 |
| Elder William L. Beebe |
If the saints are forbidden to participate even in defensive warfare at the command of earthly governments, how is it that they are to be subject to the powers that be?
2nd. What is meant by the direction of Luke 22:36?
3rd. If it is wrong for the saints to bear the sword in obedience to their governments, does that man who forfeits his possessions rather than violate that law of Christ subject himself to the condemnation of I Timothy 5:8?
[ed. If the reader wishes to hear this article read, while he reads it, we have provided a video for that purpose.]
These questions occur to me in reading the Warwick Circular.
William L. Beebe.
Reply to Elder William L. Beebe: Dear Son:
The questions suggested to your mind by reading the last Circular Letter of our Warwick Association, on which you ask for further light are of very grave importance, involving considerations of more than ordinary magnitude in their bearing on those who are called to be followers of the meek and lowly Lamb of God. While on the one hand Christians should be exceedingly cautious in receiving any new theories in regard to the doctrine and order of the gospel, we should be equally careful to reject all error however popular or time-honored. On every rising question our only infallible standard is the scriptures of truth. Whatever God approves will find support in the holy oracles, and whatever the Bible does not sustain, however plausible or long-cherished, stands disapproved of God, and should be discarded by all his children.
But as we are jealous of our own ability to correctly interpret the scriptures in all their bearings, and as we are not allowed to follow any man only so far as that man follows Christ, we should heed the admonition given by an apostle to any man who lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God who is the Father of lights, the true and only source of revelation to his children. As we are liable to mistake the true import of what God has spoken, it behooves us to search the scriptures diligently, and call mightily upon the Lord to open them to our understanding by his Holy Spirit.
The object or design of the Warwick Association in calling the attention of the churches of which she is composed to the subject of carnal warfare as incompatible with the laws of Christ or the Spirit and temper of the gospel of peace was to bring the subject before our churches, that they may examine the subject and decide as the word of God directs. We wish to set up no new theory, lay down no new laws, introduce no new customs among the children of God. Whatever laws Christ has enacted for the government of his kingdom and whatever decisions his inspired apostles have made as to the true meaning of his laws, we desire that they may be accepted and complied with to the exclusion of all other rules, customs or usages, whether new or old. We are well assured that, however much Christians may differ in their light upon certain portions of the scriptures, all who love God sincerely desire to know and do his will; to be guided by his counsel and led by his Spirit.
Our brethren in Georgia, or elsewhere, have the same Bible that we have, and the same unerring Spirit to unseal its sacred pages to their understanding. We do not assume to possess a particle of wisdom, light or understanding that is hidden from them. We charge them, therefore, in the fear of God, that they receive nothing as coming from us that they do not find clearly established by a "Thus saith the Lord."
In venturing to give such views as we have on the several questions submitted we wish it to be distinctly understood that we give them only as our views, holding none responsible for them but the writer of this article, and if we are wrong, we hope to be corrected by the clearer light of our brethren. If we are right, it is only because our views are scriptural, and not because they are our views. The words which God has spoken owe no part of their power and majesty to the concurrent testimony of any of his creatures; they are of themselves omnipotent whether understood and received or not. With this understanding premised, we will attempt to reply to the questions proposed, in the order in which the questions are written.
I. If the saints are forbidden to participate even in defensive warfare at the command of earthly governments, how is it that they are to be subject to the powers that be?
An intelligent answer to this question will involve the consideration of what are the powers that be? In Romans 13 it is enjoined on every soul to be subject to the higher powers, and we are told that the powers that be are ordained of God; and that whosoever resisted the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and shall receive to themselves damnation.
If we rightly understand our apostle, he means by power, or powers that be, such legitimate authority as God has invested in kings, governors, parents, husbands and masters, and in any or all others to whom he has given power to reign, rule or govern their fellow men. And we further understand him to deny the existence of any legitimate power or rights to govern except just what power God, by ordinance, or express provision, has invested in men. He admits of no other legitimate source of authority but God himself, "There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." And so ordained of God that none of them can be resisted without resisting the ordinance of God.
Now let these words have their plain and simple meaning, and say, Did Daniel, or the three Hebrew children, resist any ordinance of God when they resisted the decrees of those kings which required of them to disobey their God? In other words, is there any ordinance of God expressed or implied in any of the laws he has given for the government of mankind, which empowers or invests any man with a power, authority or right to require of their fellow men to disobey him? Now when the apostle says, "There is no power but of God," but such as he has invested men with, we cannot understand him to say or mean that their usurpation of such power as God has forbidden them to exercise, is by any ordinance of his; but in direct violation of such ordinance or investment. He refuses to recognize any power to rule, except that power or authority expressly defined in his ordinance by which kings reign, and princes decree judgment.
