given right he is to be obeyed. The
best instance is that of taxes.
The office of government being ideally for the good of the governed it is equitable that these should bear the
expense of it (
3. But this instance is valuable
by including elements which might easily raise questions for a Christian
conscience. In the New Testament
time, as since, taxes might be employed for ends plainly obnoxious to the
Christian, such as the support of heathen temples, which included false worship
and gross immorality, or for the bloody conquest of unoffending peoples. But the responsibility for the misuse of
taxes rested upon those who used the money, not on those who paid the
taxes. The governing principle is
that otherwise applied in 1 Cor.
10: 25-28, even that questions of conscience
are not to be sought or forced.
They must affect the individual directly, not remotely. And it will follow from this, as well as
from the general duty to obey, and from the responsibility to justify
disobedience resting on the subject, that in any case of doubt the individual
must submit to the authority. The
duty to disobey must be clear, not obscure or doubtful.
4. But there have constantly
arisen, and will still arise, cases in which the duty to disobey is
unmistakable. The Word of God
everywhere provides for this unhappy contingency and gives guiding cases. The fundamental principle is stated
plainly by Christ, that while we must render to Caesar the things that are
Caesar’s, we must still more render unto God the things that are
God’s (Matt. 22: 21); and again by the
apostle of Christ: “We must obey God rather than
men” (Acts 5: 29), whenever
their orders clash. Yet the clash
must be evident, not imaginary.
The instances of disobedience
are clear and full of guidance:-
(1) The king of
(2) Herod the king ordered the
massacre of all the baby boys of a small town. The reputed father of Jesus was divinely
instructed how to frustrate the intention of the king. Would any heart blame one of those
outraged mothers for seeking to defeat the king and save her babe? (Matt. 2)
Thus at the beginning of each
Testament stands a God-commended instance of deliberate disobedience to
authority, when the authorities were wrongly using their power. A king has a Divinely
given duty to execute certain criminals: he has no right to order murder and
massacre. War for national revenge
or aggrandisement is ungodly, unwarranted, ultra
vires from the Divine standpoint, since God has
given no general sanction thereto.
That God overrules wars for the
punishment of the wicked does not lessen the wickedness of the rulers that
inflict these horrors, but seals their own subsequent doom. This is clearly shown in Isa. 10: 5-34, especially verse
12, following verse 6. God moves the king of Assyria against
His wicked people
(3) The supreme monarch of his
time, Nebuchadnezzar, ordered a co-ordinated, universal State worship. Religion
was to be an adjunct of the State, worship was to be in form prescribed by
authority. This is to be noted, for
it is a general attitude of rulers that religion is to be subservient to their
power and ends. The principle has
been asserted again to-day in several European countries, and many Christians
have suffered for refusing the submission demanded.
The three Hebrews
uncompromisingly refused obedience, and they are set forth in Scripture as
conspicuous examples of faithfulness to God in so refusing (Dan. 2).
Precisely the same issue
confronted Daniel under Darius (chapter 6);
he took precisely the same course as his friends had done; and he was signally
owned of God in his disobedience to the king.
The very apostles who lay down
so positively the general duty of obedience to rulers were themselves often in
prison for refusing this obedience in the realm of matters religious, though in
no other realm. They were most
definitely forbidden by the responsible rulers to preach in the name of Christ;
they as definitely persisted in doing so, in spite of their own general
principle of obedience. There have
been periods when it was by law a capital offence to be a Christian. To have submitted would have been
apostasy from Christ and rebellion against the command of God that men are to
believe on His Son (John 6: 29: 1 John 3: 23).
The grand principle underlying
and demanding this resolute opposition to authority is that of ultra vires mentioned
above. God has given no authority
whatever to rulers in the sphere of the relations of His creature man to
Himself, the Creator. In this realm
the ruler is a trespasser, and no trespasser can plead right of law for his
trespass and acts connected with it, for the trespass is itself contrary to
law. Nor can he complain if those
he would wrong by his trespass refuse to assent to his claim to do his will and
to command their submission to his unlawful proceedings.
These instances and considerations
suffice to establish that 1 Peter 2: 13 lays
down no unlimited duty of obedience to rulers but asserts only that general
principle of obedience which is, however, subject to very definite and
important and far-reaching exceptions.
Such unlimited obedience can only be given at the cost of rendering unto
Caesar the things that are God’s, a far more serious offence than not
rendering to Caesar the things that are his, for to rob God is more heinous
than to rob man.
