THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN NON-RESISTANCE

THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN NON-RESISTANCE

 

The unbelieving world in general denies the validity of the doctrine of non-resistance. This is not surprising to the well-taught Christian. For he understands that the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them for they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14). Like Christ and the children of God, the doctrine of non-resistance is so utterly contrary to the thinking and practice of unregenerate men; they cannot under­stand it (1 John 3:1). It appears to be wild-eyed foolishness to them.

But when the Christian faces up to the fact that the larger part of pro­fessing Christendom also rejects this teaching as an integral part of the Word of God then there is reason for real concern. Protestantism as a whole, and especially evangelical Protestantism of the present day, is vigorously opposed to the doctrine of non-resistance. In times of war these great evangelical bodies join the hue and cry of the populace in general. And they look with dis­dain upon the smaller bodies of Christians who earnestly endeavor to follow their conscience in conforming to what they believe the Bible teaches on this doctrine. Since the origin of Protestantism in the fifteenth century, the atti­tude of the great evangelical bodies has not changed.

Two reasons underlie this attitude. They are cited here again to refresh the mind of the reader. The first is the failure to comprehend fully the mean­ing of separation of church and state. Separation of church and state is in­dorsed up to a point and faithfully followed. But when it comes to its practi­cal implications in relation to war, the thinking suddenly stops short. The second reason relates to the area of eschatology. Because the principles of interpretation vary at this point, these great bodies do not believe that Christ alone is the One who will establish a warless world when His kingdom is inaugurated in the earth. Many of them do not believe that this is an imminent possibility. It therefore devolves upon the church and the state together to maneuver in every possible way, even by means of war, to bring in an age of peace.

In support of this position they are able to marshal any number of real problems calculated to destroy the validity of the doctrine of non-resistance. These problems, on their face, appear to be absolutely insuperable. But they only seem that way. Where sufficient knowledge of the Scriptures is available, and a proper system of interpretation is followed, these problems are greatly reduced in significance. There are three: the military campaigns of Israel, the proclamations of Christ at various points, and the place of the believer in relation to human government. Since little real effort has ever been made to place these problems in proper perspective, it is here hoped that the Spirit of God will guide writer and reader into the clear atmosphere of Biblical truth.

1. The first problem relates to the practice of Israel in the past as recorded in the Old Testament. From the moment that Israel became a distinct people with the call of Abraham, and later organized at Sinai into a nation, wars have characterized her history. As a result of depredations imposed on Sodom and the family of Lot, Abraham raided the retreating armies in the night and repossessed the goods that had been taken and released Lot (Gen. 14:1-24). Family difficulties almost erupted into armed strife between Jacob and Esau (Gen. 32:1-23; 33:1-16). Israel suffered physical oppression in Egypt under hostile rulers (Exod. 1:8-14; 3:1-22). This led to flight from the land pursued by the army of Pharaoh (Exod. 13:17-22; 14:5-31). At Sinai this people was organized into a nation (Exod. 19-20). The arrangements of camp were made for the march through the wilderness and the fighting men were numbered (Num. 1-2). From that point on through the wilderness Israel engaged in war to protect themselves from hostile peoples: Amalek (Exod. 17:8-16), Sihon (Num. 21:12-32), Og (Num. 21:33-35). Then there came the campaigns under Joshua and the Judges for the conquest of the Promised Land (Joshua and Judges). Conquest was not completed until David was crowned king and finally established in. Jerusalem as capital (1 and 2 Samuel). After the division of the kingdom under Rehoboam both Northern and Southern kingdoms were constantly engaged in carnal strife with hostile nations near and far until they were overrun by Assyria and Babylon.

In view of the fact that these wars, many of which were commanded of God, mark the long history of the nation, it is difficult for Christian people to reconcile this with the command to resist not him that is evil by the use of physical force. If the people of God in the Old Testament dispensation were doing right when they engaged in carnal strife, then is it not right for the people of God in the New Testament to engage in the same thing? This problem is very real and it is useless to set it aside without some good reason. To relieve this paradox three things must be pointed out.

(1) Israel was a nation of this world, while the church is a spiritual nation not of this world. Israel was a nation just like any other nation on the face of the earth, with the exception that Israel had been chosen of God. This people had distinct physical characteristics which differentiated them from all other people. They spoke a distinct language which set them apart from others. They lived in a particular location on the face of the earth. There were boundaries to their homeland. They maintained a government, with a capital city, a throne, a king, a royal family. And to maintain this nation in the land God permitted the use of physical force, for this was the only argument that would be understood by the pagan peoples of earth.

