The Bible authorizes the Christian acting as a punitive agent of the civil government, either as a law enforcement officer or as a soldier in the army. Is this true?
Definition of Terms
The Bible: The Old and New Testaments. It is not a question of what seems right to me, of what I want to do, of what the majority want. Neither is it a question to be settled by the probable consequences of our actions. For the Christian the only question is, What does the Bible teach?
Christian: An obedient believer in Christ. We are not concerned with what the Old Testament Jew should do. He was under Moses. Neither are we concerned with the relationship of sinners to the punitive office. They are in the kingdom of darkness. Our question is, "What shall the follower of the Prince of Peace do?"
Punitive agent: One who is authorized by the civil government to execute punishment upon lawbreakers.
Civil Government: Organized human government, the legislative judicial, and executive machinery of political government. The primary function of all civil governments are to protect the innocent and punish the criminal. The New Testament recognizes this in Romans 13. These primary functions are kept in mind throughout this document when referring to the institution of civil government.
Spiritual and Material Realms
- 1) The Christian operates in two realms, the spiritual and the material.
2) In the material realm force must be applied, because the nature of the work demands it.
3) Therefore, a Christian may employ force in the material realm.
REPLY:
The first premise is false! In the first place, the Scriptures cited (Luke 20:22-25) does not prove it. Read the verses carefully. As we shall see later, the Christian owes certain things to Caesar, and other things to God, but the words of the Master here are not a commentary upon these general relationships. The Lord here is talking about money, the danarius, the creation of Caesar, bearing his image and name. That which bears Caesar’s image and superscription belongs to Caesar, was made by him, must be rendered to him, and may be used by him as he sees fit.
Now, what is it that belongs to God, was made by Him, made in His image, bears His name or superscription, and must be rendered to Him and Him alone, to be used by Him as He sees fit? The child of God. Body and soul, stamped with the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and bearing His name (Acts 11:26; Ephesians 3:15). My money belongs to Caesar and must be freely rendered to him for whatever purpose he may wish to us it. He used it often to persecute Christians, yet it was his and had to be rendered to him. He uses it today to teach scientific and sociological theories contrary tot he Bible, to provide halls for dancing and reveling, and for other purposes that Christians oppose; yet it is his; he, not I, is responsible for it’s use, and I must render it unto him. On the other hand, I belong to God (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), and dare not use my body --- which is not mine, not Caesar’s, but God’s --- in any way that God has not authorized. Caesar has no voice here. Just as certainly as the penny belongs to him by creation, image and superscription, the Christian belongs to God by creation, image and superscription!
The premise that the Christian operates in two separate realms, the spiritual and the material, is false, in the second place, because it is contrary to the teachings of the Bible. The truth is that in this life the spiritual and the material are inseparable. The spiritual operates only through the material. This is exactly what James is talking about when he says, "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can his faith save him? Even so faith, if it has not works, is dead in itself. Yea, a man will say, you have faith and I have works; show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.” (James 2:14-18).
It is impossible for us to manifest our spiritual side (our faith) except through our material side (our works). The material life of the Christian is simply the spiritual life at work. Paul recognizes this in Romans 12:1, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service” Our spiritual growth can be measured exactly by the use we make of our material bodies.
There are only two realms, so far as the Christian is concerned: the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God. We were once, both the material and the spiritual parts of us, in one of these kingdoms, but we are now, both the material and the spiritual parts of us in the other. “He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love” (Colossians 1:13). This effort to separate the spiritual and material realms , each with it’s own head and laws, and having the Christian jumping back and forth from one to the other, is absurd, besides being unscriptural.