The outcome is that when a ruler
commands what is contrary (a) to a plain command of God or of Christ, (b) to
morality, (c) to justice, or (d) when he trespasses into the realm of religion,
he has forthwith no claim to obedience, but it is rather the duty of the
subject to disobey; yet not actively resisting, but simply enduring the
penalties the ruler may inflict, even unto death.
The application of these
principles to the Christian and war has been already made.
In the sphere of religion the
subject should decline all discussion and negotiation with authorities. To negotiate admits that both parties
have some rights, which are matter for adjustment. This is to deny the only true and
consistent and strong position that the State has no rights in this realm, so
that no discussion is admissible.
3. SOME
OBJECTIONS
It is an important principle
that if a fact or belief has been once established by sufficient evidence, no
objections can overthrow it; because in such case belief rests upon knowledge,
but the objections upon ignorance.
If what has been before advanced
establishes from Scripture the positions taken as to the relationship the child
of God should hold toward the State and to war, then obscurities as to some
passages that may seem not clear, or practical difficulties in the path of
obedience to Scripture, cannot rightly be ground for disobedience. Difficulties
must be faced with courage and overcome by patient endurance. The
faithful soldier of Christ will set about the task appointed, no matter how
dangerous or difficult, relying upon the Divine resources, and confident of the
ultimate triumph of his Lord, even though his own death must help toward that
triumph.
The objection is urged that
Christ told His followers to buy swords (Luke 22:
35-38). Yet when two swords
were produced, He said, “It is enough.” But obviously two swords were not enough
for the defence of twelve men against an armed band of soldiers and
officers. Some other sense of the
words must be sought. The words are
to be taken, with Alford, as a
rebuke. In taking them literally
they misunderstood Him, and He said (we use our English idiom) “That’s enough!” and closed the
subject. And directly after, in the
garden, when Peter used the sword, the Lord immediately undid his work by
healing the man struck, and warned Peter to sheathe his weapon, saying that
“all they that take the sword shall perish with
the sword;” not meaning that actually every soldier dies by
violence, for that is not the fact, but that every man of violence must take
the ordinary risks of a life of violence, and He would guarantee no special
protection.
Seeing that the disciples of Christ were not permitted to fight in defence
of such a King, when in deadly peril from such gross injustice and violence,
when can it ever be His mind that they should fight with carnal weapons? And here is the answer to another
suggestion, that, while Christians should certainly take no part in a war of
aggression, it is right to defend oneself, others, and the country, from
aggression. But it was for defending
Him by the sword against the most outrageous aggression that Jesus rebuked His
Peter, like many disciples since, had forgotten Christ’s earlier and
explicit instructions, “Resist not him that is
evil” (Matt. 5: 38-42).
One detail from the trial of the
Lord before the high priest illustrates His counsel. When He was illegally struck upon the
face by a servant, He remonstrated, but did not resist (John 18: 22, 23). When it is demanded, “What would you
do were a man attempting to attack your wife?” the form of the
question really begs the question.
The question is not what I would do, for I might do what is
unbecoming in a follower of Jesus; but what ought I to do according
to His instructions? And these are clear, and His own example emphatic; for He had power to
have blasted His tormentors, and it would have been justice, but He did not do
it. The work He had in hand, the justifying
God in acting in grace, forbade it; and the work His follower has to do, the
recommending and illustrating that grace of God, equally forbids it.
Moreover the objection is almost
entirely hypothetical. Men do not
attempt such acts of violence unless they see themselves in the position to
work their wicked will; and under those circumstances to resist is but to
aggravate their villainy.
Christ’s counsel is wise as well as right, and the wisdom that
obeys will yet be justified in all her children.
Some feel it a difficulty that
in time of war the food of this land must in measure be brought here at risk of
life by our fellow-men, and that it is unreasonable to
profit by their danger while refusing to share it. If this contention were sound, it would
not make void the requirements of Christ upon His followers as before set out.
It would only mean that they would need to starve as regards those foods which
are imported, as far as they could distinguish these. This might be disagreeable, enfeebling, even fatal; but that is not the affair of the soldier; it is
for him to be obedient.
But such as raise the objection
should reflect that in measure the same holds true in time of peace. The seafaring life involves perpetual
risk; so does the raising of coal from the mine: must no one eat food save the
sailor? or burn coal save the miner? If this objection is pressed it must be
examined in detail, and one factor that will emerge will be that those who take
the risk, whether in peace or war, are presumed to be paid for their services
and for the risk taken. Also,
during war all are taxed to make this payment, and are therefore entitled to
share the benefit. Moreover, the
objection would press as heavily against those who are not sent to the front or
into the navy, but who serve in government posts at home, or who work on the
land or in factories, as against Christians. Must they all starve?