To illustrate (we are no lawyer), a sheriff comes to us with the decree or ordinance of the supreme court; his writ or summons distinctly defines his power, and he has no power but that which is vested in him officially, as an officer, which power is distinctly defined by the laws which he is required to execute. Now should that officer receive from the proper authority a warrant to execute the sentence of the court, in taking a man and in hanging him by the neck until he is dead; no man or men could resist that sheriff without resisting an ordinance of the court which issued the warrant of death against the victim. But should that sheriff usurp the right to hang men, without trial, without judge or jury, would not every intelligent citizen deny his power to do so? His powers are definitely described and limited; beyond such power he has no right to go.
God, who is the only rightful source of power, has instituted regal and other forms of governments, not to be a terror to good works, but to evil, and over all these rulers so invested with power he has set his King upon his holy hill Zion, and written "upon his vesture and upon his thigh, King of kings, and Lord of lords." God has made him to be the Head over all things to his church, which is his body, and has exalted him not only over, but far above all principalities, thrones and powers, and commanded all the subjects of his spiritual government to honor him as their "only and blessed Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords." God has said of him, "Let all the angels worship him." He has put all things under him, and set his power above the heavens, and charged the potentates of earth to "touch not mine Anointed, and do my prophets no harm," etc.
Now, to return to our first question, we answer, The command to be subject to the powers that be cannot be righteously so construed as to mean that a child is required, by ordinance of God, to obey the unlawful commands of his parents. Should a parent command his child to steal, lie, murder or burn his neighbor's house, that parent possesses no such right of power, and the child in being subject to the higher power, which requires his obedience to the law which says, Thou shalt not steal, kill, nor covet, is justified in refusing obedience to the usurped power or unlawful commands of his parents.
The same argument and the same principle holds good if applied to wives, to servants that are under the yoke, and to the subjects of any form of human government. Should a child be convicted of a crime against the law of a state, would he be justified or excused by proving that he committed the crime in obedience to his parent? Should a wife commit murder, should she plead and prove that her husband commanded her to do it, it would implicate him as accessory to the murder, but unless she prove that he actually compelled her against her will, the mere command of the husband could not justify the act, for God has given no husband any such power or authority.
No man who owns property in servants has a right to require of them to commit acts which are forbidden by the laws of the state, and should they usurp such a right, the servant would be justified in disregarding such an unlawful command. "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers." There are different degrees of human power given by divine ordinance to men.
The power of the husband over the wife is not as great as the power of parents over children; that of parents over children is not so absolute as that of masters over their servants which are under the yoke; nor are any of these powers as high as that which is held by a state or nation over its citizens; nor are the powers of kings and rulers of the earth in any department to be compared with that of him unto whom the Father has given power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as the Father hath given him.
So far then as the commands of earthly rulers do not conflict with our obedience to God we are, by the ordinances of God, required, if children, to honor and obey our parents; if servants under the yoke, to count our own masters worthy of all honor; if citizens, to obey the laws of the land where we dwell. Even if the commands of parents, masters or other rulers seem to us to be unjust, cruel or tyrannical, if they do not conflict with our higher obligations to our God, we are by the laws of Christ to be subject to them.
Therefore if the saints of God are commanded by human governments to participate even in defensive warfare; if it can be made clearly to appear from the scriptures that Christ has forbidden them to so participate, they are by the very scripture referred to (Romans 13) required to be subject to the higher, instead of the lower or minor power. They are to obey God rather than men, and leave the consequence with God.
II. What is meant by the direction in Luke 22:36?
Whatever may have been intended by our Lord in giving this direction, it cannot be supposed that he designed to countermand the orders which he had given them in all his previous instructions, in which he had forbidden them to resist evil. "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (Matthew 5:39-42).
Peter had probably understood the order to mean a preparation for defensive warfare, and when he saw an armed force come to arrest his King, he drew his sword and used it in a defensive manner; but he had evidently mistaken the meaning of the direction.
If Jesus had designed to resist his persecutors with the sword, and had given orders to that effect, he would not have reproved Peter, and ordered him to put up his sword, or said to him that "They who take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be?" An attempt to defend Christ from the violence of his enemies with carnal weapons would have betrayed a want of confidence in God to defend him. While all the armies of heaven were at his command, and quicker than the lightning would come to his defense if it were not the will of God that he should suffer. How feeble would the resistance of his little handful of disciples armed with two swords have been against the whole force of armed men who had come to take him, and how much more insignificant would that force appear if contrasted with heaven's full artillery which only waited the order from the throne to launch the bolts of vengeance, and sink the foes of Christ into perdition. When he told them who he was, they who came to take him went backward and fell to the ground. How easily could he have paralyzed all their powers, for as he said to Pilate, "Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin" (John 19:11). To have attempted an armed resistance would have been virtually to resist the power and purpose of God himself. And if a defensive war could not be justified for the protection of Christ, how can it be for the defense of his members.