The Christian is a citizen of the kingdom of God, lives in many different relationships. To one individual he is a husband, to another a father or mother, to another a son or daughter, to another a blood brother or sister, to another a brother or sister in Christ, to some a teacher, to another a student, to one a master, to another a servant, etc. In all of these relationships of life --- and you will notice that they are all manifested in the “material” realm -- - he is subject to Christ. “All authority has been given unto Me in heaven and on earth.” (Matthew 28:18) “That in all things He might have the preeminence.” (Colossians 1:16). The Christian has a definite relationship to God, his parents, his wife, his children, his neighbors, the church, the civil government, his servants, the elders of the church, the church under him if he is an elder, etc. Each of these relationships is spiritual in that it is prompted and directed by the spirit, and each is material in that physical means must be used in it’s execution. In none of them can the spiritual and the material be separated. In all of them he acts as a child of God and is subject wholly to the law of God. The law of God has given definite principles to guide us in each us in each relationship that God intends the Christian to sustain. God has told me how to conduct myself as a member of a congregation, or as an elder over the congregation, as a servant, or as a master over servants, as a pupil, or as a teacher over pupils.
There are some relationships into one side or the other that I may enter. I am told how I am to conduct myself toward the devil, but not how I am to conduct myself as a devil; my relationship toward evildowers, but not as an evildoer; my duties toward a law enforcement officer and the government, but not my duties as a law enforcement officer or a part of the government; my attitude toward God, but not my attitude as a god. It is a mere quibble to say to say that we are not told how to conduct ourselves as farmers, merchants, or doctors. These are simply occupations and not primary relationships of life. It is inconceivable that God should fail to tell us how to conduct ourselves in a relationship of such basic importance as civil government if He had intended for us to function in it.
We may say that the Christian does not operate in the two realms. He operates in one, the kingdom of God. In this realm he sustains may relationships toward different individuals and institutions. There are some relationships into which he may not enter, and civil government is one of these.
JEWISH AND ROMAN PRACTICE
- 1) The converts to Christ could not know it was wrong for them to participate in government affairs or bear arms unless they were plainly so commanded.
2) They were not so commanded.
3) Therefore, it was not wrong for them to participate in government or bear arms.
REPLY
The first premise assumes that the people among whom Christianity was established regarded participation in a purely civil government and bearing arms for it as the accepted thing. This assumption is false.
In the first place, the Jewish government, although exercising civil and military functions, was primarily an ecclestical government . The civil and military officials were subject to, part of, the hierarchy. Their ecclestical government was responsible for the enforcement of laws given directly from God. They were authorized by God to inflict capital punishment for violation of both moral and positive laws. One of the designated crimes to be so punished was Sabbath violation (Numbers 15:35), a purely religious offense.
The parallel to this government will be found, not in our civil government, but in our religious government. We have an ecclesiastical, or church government (Philippians 3:20; Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 5:12-6:5). Where has God authorized this ecclestical government to exercise capital punishment?
As to the Roman government, the counterpart of our modern civil government, far from being the accepted thing by the people among whom Christianity was established, it was bitterly resented by them and denied the right to rule over them. Instead of having to command the people to not take part in the Roman government And army, the apostles had to command them to accept it’s overlordship and pay taxes to it. They did not command them to take part in the government, or to bear arms for it, which they certainly would have, under the circumstances, if they had wished them to do so.
THE INSTINCT OF SELF-PRESERVATION
PREMISE:
- 1) All men have a God-given instinct of self-preservation. Unless it is to the glory of God in obedience to a direct command of His to yield our lives to an aggressor, we are right in opposing an attacker. We are never right in maliciously attacking another.
2) What is true of individuals is true of nations.
3) Therefore, it is right for Christians to fight in a defensive war, not in an aggressive war.
REPLY
The second premise is misapplied. One instinctively defends his own life when attacked; he does not instinctively defend the form of government, national ideals, political and social customs, territories, and other things that go to make up the nation. The very fact that a tremendous national propaganda campaign necessarily accompanies every war is proof enough of this.
One cannot lose his individual identify as a part of the nation. That is the doctrine of Nazism and Fascism. Yet that is what one must do to consider an attack upon his national institution as an exercise of this instinct of self-preservation.