If it be said that these do
something towards meeting the dread situation, the answer is that so should
every Christian, if he be permitted to do it consistently with Christ’s
instructions to His disciples as above indicated, that
is, as an individual, not in any organization of unbelievers, and in such
peaceable service as becomes a disciple of Jesus. Inasmuch as our Lord so habitually
healed the sick, without inquiring how their state of body was caused,
including the servant of a soldier, and the man of violence who was injured
when attacking Himself, it is plain that it is the duty of His followers to
help every needy person, including the soldier. That those He healed might misuse their
strength He gave did not hinder the work of healing. Their after-conduct was their
responsibility.
These instances may suffice to
show that the objections taken are neither radical nor insuperable; but if they
were so, that would not make void the duty of the Christian to walk by the
precepts of Christ and in His steps.
4. POLITICS
The question of sharing in
politics belongs to our subject. If
a man is a citizen of one of the kingdoms of this world he has a duty to
do what he can to keep in order and to better its corporate affairs, in which
case he will vote in elections; but if he is only a subject, living for a time under this or that
government, and presently going on to his own country, he has no business with
those affairs. He will do what may
be in his power to help any one, but as a foreigner his ways of so helping will
be limited, and will not include interference with matters public.
This is the status of the child
of God according to the mind of the King, his Father. He has been translated out of the
In consequence, Peter describes
Christians as “sojourners and pilgrims”
(1 Pet. 2: 11). Both terms (paroikos,
parapidemos) meant at the time simply aliens,
persons in a land but with no rights of citizenship. In his German translation (the Elberfeld) Darby renders the latter word by “ohne Burgerrecht,” that is, without
citizen rights. The force of the
former word is seen in Acts 7: 6 and 29.
The Israelites were aliens in
Consistently with this the
Scripture nowhere gives instructions for the conduct of the Christian in the
affairs national or international of men.
If he join in these he must do so without
warrant or counsel from the Lord, and will be cast upon his own poor
judgment. The Word of God orders
the child of God to be subject to the authorities in any land where life’s journey may take
him; it never goes beyond this or contemplates him co-operating in public
affairs. That the world does not
understand this creates difficulties but does not alter God’s view or the
facts. If an alien were offered
citizen rights through the misapprehension of officials, and he were honest, he
would declare his nationality and refuse the privilege. If then the local
rulers sought to force him to act as one of their people he would have a duty
to his own sovereign to refuse and to suffer the consequences. He would
reflect that, if he submitted to the position sought to be forced upon him, he
would be liable to be forced to fight against his proper king if the land of
his sojourning went to war with him.
And this is the position to which the servant
of Christ is quickly reduced, in one degree or another, so soon as he becomes
entangled in this world’s affairs.
Pharaoh ever
strives to employ the people of God in building his treasure cities, and so in
strengthening his kingdom.
But God brings His people out of it. Pharaoh pleads, “Go not very far away,” but God insists upon a
complete and final break.
A man is not responsible that he
was born German, Jew, or British.
He cannot alter the fact, and there will be occasions when he must admit
it. Thus when Paul was officially
challenged as to whether he was an Egyptian (Acts
21: 37-39), he replied that he was a Jew, born at a certain place, and
“of no mean city a citizen”, where,
it should be noted, the emphasis lies upon the dignity of the city, not on the
matter of citizenship. The status
acquired by birth is undeniable; the question is, what
use of it, if any, should the disciple of Christ make?
If it seems that Paul’s
use of his Roman citizenship is at variance with what has been above advanced,
two factors must be considered. (1)
That if it really were so, it would mean no more than that in this matter
Paul’s action was not consistent with his teaching. It would not invalidate the latter. But (2) a writer in the Daily News, during the first world war, was
certainly right when he pointed out that the modern term to give Paul’s
meaning is “subject”, not “citizen”.
I do not recall that the writer (a Master of Arts) developed this point,
but reflection will justify it; for the apostle claimed three things only:
first, that he ought not to have been condemned and punished without trial (Acts 16: 37); second, that he ought not to be tortured
to make a confession (Acts 22: 25); third,
that to prevent his judge acting against him contrary to the laws he ought to
have administered, the prisoner appealed to a higher tribunal open to him (Acts 25: 9-12).