But the church is not such a nation. Peter calls it "an holy nation" which has been "called . . . out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9). The characteristics of this people are spiritual, its language is that of every nation, its location is within the boundaries of every nation. It has no phys­ical boundaries to maintain, no capital city to defend, no earthly throne to adore, no human monarch to protect. The Christian's native land is heaven (Phil. 3:20). The courts of heaven and His holy Majesty, the Lord Jesus Christ, need no material or human protection. Christians are pilgrims and strangers in this world and therefore they do not possess any physical property in perpetuity, and their spiritual possessions cannot be taken by any show of physical force.

Since this difference between Israel and the church is so profound, it is easily understood on the one hand why Israel needed to protect her land with armies and carnal weapons, while on the other hand the church has no need for armies, lest she be found to be fighting against herself, for the church is in every land.

(2) Israel was not a regenerated people, while the true church is made up of regenerated people. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom. 8:3-4). Israel could not perform the righteousness of the law even though the external pressure was brought to bear upon them, for they walked after the flesh. Where unusual virtue was manifested by Old Testament saints, it was evident that the source was not the external pressure of the Old Testament law, but the power of the Holy Spirit within. But with the great masses of Israel, they lived on a very low moral plane as compared with the New Testament saints.

Inasmuch as Christians are expected to follow a much higher moral standard than the Old Testament law, especially in the case of non-resistance, they have the resources of the indwelling Holy Spirit to enable them (1 Thess. 4:7-8). The Lord purposed that this holy nation should display in the world the virtues of Christ (1 Pet. 2:9). Thus the command to non-resistance was given to "blessed" born-again people (Matt. 5:3, 38-39), who will constitute the aris­tocracy of the coming kingdom. They ought to display today the virtues that-will be realized in fullness when the kingdom is set up, for believers are the first fruits, the fore-glimpse of the coming kingdom when all physical violence will be banished.

(3) Israel was a nation operating as such during the dispensation of the law, while the church is a spiritual nation living during the dispensation of grace. This point can be cited as an argument out of context. But in this case Christ Himself points to the past and the law which operated then, and then with sovereign authority imposes the principle for the life of believers. "Ye have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" (Matt. 5:38 ASV). At this point Christ is citing Exod. 21:23-25, the principle for maintaining justice in Israel. Then without hesitation He raises the stan­dard for believers to that of grace, "But I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39 ASV).

This is the change made by Christ for His people during the dispensation of grace. The charge of inconsistency cannot be brought against Christ. He is the One who gave the Old Testament law, and He has the sovereign right to raise the standard when He deems it right and proper. The Old Testament law was good in its place and served its purpose. But now a principle of conduct is imposed which supersedes the old and lower principle, and is to become the norm for a regenerated people living during the administration of grace. This change from absolute justice and retaliation in kind to non-resistance does not mean that Christ is counseling believers to do nothing. By reading through to the end of Matt. 5, it becomes clear that an advance is to be made from justice to love. The believer is to go beyond the restraints of pure justice to the communica­tion of positive benefit to the offender.

2. The next problem confronting the doctrine of non-resistance is inherent in the proclamations of Christ as recorded in the New Testament. Upon several occasions Christ made statements which seem to contradict His command on non­-resistance. They are used by those who stand opposed to the doctrine of non-­resistance. However, as in most cases when the immediate and larger context is examined, they fall easily into line with the general teaching of Christ on the use of physical force.

(1) Matt. 10:34 is the first passage that deserves attention. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I am not come to send peace, but a sword." At first glance this statement might appear to counsel division and the exercise of physical force. But the context makes it clear that Christ was calling for spiritual division. This would be effected by His person and His pronouncements. Some will believe in Him and that will set them at variance with those who do not believe in Him. This sharp division among men produced by Christ is placed under the figure of a sword, but it is not the sword employed in physical force, as the verses preceding and following make abundantly clear (Matt. 10:25-42).

(2) Luke 22:35-38 constitute the second passage. "And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:35-36). Here is a passage of Scripture that is admittedly difficult. And so far as the general run of commentators, none of them are certain that they know precisely the true meaning of this passage.

Some take this quite literally to mean that Jesus was counseling the use of physical force in view of changing conditions. Up to this point there has been divine provision and protection. But that period is now drawing to a close and wicked men are being permitted to use violence against Christ and His followers (Luke 22:37). The disciples, too, took Him quite literally, "And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough" (Luke 22:38).