INNOCENCE AND GUILT
PREMISE:
- 1) We have the divine right of self-preservation. The man who kills in self-defense is not guilty of murder like the man who kills deliberately and aggressively.
2) What is true of individuals is true of nations.
3) Therefore, a man is not guilty of murder who kills in defensive war.
REPLY
In the first place, it is impossible for a man to judge between offensive and defensive wars while the war is in progress and he is involved in it. Napoleon declared in his last days that he had never waged an offensive war. The people of Germany believed in World War I, and also in the one initiated by Hitler and believed they were defending their fatherland. It is axiomatic in war that the best defense is a good offensive.
Again, the second premise is misapplied. It is assumed that men lose their individual responsibility as a part of the nation. God’s failure to punish Noah and lot with their wicked nations shows that this assumption is false. God respected them as individual personalities and recognized their personal responsibility. The punishment of Achan in the midst of a righteous nation is another case in point, and that even in a dispensation in which personal responsibility was largely subjugated to the national. In the New Testament personal accountability is emphasized throughout.
This argument contends that a man is not guilty of murder who kills in defensive war. It necessarily follows that any man who kills in offensive is guilty of murder. To maintain this distinction and keep in mind our individual accountability we must presuppose one nation in which every person is individually guilty and another in which every person is individually innocent. Otherwise, individually innocent soldiers in the armies of aggressive nations are guilty of murder, and the inevitable killing of civilian, women, and children by soldiers in the armies of defensive nations is murder. In war I do not kill a nation; I kill a man, an individual soul, no more guilty of personal aggression against me than I am against him. This argument, instead of drawing a clear-cut distinction between the innocent and the guilty, utterly destroys any distinction!
SERVANTS OF THE KINGDOM
OF THIS WORLD
- 1) The servants of the kingdom of this world may fight to defend those kingdoms, “ If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight ...”
2) Christians are subjects of the kingdoms of this world (Romans 13:1).
3) Therefore, Christians may fight to defend the kingdom of this world.
REPLY:
The first premise is begging the question, assuming the thing to be proved. It assumes “All servants (including Christians) of the kingdoms of this world may fight to defend these kingdoms.” Study the text carefully. Jesus is clearly distinguishing between His kingdom and the kingdoms of this world; between the nature of His kingdom and earthly kingdoms; between the servants of His kingdom and the servants of those kingdoms. He simple stated without approval or disapproval a universally recognized fact that the servants of earthly kingdoms fight for their governments.
The servants of Christ, of whom He spoke that night , were subjects of the Roman government. They were “in the world” (John 17:11), but not “of the world” (John 17:16). In the same way the kingdom of Christ is in the world, but not of the world. In the sense in which Jesus spoke that night one can just as well include His kingdom among the kingdoms of this world as he can include His servants among the servants of the kingdoms of this world. The contrast is primarily between His servants and the servants of worldly kingdoms, despite the fact that His servants were subjects of Rome. If we today would build a postulate upon His words we must say, “The servants of the kingdoms of the world (exclusive of My servants) fight for those kingdoms.”
We cannot say that the nature of the kingdom, but not of the servants, is different --- that I might fight for the kingdom of the world because of their physical nature, but may not fight for the kingdom of God because of its spiritual nature. It is not the nature of the kingdom in itself, but my nature as a servant of the kingdom that keeps me from fighting for it. We claim to be fighting for the principles of the kingdom of God in the present war. We can fight for ideals and spiritual principles. I can fight for the kingdom of God --- its nature does not prevent my doing so, except as its nature has changed my nature.
THEY THAT TAKE THE SWORD
PERISH WITH THE SWORD
Perish with what sword? That of the civil ruler (Romans 13:4).
PREMISE:
- 1) The civil government, acting through its subjects, has the authority of Christ to wield the sword in punishment of murderers.