Now it is clear that these three
rights are granted by all modern and civilized States to aliens as much as to
citizens, and therefore Paul claimed nothing that to-day belongs to
citizenship. It is to be observed
that he did not lay any complaint at Rome against the illegalities of the officials
at Philippi or the chief captain at Jerusalem, though he had that right
also. It would be unwarrantable to
infer from what he actually did that at Rome he would, for example, have taken
part in the election of tribunes to defend the rights of the people against
aggression, least of all that he would have joined the Imperial forces to
slaughter men to whom he had a mandate from Christ to announce the glad tidings
of peace. That
were quite unthinkable.
That many Christians have no
knowledge of their heavenly calling and standing, and what it involves here and
now, and that some, alas, act inconsistently with what they profess, does not alter the Word of God or our duty of
obedience. It is strengthening to know that if we suffer with Christ we
shall be also glorified with Him in His kingdom. It is solemn to be assured that if we deny Him He also will deny us,
that is, in the day of His glory being manifested (2
Tim. 2: 10-13).
Three things may be regarded as
certain, (1) That in a world of unregenerate men,
ruled at bottom by self-interest, personal, class, or national, strife will
never be avoidable. Not till the
Spirit from on high is poured out upon all men, at the return of Christ, will
they learn war no more (Isa. 32: 14-18: Joel 2: 28; Isa.
2: 4). Then will war be deemed disreputable, not honourable, as now
while man is a perverted being. (2)
In consequence, they who in this time think that affairs national can be
conducted without strife are idealists doomed to disappointment.
(3) Nevertheless, those
individuals who have strength enough, by the indwelling Spirit of Christ,
“to follow after peace with all men,”
however great the personal cost, are the truest benefactors of the world. In the family, in society, in the
nation, they have always been a far richer source of blessing than all the men
of violence combined. Even though in a time of war, when national passion is high, they
may be reproached, yet “Blessed are the
peacemakers, for they shall be called
sons of God” (Matt. 5: 9).
“They climbed the steep ascent
of heaven
Through peril, toil, and pain:
0 God, to us may grace be given
To follow in their train!”
The grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ be with
your spirit ... I can do all things in Him that strengtheneth
me” (Phil. 4: 23, 13).
THE CHRISTIAN AND THE OATH
In sundry civil appointments,
professions, and affairs, as well as in war, the question arises of taking an
oath. The practice has existed from the earliest days of organized
society. Its essence is the invoking
of the name of such deity as the person swearing honours, implying the
incurring of his wrath if the oath in his name be violated. The practice was regarded at first with
due awe, and the oath deemed sacred; but human depravity soon led to it
degenerating mostly into a formality, and perjury became common, and then into
a flippancy, so that the oath was meaningless.
Early in His ministry Christ
gave directions upon the subject for the guidance of His followers. He said (Matt.
5: 33-37): “Again, ye have heard that it
was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt
perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you swear not at all; neither
by the heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is the
footstool of His feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King,
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech be
Yea, yea; Nay, nay; and whatsoever is more than these
is of the evil one.”
And James, the Lord’s
apostle, repeated by the Spirit these instructions (5:
12), saying: “But above all things, my
brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other
oath; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under
Judgment.”
There are many who consider that every oath without exception
is thus prohibited to the Christian; there arc others who think that the oath
to tell the truth is made by Scripture an exception. The following facts arc to be weighed:
1. God Himself has frequently
employed oaths to confirm the truth of His Statements. Sometimes naming His very person,
“By Myself
have I sworn,” sometimes His very existence, “As I live, saith
Jehovah” (Gen. 22: 16; Num. 14: 28-30;
Ps. 89: 3, 35; 110: 4; Heb. 7: 21).
It follows that to take an oath is not inherently, immoral, or God would
not do it.
2. God so acting is recognized
in the New Testament as His tacit endorsement of the practice of men (Heb. 6: 16-18), whereby He would encourage their
dependence on His promises.
3. A legal oath was sanctioned
by God under the law of Moses (Lev. 5: 1). Its
form was a public announcement in the name of God that any person acquainted
with the matter in hand should declare what he knew of it. The one who heard this “voice of
adjuration” and did not speak was guilty of perjury. That the rule is given without detail or
explanation shows that it was dealing with an already existing, well known
custom. Therefore it is not “Mosaic” or “Jewish.” In fact, this form of oath was not
confined to
4. It was this oath which Christ
Himself honoured before the high priest’s court. He had maintained strict silence,
answering no questions, until the high priest administered the oath in due
form, saying “I adjure thee by the living God,
that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26: 63). Then He at once honoured the law and the
oath and answered. Prohibitions in
His teaching must be applied in the light of this His own act.