To us, the whole matter seems to be forever settled by the words of our Lord to Pilate, "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36). It follows then that as his kingdom is not of this world, his servants should not fight defensively nor offensively. The apostles are enthroned in judgment to expound all the laws of his kingdom to his subjects, and they have decided that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual - that in the whole armor of God which we are to put on no carnal implements can be found.
After thus showing why we think that the directions given in Luke 22:36 do not mean to justify his disciples in participating in even defensive warfare, the question returns, What does it mean? We do not know that we can tell. The direction may have been given for the very purpose of affording occasion for condemning the use of the sword, even defensively by his disciples, as also for showing that the trial into which the disciples were to be plunged that night would be far more severe than that which they encountered when he sent them forth defenseless like lambs in the midst of wolves, and also to show that all his disciples, even when armed with carnal weapons, were unreliable and unavailing in the protection of their Master or of themselves; for armed though they were, they all fled in the hour of conflict and left him alone.
III. The third question is thus stated: If it is wrong for the saints to bear the sword in obedience to their governments, does that man who forfeits his possessions rather than violate that law of Christ subject himself to the condemnation of I Timothy 5:8?
We think not. The case stated to Timothy is one of criminal neglect, involving a denial of Christ, the other is an acknowledgment of him. "If any man provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel." Paul was speaking of provisions made in and by the church for the support of widows, and such as are poor. This provision is not to be misapplied on those who would excuse themselves from working for a living, or on such widows as have children or nephews in the church who are able to support them at home, and thus show piety by requesting the care and expense they have been to such mothers or aunts, and not cast them upon the church to be supported.
The faith of the gospel teaches the saints to avoid covetousness; hence for a member to ease himself from the burden of supporting his own family, and taxing the church with that burden, is a denial of the faith, is unnatural, unjust, impious, and worse than the mere infidelity of simply denying the faith. We can perceive no bearing this instruction has to the subject of defensive warfare; unless it be said if a man will not fight to defend his rights, he may become so much impoverished by robbers or extortioners as to be unable to support his family.
But this argument will not weigh much if we read the charge given to the disciples in his sermon on the mount. "But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you." In that sermon he has forbidden them to resist evil, and commanded them if smitten on the right cheek to turn the other also; and if sued and robbed of thy coat, give up thy cloak also; and if compelled to go one mile, go two. These precepts indicate the righteousness of God; they are his precepts, and the righteousness of them exceeds the righteousness of scribes and Pharisees, without which we shall in no case enter into that kingdom which we are commanded not only to seek, but to seek it first, before any other consideration whatever.
Those rules are not given to the world, or to the kingdoms of this world; but to a people redeemed not of the world, and a kingdom that is not of this world. Worldly governments may require armies and armed forces on the land and on the sea to fight offensively and defensively, and if the kingdom of Christ was of this world, his servants would fight defensively, but as it is, it is enough for the saints to know that their heavenly Father knoweth all their necessities and has promised that he will withhold no good thing from them that walk uprightly.
Having answered the several inquiries, we will conclude this article by asking, Has Christ forbidden the members of his kingdom to fight, to kill, to covet, or to resist evil? If he has, has he given by ordinance the right to any beings in earth or heaven to require of them to do what he has expressly forbidden? If he has not, can we be blameless before him in obeying men rather than God? Again, has Christ commanded his people to love their enemies? To sympathize with them in their afflictions, to render to them good for evil, when they hunger to give them bread, when thirsty to give them drink, when naked to clothe them, and when they despitefully use and persecute us, to pray for them? If he has, may we, to obey an earthly government or to save our lives, disobey his precepts? Such conflicts between his and the governments of the world have been anticipated by him, and he has said, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." (See Matthew 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; and 17:33.)
The qualifications for a soldier in carnal warfare are the very opposite to those which qualify a man for a place in the kingdom of God. The soldier should be bold, fearless, defiant, cruel, unfeeling for the woes which he is called to inflict; breathing slaughter, etc. But the disciple of Christ should be meek, possessing Godly fear, harmless, kind, sympathetic, and breathing prayer, even for his bitterest enemies. Should a Christian carry with him into the field of slaughter these Christian graces, he would subject himself to death by military rule for loving his enemies, sympathizing with them, and for giving them that aid and comfort which Christ commands him to extend to his enemies.
On the other hand, should the warrior come to the church, bringing with him his military ardor for fame as a soldier, with all readiness to shed blood (which military law requires), holding it to be criminal to sympathize or give aid or comfort to an enemy, could he be admitted to membership without a repudiation of the laws of Christ?
We repeat what we have already said, We wish to introduce no new rules into the church of God. If what we have suggested are not the law of Christ, let it be rejected. If the laws of Christ will allow the saints to participate in carnal warfare, under any circumstances, let those who can point to the scriptures that will sustain them in so doing.
Middletown, N.Y.
October 15, 1866.
Elder Gilbert Beebe
Editorials Volume 6
Pages 393 - 401
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. If an answer is needed, we will respond.