2) Christians are subjects of the civil government.
3) Therefore Christians, as subjects of the civil government and acting as agents of the civil government, have the authority of Christ to wield the sword as punishment of murderers.
MORAL AND PENAL LAW
PREMISE:
- 1) A thing may be wrong under the moral law and yet be right under the penal law.
2) Killing is one of those things. Moses said, “Thou shalt not kill,” (morally wrong to kill, then said, “Thou shalt surely kill,” (right to kill under penal law).
3) Therefore, while the entire moral teachings of the Bible is that killing is wrong, it is right to kill as penalty for violating the moral code.
REPLY:
This threefold classification of law is erroneous. All law is penal law. There is no such thing as law without a penalty. However, we shall accommodate ourselves to this classification, and examine this argument from this viewpoint. We make the same accommodation in our first affirmative argument.
Since penal law is not inherent in the nature of things, it must rest upon the positive authority of God or upon purely human authority. A thing that is morally wrong can never be right without a positive law from God to make it so. Divine penal law is simply one phase of positive law. Under the Old Covenant the moral law was given, “Thou shalt now kill.” Without a positive law from God authorizing an exception to this law for penal purposes it would have been unconditionally wrong for an Israelite to kill. But God authorized a penal law, “thou shalt surely be put to death,” and named the administrator. It was still wrong for anyone to kill other than the God-ordained legal administrators, but it was right for them.
In the New Covenant the same moral law still holds: “thou shalt not kill,” (Matthew 19:18). God has ordained a penal law today involving an exception to this moral law, and has named the administrator --- the civil government (Romans 13). He has not authorized the Christian as such to execute this penal law. The moral law still applies to him without a positive law from God to authorize an exception for penal purposes. The positive command to the Jew, “Thou shalt surely be put to death” is striking absent with the Christian. To assent that the Christian may execute the penal law as an agent of the God-ordained administrator, the civil government, is assuming the very proposition to be proved.
CLEANSING THE TEMPLE
- 1) Jesus used force to enforce the law of the land against those who violated it.
2) He is our example in all things.
3) Therefore, the Christian may use force to enforce the law of the land against violators.
REPLY
The major premise is false. The Revised Version (universally recognized as the better translation) reads, “And he made a scourge of cords and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew their tables.” The Revision does not say that he used the scourge on men, but on the animals. Neither translation has force applied to men in the parallel passages (Matt. 21:12-16, Mk. 11:15-17, Luke 19:45-46). Instead, every one of these accounts, including John’s, tells us the means used in driving the men out: he taught them and presented the Scriptures to them. This weapon drove Satan from the field of battle in the wilderness; it drove these men from the temple; it is the sword of the Christian today. The same expression used here in both Greek and English — ”cast out”—is also used of “casting out” demons (Matt. 8:16, 8:31, 9:33, 34, etc.). I suppose Jesus flogged the demons with a scourge of cords!
A second fallacy is that Jesus was enforcing the law of the land. In cleansing the temple Jesus was performing a purely religious act that had nothing whatsoever to do with either enforcing or violating any civil law of any government. If it could be proved that Jesus employed force on men here (which we have seen cannot be proved) we would have proved that it is right to use force in keeping the worship of God pure, not that it may be used in enforcing civil laws. This argument could justify my forcibly driving a digressive preacher from the pulpit and overthrowing the piano, but could not justify my execution of a condemned man for the government.
CIVIL GOVERNMENT ORDAINED OF GOD
Read Romans 13:1-7.
- 1. It is right for a citizen of the civil government, acting as an agent of the government, to bear the sword in punishment of evildoers.
2. Christians are citizens of the civil government, and Christians may do anything that is right.
3. Therefore Christians, as citizens of the civil government and acting as agents of the government, may hear the sword in punishment of evil-doers.