The type of oath most
contemplated in the prohibitions is indicated by the instances given: Swear not
by the heaven, the earth,
To this day the Oriental
indulges habitually in just the same class of oaths. The Moslem scarce makes any trivial
statement without saying, By Allah, By the Prophet’s tomb, or his beard,
or By my head.
Thus these instructions remain very necessary for converts from such
peoples.
It deserves great weight that the
Lord set His instructions in specific contrast to that which had “been said to them of old time”. The reference was to the words of Moses
in Num. 30: 2: “When a man voweth a vow unto
Jehovah, or sweareth an oath to bind his soul with a
bond, he shall not profane his word; he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.” Therefore it is such vows as are then
described that Christ forbade to His disciples. Now these were purely voluntary promises
and oaths, which no one was obliged to make or to take. It was, therefore, such oaths that
Christ was forbidding, and this limits the words “swear not at all” and “nor by
any other oath” so far as that it must exclude the obligatory oath
now before us. For this latter was
not optional. It had been enacted
by statute nearly forty years by the time the regulations as to voluntary oaths
were given. There was no penalty
for not taking an oath voluntarily, but only for not keeping such; but if any
one heard the voice of adjuration and remained silent it was “sin” and he must “bear
his iniquity” (Lev. 5: 1). This
Christ did not annul: it remained binding on every one of the disciples as long
as they continued under Jewish law, as the Lord showed by Himself honouring it
three years later than when He forbade voluntary swearing. But it was limited to telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” It contained no promise to do or not to
do.
5. The apostle Paul frequently
invoked the divine Name in confirmation of the truth of his statements. His phrases have the utmost solemnity:
“God is my witness;” “I call God for a
witness upon my soul;” “The God and
Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie
not;” “behold, before God I lie not”
(Rom. 1: 9; 2 Cor. 1: 23;
11: 31; Gal. 1: 20). This
solemn invoking of the name of God is the very essence of the oath. Does any one to-day understand better
the precepts of Christ, or what is true Christian practice, than the apostle
Paul?
6. In the visions which close the
Christian Scriptures one of the most impressive scenes is that a majestic angel
descends from heaven, and with uplifted hand, the universal gesture
accompanying the invoking of God, swears a mighty oath by the Eternal Creator (Rev.
10: 5, 6), which is a repetition of a similar angelic oath witnessed by
Daniel (Dan. 12: 7).
It thus appears that an oath in
the name of God, for the purpose of affirming when necessary the truth of a
statement, is sanctioned by the practice of God and of the Son of God, by the
Word of God and the law of God, and by apostolic and angelic example.
But this
being admitted, it remains that the oath to tell the truth is the solitary
exception to the general prohibition for which Scripture sanction can be given. Christ and the apostles cannot but have
known that two other very important oaths were frequently demanded, the oath of
allegiance to the sovereign, and that of the soldier, the sacramentum of Roman law, from which comes our word
sacrament, something specially sacred before God.
As regards the former, the oath
reads: “I do swear that I will be faithful and
bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen . . Her Heirs and Successors according to law. So help me God.” Allegiance is defined as the duty the
subject owes to the Sovereign, but there is no comprehensive authoritative
statement as to the extent or detail of this duty. “Duty” here can be regarded as equivalent to the
“subjection” to authorities ordered
by Scripture, of which also Scripture affords no one comprehensive or detail
statement. In this situation the
Christian may rightly promise to render dutiful obedience to the sovereign and
continue to do so until any occasion arises when some act is demanded which he
considers the Word of God to forbid: then he must obey God rather than man and
accept patiently present consequences in hope of Divine recompense. See Section I above.
The difficulty of having to take
oath on this and other matters does not arise in the United Kingdom, because
the Oaths Act of 1888 provides that any person who has no religion, or whose
religious belief does not allow the taking of an oath, may instead
“affirm,” by declaring “I, A.B., do
solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm,” etc. This applies to every occasion when an
oath is required by law. Duties and
consequences of oath or affirmation are alike.
For the Christian the position
is otherwise as regards the military oath.
This reads: “I swear by Almighty God that
I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen ... Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound,
honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in
Person, Crown and Dignity, against all enemies, and will observe and obey all
orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the Generals and
Officers set over me. So help me God.”
