THE ESSENTIAL PROBLEMS OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE IN
WAR
Problems arise in connection with any doctrine of Scripture, and one so important as this cannot hope to escape. But the problems are not in any sense insuperable. Sufficient knowledge of the Scriptures and a proper system of interpreting the Word are all that is necessary to solve the problems.
lb. The practice of Israel during the almost 2000 years of her existence constitute one of the great problems.
The history of Israel is replete with information concerning her wars, and many of these were authorized and commanded of God. The problem is how to reconcile this with the doctrine of non-resistance. Since the problem is very real, and cannot be set aside without ample reason, the following things are suggested:
lc. Israel was a nation of this world, while the Church is a spiritual nation not of this world.
Israel was a chosen nation of God, but aside from that it was like every other nation. Physical characteristics of the people, language, location, boundaries, government, capitol city, throne, king royal family. To maintain all this God permitted the use of force.
But the church is not such a nation (1 Pet. 2:9). Characteristics are spiritual, language of every nation, no geographical location, no boundaries, no capitol city, throne, and king, family, except heaven and Christ. Christians are pilgrims and strangers (1 Pet. 2:11), and therefore do not have any possessions in perpetuity; and their spiritual possessions cannot be taken away by any show of physical force (Heb. 13:14).
2c. Israel was not a regenerated people, while the true church is made up of regenerated people.
Rom. 8:3-4
Israel could not keep the law, much less the higher law of non-resistance. Even Christians who are regenerated find this hard to do. Where would Israel have been? But "blessed" men, that is, born-again, ones were prepared for the keeping of the higher code of non-resistance.
3c. 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.
Christ points to the past when the law was operating, and then with sovereign authority changes the law for His church (Matt. 5:38-42, cf. Ex. 21:23-25). Since Christ was the one who gave the law, and therefore he has the right to change it.
4c. Israel was permitted of God to use force, when perhaps He did not so intend it, and therefore for the church set it aside forever.
There is reason to believe that God meant that His people should live wholly by faith and trust in Him. But they failed so miserably. Like others they trusted in the strength of numbers, so with such attitude they went forth from Egypt, they went against Ai, they numbered the people, they gathered in numbers to Gideon.
Yet perhaps all the victories of Israel may be traced to the fact that the Lord fought with them (Zech. 14:3).
5c. Israel's wars against others were always against wicked nations. The church would be fighting against itself, for God's people are in every nation.
2b. The proclamations of Christ during His ministry which seem to sanction the use of some kind of physical force.
lc. Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword." cf. also Luke 12:51
There are those who insist that these words have reference to physical strife.
The context of these passages makes it quite clear that the division which Christ produces is spiritual.(Matt. 10:32-40; Luke 12:49-53). The sword of which He speaks is spiritual.
2c. Luke 22:35-38 "And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Some take this quite literally to mean that Christ authorized the use of force in some degree for defense. This may be true, but it is well to note what follows.
The disciples took this quite literally and said, "Lord, behold, here are two swords" (38). Later, when the crowd gathered, and they saw the trend of events they impulsively asked, "Lord, shall we smite with the sword?" (49). And before Christ could answer Peter drew a sword and hacked off the ear of a servant of the high priest (50). Then Jesus commanded him to put up the sword, and reminded him that they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword (Matt. 26:52). It would appear that Jesus did not mean by his first statement that the disciples were free to use force, at least not on this occasion. And perhaps the full intent of meaning is that it is His will that man shall be permitted to go his way for a time. When that shall be changed, there is no hint in this passage.
3c. Mark 12:17 "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's."
Two rights, it is said, belong to Caesar: 1. To tax the realm to support the rule, and 2. To conscript the man-power to defend the realm. If the first is right, why not the second? What is the difference between paying for a war and participating in it?
The answer seems to be this: that while both may be right, yet for the Christian the actual taking of human life is prohibited. There are many other ways in which the believer can serve without taking life. He can bind up the wounds, and perform any number of other duties to help that will not mean the taking of life.
3b. The place of believers in this world is most difficult and especially their relation to human government.
lc. The passage usually used to set forth the proper relation to civil government is Romans 13:1-7. Some insist that this passage is sufficient to warrant military service (1). But the intent of the passage must be noted before any conclusion can be reached. The writer's point is expressed in vs. 3 "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil" (3a). And for this reason believers ought to obey civil government where it is performing the function for which God ordained it. "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 a minister of God to thee for good"(3-4).
Most certainly Paul was not sanctioning the many evil deeds of Roman Emperors, nor of the other rulers of the day. He merely had in mind the chief intent of government, namely, to order the realm in such a way that it will put down evil and bring good to all.
And if he meant that the sword was right for Christians, it is strange that so quickly he forgot what he wrote in the preceding chapter in verses 19-21, and was so quickly to resume in vs. 8.
It was because he knew the wickedness of worldly governments that he wrote at all about them. Believers also knew and would have thrown off the obligations. But to protect civil government in all that was right, he wrote as he did.
2c. But there is a higher law to which believers should always be obedient, and that is the law of God.
Since it is right to obey government in things that are right, and it is right for government to wage war, some may think that it is right to obey the government and engage in carnal strife.
But separation as taught in the New Testament teaches that believers must withdraw themselves from many things of this present order that may be right for those in the world.
Where anything evil for the believer is demanded by civil government, the believer is subject to a law that is higher, the law of God (Acts 4:19-20; 5:29). Some have tried to sidestep these two Scriptures on the ground that these were religious authorities who were making command. But the answer to that is simply, they also had civil authority. These were both vested in the one body.
No comments:
Post a Comment