REPLY
The first premise is defective. Logically to draw the above conclusion, the first premise must be construed to mean, “It is right for any citizen of the civil government, acting as an agent of the government, to bear the sword and punish evil-doers.” It is assumed that “the powers that be” of Romans 13:1 includes the civil government with all its citizens and subjects. Since this assumption would include Christians, the first premise is in reality begging the question.
A study of Romans 13 will show that Paul considers the Christian as entirely separate from “the powers that be.” “Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers.” Paul is considering the government as one party, the Christian as another, the Christian subject to the government. This applied to every soul among the Christians. “He (the power, the administrator of civil government) is a minister of God to thee for good.” Not that the Christian is the minister of God in this capacity, but that another party he, third person, automatically excluding the Christian who is addressed in the second person—is such a minister. Notice the same distinction in the following verses: "But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he (not thou) beareth not the sword in vain; for he (not thou) is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.”
Now comes the Christian’s part in this order of things — ”Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience, sake. For this cause ye pay tribute also; For they (not ye, now) are ministers of God’s service, attending continually upon this very thing. Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.” It is strikingly noticeable that in listing the services “due” the civil government by the Christian, Paul did not include “defense to whom defense is due” or “vengeance to whom vengeance is due.” Those two duties have always been expected of their subjects by the civil governments, yet inspiration nowhere names them as due by the Christian. It is similarly outstanding that while he mentions that ye (Christians) should pay tribute, custom, honor, fear, be subject, it is always "he" or "they" when bearing the sword is mentioned. So far as Romans 13 goes, the Christian’s relationship to political government is wholly passive. This is the teaching of the entire New Testament on the matter. There is not one example, command or necessary inference of the Christian by divine sanction taking an active part in civil or military government.
Since it is clear that in Romans 13, Paul considers the sword-bearer and the Christian as separate and distinct individuals, our premise, to represent correctly the teaching of the passage, would read, “It is right for some citizens of the civil government, acting as agents of the government, to bear the sword and punish evil-doers.” In this case it remains to be proved that Christians fall in that class qualified to bear the sword and punish evil-doers. This is the point to be proved in the beginning, so this argument is begging the question, and therefore no logical argument at all.
PAUL’S USE OF ARMED DEFENSE
“And he called unto him two of the centurions and said, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go as far as Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night; and he bade them provide beasts, that they might set Paul thereon, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor” (Acts 23:23-24).
PREMISE:
- 1. Paul used armed force wielded by the government to defend himself against ruthless men.
2. We are to he imitators of Paul. (I Cor. 4:16).
3. Therefore a Christian today may use armed force as an agent of the government to defend himself and others from ruthless men.
REPLY
In the example of Paul, as in Romans 13, we are taught that there are certain things that we as Christians owe the government and certain things the government owes us. The government owes the Christian armed protection, and the Christian owes the government subjection, tribute, and Prayer. On the other hand the Christian does not owe the government armed protection, and the government does not owe the Christian subjection, tribute, or prayer.
CORNELIUS THE SOLDIER
Cornelius was a soldier in the Roman army. We do not know whether he remained in the army after he became a Christian, but Peter said, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respector of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.” (Acts 10:34). Peter applied this to Cornelius before he preached the gospel to him and therefore confirmed his moral character as a soldier.
- 1) Cornelius was a soldier (Acts 10:1).
2) Peter confirmed his moral character as a soldier (Acts 10:34).
3) Therefore there is nothing morally wrong with being a soldier.
REPLY
If Acts 10:34 was applied to Cornelius before he became a Christian, he was accepted with God before he became a Christian, and obedience to the gospel is not necessary to acceptance with God. The fact is that Acts 10:34 teaches that only those who fear God and work righteousness in obeying the gospel are acceptable with him. The passage did not apply to Cornelius before lie obeyed the gospel.