It has been shown above that the
New Testament applies to the Christian the terms for alien. Now an alien can render full
civil obedience to whatever ruler he may happen to be under in the course of
life; but it is clear that no alien, consistently with his duty to his own
proper sovereign, could take the military oath promising obedience to all
orders given; for this oath would involve him in the peril of having to fight
for the foreign State against his own Government, since the two might go to
war. In this connection it is most
pertinent to remember that, according to prophetic Scripture, the kings of the
earth will at last league together to resist the authority of Christ at His
return to the earth (Ps. 2; Isa.
63: 1‑6; Rev. 16: 12-16; 19: 19-21: etc.). The Antichrist,
the last world emperor, will be duly elected by the ten kings as their
over-lord, and will thus be their “Successor”
according to law. How can a servant
of Christ promise in advance, and on oath, unlimited obedience to Antichrist?
Christ left the Christian an
example, that he should follow His steps (1 Pet. 2: 21). He lived in due subjection to the
authorities, both Jewish and the foreign oppressor; but it is unthinkable that
He would have given an unlimited promise to obey Tiberius Caesar, his heirs,
and successors. Some of these were
to prove the most savage persecutors of His followers.
In relation to man’s
responsibility God-ward, such a promise would involve (1) the renouncing of the
freedom of the will to do the will of God, since orders contrary thereto might
be (as they have been) given; and (2) thus will arise the acute and awful
dilemma of either outraging one’s conscience by transgressing the known
command of God, or of incurring the guilt of perjury by violating one’s
oath taken in the name of God, so falling under the dread sentence James no
doubt had in mind, “The Lord will not hold him
guiltless who taketh His name in vain” (Exod. 20: 7).
How
dreadful an offence this last is held by God to be may be learned from 2 Chron. 36: 13 and Ezek. 17: 11-21.
Since the taking of an oath is
not inherently immoral the grounds for not doing so must be, at least mainly,
practical. The considerations now
stated illustrate these grounds, and reveal that Christ’s prohibition was
for the true welfare of His followers, and that it is plainly wiser for both
the Authorities and the faithful disciple of Christ that the latter should not
be in the forces.
Under the Military Service Acts,
a serious situation was created that may be still worth noting for its lessons.
The man called up there under was not required to repeat the oath, because, as
it would seem, according to Section 1 he was “deemed
to have been duly enlisted,” and so presumably was deemed to have
taken the oath, which before had been one item in being duly enlisted. Yet though he did not take the oath he
was held to be bound by its provisions,
obligations, and penalties.
Was it not in law a new and vicious principle, thus adopted by
Statute, that a man was deemed to have done something he had not done, to wit,
that he had taken an oath of which perchance he had never even heard, and to
which he might have resolutely objected?
Of course, morally and before Almighty God no one is bound by an oath to
which he had not actually, assented.
That by human law men should be held responsible for an act which they
had not done, would put potentially a terrible weapon into the hands of the
tyrant and persecutor. In principle it is the absolute and fundamental negation
of justice. Yet this could not have
been intended in Acts which made definite provision for the protection of
conscience; but it shows a serious situation for the Christian, in relation to
the military sphere, under even the best-intentioned of rulers.
There is no saner conclusion of
this discussion than that of the wisest sovereign earth has yet seen. Solomon said: “When thou vowest a vow unto God,
defer not to pay it; for He hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou vowest. Better
is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay”
(Eccl. 5: 4, 5). It is this “better” that is the basic principle of our
Lord’s instructions.
If one who had formerly taken an
oath, whether to the Sovereign, the State, or some Association or person,
reaches the conclusion before God that he ought not to have done so, he should
notify the other party in writing of his change of mind, renounce the oath
taken, and declare that henceforth he will regard it as null and void. Of course he must be prepared to accept
any consequences that the other party may have power to enforce.
THE
ATTITUDE TO WAR AND POLITICS OF CHRISTIANS KNOWN AS THE BRETHREN
In Blair
Neatby’s History
of the Plymouth Brethren it is stated on page 271 that “The bar and the services were absolutely banned, and
barristers and military and naval officers generally abandoned their careers if
they joined the Brethren.”
It appears that this is somewhat overstated, for if these spheres had
been “absolutely banned” it should
have, followed that the members of them invariably, not “generally” abandoned them. Also, such a ban would have been an
infringement of two essential principles of these believers: the principle of
personal liberty and voluntary action in all affairs not inherently immoral,
and the principle that every true Christian, not morally disqualified, was to
be received into fellowship. This
last was a first and vital principle of their meetings. It received illustration in the
following incident from the last century.