But others feel that the reference to the time when they went without purse, scrip, shoes, and sword, and lacked nothing was intended as a token of conditions that would characterize the coming rule and reign of Messiah in His kingdom. But that is to be delayed, and wicked men are being permitted to have their day of living on the human and earthly level with its violence and depri­vation. The disciples are therefore being forewarned that they must experience these conditions until the kingdom is established. Some measure of responsi­bility will rest upon them for material provision and for self-protection.

Later, on the same occasion, when the vicious crowd had gathered to take Jesus, and Judas had betrayed Christ's identity to the enemy, "When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?" (Luke 22:49), before He could answer, "one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear" (Luke 22:50). "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" (Matt. 26:52). If in the former place Christ was urging the disciples to use physical force in self-defense, then He has certainly reversed Himself, for He is now admonishing just the opposite. To make amends for this impulsive and mistaken move on the part of Peter, the Lord graciously restored the ear of the dismembered victim.

Whatever our Lord meant upon this occasion by His statement about buying a sword, it certainly cannot be construed to mean that He is sanctioning war in any sense. If He did mean self-defense in some limited sense, then it is to be explained in the light of other Scriptures instructing the Christian on the use of physical force.

3. The final problem demanding attention is the proper relation of be­lievers to civil government. Of all the problems this is perhaps the most difficult. It is especially difficult because believers do naturally feel an obligation to their governments. And this feeling is strengthened by the Scriptures in that believers are commanded to respect, support, and obey their governments.

(1) The passage that is usually used to set forth the proper relation of believers to civil government is Romans 13:1-7. It is argued by some that the force of verse one is sufficient to warrant obedience in military service. On its face and without regard to the context, this appears to be a legitimate conclusion. But in the judgment of the writer, such is based upon the failure to note the primary intent of the passage.

The key to this passage is in verse 3. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." This means that the fundamental sense of orga­nized government is to promote good and punish evil. For this reason believers ought to obey rulers where rulers are actually performing the function for which they were ordained of God. "Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good" (Rom. 13:3-4). Due to sinful human nature, rulers in organized government, monarchs often failed to discharge this basic function of government. But even where monarchs did evil, it is obvious that Paul is not arguing for Christians to do evil simply because it was commanded by the government.

This was written in the days of Nero Caesar, a monster of iniquity, and a sworn enemy of Christians. He is remembered to this day for his notorious evil deeds, and Paul was not in any sense condoning his wickedness. But even in the fact of this wickedness, if Paul meant that believers should take up the sword in obedience to Caesar or against Caesar, it is strange that he prefaced his own counsel on human government with such words as appear in Romans 12:19-21, and then concluded his exhortation on government with the words, "Owe no man anything, but to love one another" (Rom. 13:8), without seeming to feel any inconsis­tency. The background of this exhortation in Rom. 13:1-7, is the common knowledge among Christians concerning the low level of morality in the Roman government. The natural response was to rebel against the government. But this would have led them into the exercise of some form of physical violence. So Paul cautions them against the very thing that some interpreters would like to read into the text.

(2) Because the true Christian bows in obedience to the Word of God in relation to human government, he is also conscious that there are times when he must obey that same Word when it commands him in matters contrary to human government. This means that there is a higher law than that of human govern­ment that is the law of the government of God. The believer should be subser­vient to human government in all things that are right. But even though God permits human government to engage in war, God has limited the believer in this respect. He cannot engage in carnal strife in the taking of human life.

The Christian is called upon to be separated from the things of this present evil world (Rom. 12:2). And this extends to many things which are practiced by the citizens of the state. Physical violence is just one of those things. In recognition of the prior claim of God upon his life, he must often bow to the law of God in preference to the laws of civil government. Knowing that God has spoken clearly in His Word, the believer must obey God in refusing to take up arms for the purpose of taking human life. When the constituted authorities of the Jews commanded the disciples to refrain from speaking of Christ, their answer was, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19-20). Later, to the same group when further threatened, they replied, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). This principle is sufficient authorization for refusing to bear arms.

But this does not mean that the believer necessarily repudiates the authority of human government as it seeks to discharge its responsibility in relation to war. The believer may still serve the government in some capacity that is good, and thus fulfill his responsibility to his government as com­manded of God. This may sound like pure casuistry to some because any service to the government aids in the taking of human life. But this sort of reasoning is beside the point. For in a wicked world it is necessary for every person to make a selection of activity in which he is personally engaged. The Christian must do this in all areas of life whether it be in times of peace or war. Since he cannot take life even in times of peace, he is under the same responsibility in times of war.