But grant for argument’s sake that Cornelius was morally perfect. He lived under either the Patriarchal or the Jewish dispensation, both of which sanctioned the execution of vengeance by God’s people. Under either of these dispensations Cornelius could have been a perfect moral character as a soldier, for God specifically provided for that office. Where has He provided for the execution of vengeance by His people today? He has not. Cornelius was entering into a new relationship with God, under a new system of worship, new relationships with God and men, and a new system of penal laws.
THE PHlLIPPIAN JAILER
- 1) The jailer, after he became a Christian, occupied a punitive office as an agent of the government.
2) What is right for him is right for Christians today.
3) Therefore it is right for Christians today to occupy a punitive office as agents of the government.
REPLY
This argument, like those on Cornelius, Sergius Paulus, etc., is based on the silence of the scriptures. No one has ever given up all his bad habits or relationships or learned all the truth in the first six hours of discipleship. Acts 19:19 tells of believers who had continued to practice magical arts for a time. We have a record of their learning better and quitting. Acts 6:7 tells of Levitical priests who became obedient to the faith. Nothing is said of their giving up their office or of their being told that a Christian could not serve in such a capacity. Polygamy was common in the first century, but there is no mention of the apostles teaching against it or of anyone ceasing to practice it. By this line of reasoning we conclude that it is right for a Christian to hold the Levitical priesthood, practice polygamy, and hold a punitive civil office. The same line of reasoning is used upon this same text in Acts 16 to prove infant baptism. The jailer’s household was baptized, and nothing is said about there being no infants in it: therefore infant baptism is authorized by the Bible! An argument that proves too much proves nothing at all.
COMBATANT AND NON-COMBATANT SERVICE
PREMISE:
- 1) A Christian may perform services that are indispensable to the man who does the killing in war.
2) This makes the Christian responsible for killing men in war.
3) Therefore a Christian may kill men in war.
REPLY
We deny the second premise. We owe the government every service that does not conflict with the law of Christ. If I owe a legitimate debt to a man whom I know to be a bootlegger, I am duty bound to pay him that which I owe, as long as it does not involve a sacrifice of Christian principle. I must pay him the money I owe him, even though I know he will use it in the manufacture and sale of illicit liquor. It is his money, not mine --- I merely have it borrowed for a time. I am not responsible for the use he makes of his own money. I owe the government taxes. It is Caesar’s money, not mine. I am not responsible for the use he makes of his own money. If I owe my bootlegger neighbor work I can pay it by pulling corn for him or by delivering food for his family, knowing in so doing I am releasing him to go to the still and make whiskey. I am not responsible for what he does with his time and labor, The service that I am rendering him is his. I owe it to him. But I cannot go to the still and help make whiskey. To do so would conflict with a greater and previous obligation to the Lord. In like manner I can pay the government any service I owe it by producing foodstuffs or by caring for the wounded, but I cannot shoulder a gun and kill my follow-man.
THE HEBREW WORDS FOR “KILL”
- 1)It is sinful to murder or “ratsach”, but is not sinful to slay or “harag.”
2) Killing in punishment for crime is slaying or “harag.”
3) Therefore killing in punishment for crime is not sinful.
REPLY
The first statement is false. The only difference between “harag” and “ratsach” is that the former is the more inclusive. They are used almost interchangeably in the Old Testament. If we try to say that murder is prohibited and slaying permitted, using the English Bible, we are confronted with the fact that “ratsach” is translated “slain” in Judges 20:4 (A. V.), Prov. 22:13, and Psa. 62:3. But Ex. 20:13 forbids to “ratsach”, and therefore forbids to slay. On the other hand, if we go back to the Hebrew and say that it is a sin to “ratsach,” but not a sin to “harag,” we find “harag” the word used in Gen. 4:8 of the killing of Abel by Cain, in Gen. 4:15 of the slaying of Cain forbidden by Jehovah, in Gen. 4:23 of the murder of a man by Lamech, in Gen. 37:20 of the proposed killing of Joseph by his brethren, in Judges 9:5 of the killing by Abimelech of his brothers, in I Sam. 22:21, of the slaying of the priests of Jehovah by Saul, in I Kings 18:13, of the slaying of the prophets of God by Jezebel, and in II Chron. 21:4 of the slaying by Jehoram of his brothers. In every one of these cases the Hebrew word is “harag” and in every one of them it is translated “slay.” But we are told that it is not a sin to “harag” or slay!