There entered a meeting of Brethren of humble rank in the neighbourhood
of
With this qualification the
latter part of the statement quoted remains
true: “military and naval officers generally
abandoned their careers if they joined the Brethren.” A notable instance was J. G. Deck, one of their best known
hymn writers. Another was Julius von Poseck,
of whom Mr. Neatby writes that “He came of a noble Pomeranian family, and as a young man
suffered imprisonment for a refusal to serve in the Prussian army. From prison he addressed to the king an
appeal based on the principle of religious toleration. The king, it is said, directed the
prisoner to forward to him such publications as would explain the religious
principles on which the refusal to bear arms was based. Von Poseck
accordingly sent a selection from the literature of the Plymouth Brethren. It is not likely that the Government
attempted to master this theology, but a glance at it would show that the
prisoner was harmless. He was
liberated by the king, on the condition that he should leave the country. This brought him to
It was through Anthony Norris Groves that the chief
fundamental church principles that came to characterize the Brethren were first
suggested to the group of believers in Dublin who were meeting together to
edify one another, out of which meeting the other assemblies developed, He was
proposing to become a clergyman, and his studies were well advanced, but in
1828 another who was afterwards well known among Brethren from association with
R. C. Chapman, Mr. William Hake,
called on him at
But although Anthony Norris
Groves was the first propounder at that time of the
distinctive church principles of the Brethren, it was the more celebrated John Nelson Darby who became their then
greatest propagator. Of him Francis William Newman wrote that he
“had taken high honours in Dublin University and
had studied for the bar, where, under the auspices of his eminent kinsman
[Chief justice of Ireland], he had excellent prospects; but his conscience
would not allow him to take a brief, lest he should be selling his talents to
defeat justice” (Neatby, History, 46).
This same conscience, and the
conviction produced by the truths of the New Testament as before outlined,
determined Darby’s attitude to war also. The following letter was written in
1870, the year of the Franco‑Prussian war, to a French believer. It having been written forty years after
the commencement of Brethren meetings shows that the attitude and beliefs
persisted. It reads:-
It is clear to me
that a Christian, free to do as he will, could never be a soldier, unless he
were at the very bottom of the scale, and ignorant of the Christian
position. It is another thing when
one is forced to it. In such a case
the question is this: is the conscience so strongly implicated on the negative
side of the question, that one could not be a soldier without violating that
which is the rule for conscience - the word of God? In that case we bear the consequences;
we must be faithful.
What pains me is the
manner in which the idea of one’s country has taken possession of the
hearts of some brethren. I quite
understand that the sentiment of patriotism may be strong in the heart of a
man. I do not think that the heart
is capable of affection towards the
whole world. At bottom, human
affection must have a centre, which is “I.” I can say “My country,” and
it is not that of a stranger. I say, “My children,”
“My friend,” and it is not a purely selfish “.” One would sacrifice one’s life -
everything (not oneself, or one’s honour) for one’s country,
one’s friend. I cannot say
“My world;” there is no appropriation. We appropriate something to ourselves
that it may not be ourselves. But
God delivers us from the “I;” He makes of God, and of God in
Christ, the centre of all; and the Christian, if consistent, declares plainly
that he seeks a heavenly country.
His affections, his ties, his citizenship are above. He withdraws into the shade in this world,
as outside the vortex which surges there, to engulf and carry everything
away. The Lord is a sanctuary.
That a Christian
should hesitate whether he ought to obey or not, I understand: I respect his conscience;
but that he should allow himself to be carried away by what is called
patriotism - that is what is not of heaven. “My Kingdom,” said Jesus, “is not of this world;
if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” It is the spirit of
the world under an honourable and attractive form, but wars come from “lusts that war in your members.”
As a man, I would
have fought obstinately for my country, and would never have given way, God
knows; but as a Christian I believe and feel myself to be outside all; these
things move me no more. The hand of
God is in them; I recognize it: he has ordered all beforehand. I bow my head before that will. If
Many Christians are
labouring in the scene of the war; large sums of money have been sent to
them. All this does not attract
me. God be praised that so many
poor creatures have been relieved; but I would rather see the brethren
penetrating the lanes of the city, and seeking the poor where they are found
every day. There is far more
self-abnegation, more hidden service, in such work. We are not of this world, but we are the
representatives of Christ in the midst of the world. May God graciously help His own (Letters, vol. ii, 130).
That the before-outlined beliefs
and attitude have continued was seen in the late great wars, when a large
number of younger men from the assemblies endured reproach, ostracism,
imprisonment, hardship, and sometimes ill-usage, rather than compromise their
convictions and consciences by joining the forces.