This same word “harag” is translated “murder” in Psa. 10:8, Jer. 4:31, and Hos. 9:13 (A. V.). Therefore if it is not a sin to “harag,” it -is not a sin to murder. Both words are translated by three English words: “kill”, "slay", and “murder”.
When the Hebrews spoke of killing in war they had to use one of their general words for “kill,” usually “harag” or “muth.” We have already seen by the scriptures that “harag” is used repeatedly of murders. “Muth,” the other general word used to refer to killing in battle, is used in I Sam. 22:18 of the slaughter of the priests of Jehovah by Doeg, in 2 Chr. 22:11 of the destruction of the royal family by Athaliah, in I Kings 13:24 of a man slain by a lion, in 2 Kings 15:14 of the assassination of Shallum by Menahem, in 2 Kings 15:30 of the murder of Pekah by Hosea, etc.
According to Davies’ Lexicon our English word “murder” is traced back to this word “muth,” used of killing in war as well as of other killings. The word “nacah” used frequently of killing in battle, is used in Ex. 2:12 of Moses slaying the Egyptian, in 2 Sam. 13:30 of Absalom’s murder of his brothers, in I Kings 16:11, 16 of the murder and assassinations by Zimri, in Jer. 40:15 of the plotted murder of Ishmael, etc. “Chalal,” translated “slay” or “kill” in battle a number of times, is used in Isa. 53:5 to refer to the wounding or killing of Jesus, which is called murder in Acts 7:52. Every word in the Hebrew language translated “slay” or “kill” and applied to killing in warfare is also applied to murder. The Hebrew language does not make a distinction between killing in war and other killing.
The lexicons hear out this statement, as do the scriptures cited above. Only two words (muth and harag) are specifically applied by the lexicons to killing in war. Gesenius says of “harag”: “kill, slay, implying ruthless violence, especially private violence,” as its first meaning, and derived from that, “Hence of wholesale slaughter after battle. Also of slaughter in a revolt.” Davies says of this word: “To strike, to smite down, hence to murder, kill. To slay, slaughter in war.” Of “muth” Gesenius says: “Of killing men in personal combat or in war.” Davies traces our English word murder to “muth.” Both lexicons include “murder” and “killing in war” in the same definition or even subdivision of a definition of both words.
It will be asked, “But why did not God use one of these words in the decalogue instead of “ratsach,” which is never applied to killing in war?” The answer is “ratsach” is the only word of the ten Hebrew words translated “kill” that applies only to the taking of human life. To have forbidden to “harag” would have prohibited killing beasts, vines, or anything else. A prohibition of “zavach” would have eliminated animal sacrifices; “Chalal” applies to piercing or boring anything, and in killing refers only to death by piercing, as with a spear or sword; to forbid to “tavach” would prohibit killing animals for food. If the word had been “muth” it would have meant literally “to cause to die” and would have forbidden anything causing the death of anything else. A prohibition of “nacah” would forbid slapping with the hand or even clapping hands in applause. If “nakaf” had been used it would have forbidden the Jews to encircle anything or round off any of their vessels. “Katal” is a poetic and late word in the language; while “shachat” includes the killing of animals for both sacrifice and food. The word “ratsach,” used by God in the sixth commandment, is the only word in the Hebrew language that means the killing of man by man without restricting the means of killing, and at the same time does not include more than the taking of human life.