The same attitude was maintained
to politics. Mr. Neatby (267, 268), says:-
They (Brethren)
believed, too, that the existing secular order - the
administration of government, of justice, and so forth - was just as much
divinely ordained as the Church itself, Christians ought, they say, to be very
thankful for it, and to yield it a perfectly passive support; but they should
remember that in its administration Christians, as a heavenly people,
possessing a heavenly calling and citizenship, could not lawfully share. ...
They filled no civil
or municipal office, if they could help it; they never sat in Parliament, and
if by some rare self-assertion one of them voted at an election, he was
regarded with the most intense disapproval.
The following quotations, from
different schools of Brethren, confirm this statement.
The Church: its Heavenly Character and consequent Position and Office, by Henry
Groves. (The Golden
Lamp, 1874.)
Matt. 23: 8-11. “Be not YE called Rabbi or Master” and “It shall
not be among You to exercise dominion or authority.” Plainly
because the Son of Man came “not to be
ministered unto but to minister:” because
the rule and reign of the Saints is not at present, but in the future; is not
while their Head is disowned and dishonoured, but when He shall come in His
power and glory; because the Church is to know the fellowship of her Lord’s
sufferings.
The Earthly Relationships of the Heavenly
Family. J. R. Caldwell
(111-113. Pickering and Inglis).
Under what form,
then, of the world’s government is the Christian to enter politics? Under which of the wild beasts [of
Daniel] shall he take office? Where
does he find in the Word of God his warrant to ally himself with government or
party to attain ends which he supposes will be for the general good? Where in Scripture prophecy is there a
trace of a “Christian government,” any more than of a reigning
church? As well might we speak of a
Christian seven-headed wild beast!
Who will venture to
deny that the alliance of the Church with the world power, however plausible
and apparently advantageous, cost the Church its heavenly character, and that,
not as an accident, but as the necessary consequence of the position?
And can the
individual become a politician, and bend his energies to further the views of
government or party, and not likewise surrender his heavenly character and
citizenship? ...
Then, as strangers
and pilgrims here, let us confess our heavenly character and citizenship, and
in no wise ally ourselves with the world and its earth-born movements and world
reformation schemes, whether political or social, but wait for His appearing
who shall be to this poor, sin-stricken earth the fulfilment of every hope,
whose eternal kingdom shall be “righteousness, and
joy, and peace.”
What the World is: and How a Christian can Live in
it. J. N. Darby (10‑12).
… everybody says that a citizen of the country, a Christian,
should be interested in the government of the country to which he belongs, and
ought to vote, so as to help to put good men in power. God says differently; in many places and
ways, He tells me that, as His child, I am not a citizen of any country, or a
member of any society; my citizenship is in heaven, and I have henceforth to do
with heavenly things; the cross of Christ has crucified me to the world, and
the world to me; if I give my mind and heart to these earthly things I shall be
the enemy of the cross of Christ.
Be not conformed to the world.
What then shall we do with governments? Why, submit to them, since God orders them; and when they
impose tax, pay; and make supplication to God for kings, and all in
authority. All therefore that a
Christian has to do with politics is to be subject to the powers set over him,
not only for wrath but also for conscience sake. It is true that in Christ he is “heir of all things,” including the earth in which the
world-system has now its operation, yet (as to Abraham in the
It was a pregnant saying of
another teacher among Brethren, Henry Dyer, that “As a Christian
I do not say ‘our king’ but ‘the king’. This is a distinction with a difference - a mighty
difference. A citizen says, Our
king: an alien says, The king No one can think of Christ
calling Tiberius Caesar “Our emperor.” It was the men who clamoured for
Christ’s blood who cried, “We have no king
but Caesar.” No one
can think of Paul or Peter styling Nero “Our
king:” their language is “Honour the king.”
The writer’s father may be
cited as a competent witness to the common private practice of Brethren. In 1916 he wrote to me as follows:
“You are quite right that for sixty years,
during which I have been a householder and entitled to vote, I have never done
so, and this has been the general practice amongst Brethren, since the revival
of the truth of the Christian’s heavenly calling in 1828.”
Those individuals of the
Brethren assemblies whose convictions drive them to the opposite conduct are entitled to the respect due
to conscience, but they are not entitled to say they follow the views or
practice of Brethren in general.
And it is for them to show that their views are more in agreement with the
Word of God for Christians and with the heavenly calling of the saints of God.
-------