The argument has been made that “ratsach” applies only to premeditated private killing, or murder. In the Pi’el or intensive form of the word this is true, according to Gesenius, but in the Kal form it Is not true. The prohibition in Ex. 20:13 and Deut. 5:17 is expressed in Kal. The Kal form of the word is cited by Gesenius as being used for premeditated murder fifteen times, for accidental killing twenty-one times, and for killing in justice by the divinely and legally appointed avenger of blood twice. Throughout Numbers 35 the word “ratsach” is used consistently to refer to all three parties, the murderer, the accidental slayer, and the legal avenger. A good example of the interchangeability of the Kal form of “ratsach” with other words meaning “kill” is Num. 35:30. “Whosoever killeth (nacah) any person, the murderer (ratsach) shall be slain (ratsach) at the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against any person that he die (muth).” Also Num. 35:27: “The avenger of blood shall slay (ratsach) the manslayer (ratsach).” If God had intended to prohibit premeditated and private murder but at the same time imply a condoning of other forms of killing he would have used the Pi’el; form of the word, which means just that. But he did not use the Pi’el; he used the Kal form which means to kill, to slay a human being; homicide; manslaughter; the taking of the life of man by man, regardless of the means or motive.
It is the stating for the Jewish dispensation of an eternal principle of God, which has applied in all ages of mankind. It is a general prohibition of killing one’s fellow man. True, God made exceptions to this general rule --- killing in justice by divine appointment, and going to war at divine command. The first exception is made in the same word of the commandment, “ratsach,” (Num. 35:27, 30). The other uses the general terms for kill or slay, which we have already shown to be applied to murder and used synonymously with “ratsach” in many places. This distinction has proved to be a distinction without a difference.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
PREMISE:
“There were, up to this time, many Christians connected with the military service, both in the higher and lower ranks; and they as yet had never been compelled to do anything contrary to their conscience” (295 A. D.) Neander, Vol. 1, page 146.
“The persecution having begun with those brethren who were in the army,” Eusebius, Book 8, chapter 1.
Cyprian and Tertullian also mention Christians serving in the army.
- 1) The Christians in the early ages of the church were in position to know what was right.
2) They engaged in military service.
3) Therefore military service is right for the Christian.
REPLY
The authorities cited simply show that Christians served in the army in the second and third centuries A. D. They do not show that it was generally accepted by the church, or that it was right. Neander,, the historian quoted above, argues at length his opinion that the early Christians were wrong in refusing service. When he made the statement quoted, he referred only to certain individuals among the Christians. When treating of the attitude of the church in general toward military service, he says.
- “Many Christians, again, from a conscientiousness worthy of all respect, thought themselves bound to take passages like Matt. 5:39 in the literal sense. That tone of mind very generally prevailed It revolted their Christian feelings to suffer themselves to be employed as instruments of pain to others, to serve as the executors of laws which, in all cases, were dictated and animated by the spirit of rigid justice, without any mixture of mercy or love.
The Christians stood over against the state, as a priestly, spiritual race; and the only way in which it seemed possible that Christianity could exert an influence on civil life was (which it must be allowed was the purest way) by tending continually to diffuse more of a holy temper among the citizens of the state.”
- “But when on account of the abundant freedom, we fell into laxity and sloth, and envied and reviled each other, and were almost, as it were, taking up arms against one another, rulers assailing rulers with words like spears, and people forming parties against people, and monstrous hypocrisy and dissimulation rising to the greatest height of wickedness, the divine judgment with forbearance, as is its pleasure, while the multitudes yet continued to assemble, gently and moderately harassed the episcopacy. This persecution began with the brethren in the army."
- (1) lax,
(2) slothful,
(3) envying and reviling each other,
(4) at the point of taking up arms against each other,
(5) forming rival factions,
(6) practicing monstrous hypocrisy and dissimulation,
(7) rising to the greatest height of wickedness,
(8) serving in the army.
The reference to Cyprian does not mention military service at all. Tertullian mentions Christians serving in the army and states his disapproval of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment