Christian in Relation to War, General Pursuits, the Government, the Authority of God
Paul Wilson
Table of Contents
The Christian in Relation to War
Foreword
It is our purpose to bring together in this pamphlet a collection of extracts, taken from well-known writings that have been in constant circulation among us for many years, which relate to the Christian’s responsibility toward an enemy, and toward war in general, and set forth what becomes him in his pursuits that he may “therein abide with God,” what his attitude should be toward rulers and officers of the law, what place and authority the Word of God should have in his responsibilities; and also supply a few words on certain verses that have been misused to make it appear that the Christian should engage in carnal conflict.
It is our desire that this pamphlet may be used of God to strengthen us in “the faith” and in those things that have been “most surely believed among us.”
Attitude Toward War
Our Lord Jesus Christ has left us an example that we should follow His steps. Can we trace His footsteps into a field of battle? We are called to walk even as He has walked. Is it walking like Him to go to war? Alas! We fail in many things; but if we are asked if it be right for a Christian to go to war, we can only answer the question by a reference to Christ. How did He act? What did He teach? Did He ever take the sword? Did He come to destroy men’s lives? Did He not say, “They that take the sword shall perish with the sword”? And again, “I say unto you, That ye resist not evil.” How do such words comport with going to war?
But some will say, “What would become of us if all were to adopt such principles?” We reply, “If all were to adopt those heavenly principles, there would be no more war, and hence we should not need to fight.” But it is not our business to reason as to the results of obedience; we have only to obey the word of our blessed Master and walk in His steps; and if we do so, we shall, most assuredly, not be found going to war.
Persons sometimes quote our Lord’s words, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one,” as affording a sanction for going to war; but any simple mind can see that they have nothing to do with the question. They refer to the altered condition of things on which the disciples would have to enter when the Lord should be taken. While He was with them, they had lacked nothing; but now they would have to face, in His absence, the full brunt of the world’s opposition. In short, the words have an entirely spiritual application.
Again, much use is sought to be made of the fact that the centurion in Acts 10 was not told to resign his commission. It is not the way of the Spirit of God to put people under a yoke. He does not say to the newly converted soul, “You must give up this or that.” The grace of God meets a man where he is, with a full salvation, and then it teaches him how to walk by presenting the words and ways of Christ in all their sanctifying and formative power.
But again it is said, “Does not the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 7 tell us to abide in the calling wherein we are called”? Yes; with this powerfully qualifying clause, “Abide with God.” This makes a material difference. Suppose a hangman is converted, could he abide in his calling? It will be said that this is an extreme case. Granted; but it is a case in point, inasmuch as it proves the fallacy of the reasoning on 1 Corinthians 7. It proves that there are callings in which one could not possibly “abide with God.”
Finally, then as to your question, dear friend, we have simply to inquire, “Is it abiding with God, or walking in the footsteps of Christ, to go to war?” If it be, let Christians do so; if not—what then?
C. H. Mackintosh
“Things New and Old” Vol. 19, p. 55, Feb. 1876.
Contrast Between the Dispensation of Law and the Dispensation of the Grace of God
“When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And it shall be, when ye are come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people, and shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your hearts faint, fear not, and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them; for the Lord your God is He that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you” (Deut. 22:1-4).
How wonderful to think of the Lord as a Man of war! Think of His fighting against people! Some find it very hard to take in the idea—hard to understand how a benevolent Being could act in such a character. But the difficulty arises mainly from not distinguishing between the different dispensations. It was just as consistent with the character of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to fight against His enemies, as it is with the character of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to forgive them. And inasmuch as it is the revealed character of God that furnishes the model on which His people are to be formed—the standard by which they are to act—it was quite as consistent for Israel to cut their enemies in pieces as it is for us to love them, pray for them, and do them good.
If this very simple principle were borne in mind, it would remove a quantity of misunderstanding, and save a vast amount of unintelligent discussion. No doubt it is thoroughly wrong for the Church of God to go to war. No one can read the New Testament, with a mind free from bias, and not see this. We are positively commanded to love our enemies, to do good to them that hate us, and to pray for them that despitefully use us. “Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” And again, in another gospel, “Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?” Again, our Lord says to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight”—it would be perfectly consistent for them to do so— “But now is My kingdom not from hence”—and therefore it would be wholly out of character, utterly inconsistent, thoroughly wrong for them to fight.
All this is so plain that we need only say, “How readest thou?” Our blessed Lord did not fight; He meekly and patiently submitted to all manner of abuse and ill-treatment, and in so doing He left us an example that we should follow His steps. If we can honestly ask ourselves the question, “What would Jesus do?” it would close all discussion on this point, as well as on a thousand other points besides. There is really no use in reasoning, no need of it. If the words and ways of our blessed Lord, and the distinct teaching of His Spirit, by His holy apostles, be not sufficient for our guidance, all discussion is utterly vain.
If we be asked, What does the Holy Ghost teach on this great practical point — hear His precious, clear and pointed words, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:19-21).
These are the lovely ethics of the Church of God, the principles of that heavenly kingdom to which all true Christians belong. Would they have suited Israel of old? Certainly not. Only conceive Joshua acting toward the Canaanites on the principles of Romans 12! It would have been as flagrant an inconsistency as for us to act on the principle of Deuteronomy 20. How is this? Simply because, in Joshua’s day, God was executing judgment in righteousness; whereas now, He is dealing in unqualified grace. This makes all the difference. The principle of divine action is the grand moral regulator for God’s people in all ages. If this be seen, all difficulty is removed, all discussion definitely closed.
But then if any feel disposed to ask, “What about the world? How could it get on upon the principle of grace? Could it act on the doctrine of Romans 12:20?” Not for a moment. The idea is simply absurd. To attempt to amalgamate the principles of grace with the law of nations, or to infuse the spirit of the New Testament into the framework of political economy would instantly plunge civilization into hopeless confusion. And here is just where many most excellent and well-meaning people are astray. They want to press the nations of the world into the adoption of a principle which would be destructive of their national existence. The time is not come yet for nations to beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, and learn war no more. That blessed time will come, thank God, when this groaning earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. But to seek to get nations, now, to act upon peace principles is simply to ask them to cease to be; in a word, it is thoroughly hopeless, unintelligent labor. It cannot be. We are not called upon to regulate the world, but to pass through it as pilgrims and strangers. Jesus did not come to set the world right. He came to seek and to save that which was lost; and as to the world, He testified of it that its deeds were evil. He will, ere long, come to set things right. He will take to Himself His great power, and reign. The kingdoms of this world shall, most assuredly, become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. He will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity. All this is most blessedly true; but we must wait His time. It can be of no possible use for us, by our ignorant efforts, to seek to bring about a condition of things which all Scripture goes to prove can only be introduced by the personal presence and rule of our beloved and adorable Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
“Notes on Deuteronomy”
C. H. Mackintosh (About 1860)
Israel entered on the land, charged to execute God’s righteous judgment on the Canaanites, to keep His law, and to hold the first place among the nations. The people were in these matters God’s instrument for the righteous government of the earth. If they were to destroy the Canaanites, it was as the ministers of God’s just judgments. If in their law they were to exact “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Exodus 21:23-25), it was as the executors of God’s governmental righteousness. If their enemies were to flee before them, and they were to be the head and not the tail, it was because they were the instruments of God to maintain His authority on the earth. No intelligent Christian can look at this trust committed to Israel, without seeing how completely contrasted it is with the position in which the believer is now placed. Is this, as has been argued, because the world has been educated to a higher point? Let us ask one question—Has God been educated? Has He discovered that things once thought to be right, are really wrong, and therefore abandoned them? The very question is shocking. Whence then the difference? To an open eye it is plain at once. The Israelite was the minister of God’s righteous government on earth; the Christian is the exponent of God’s grace on earth. God’s people are called to be the living manifestation of the principle on which God is acting. He is now acting in forbearance and longsuffering, and His people must exhibit forbearance and longsuffering also. In His dealings with the nations through Israel, He was acting in righteousness and judgment, and His people were bound to carry out righteousness and judgment as His instruments.
In the Old Testament God speaks to a people, who, instead of being outside the world, are expressly promised the most favored position, and the most abundant blessing in the world. For their guidance the fullest political and legal directions are provided. What treatment to give to captured cities, what exemptions to make from military service, what number of witnesses to require in criminal trials, what courts to establish for disputed questions, what punishments to inflict for particular offenses, these and other kindred matters are laid down with a precision suited to the worldly character of the subject with which they deal. As might be expected, where the righteous regulation of society was the object, strict assertion of right is the pervading principle; “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” fairly summarizes its spirit. Indeed, such must be the spirit of any code for the equitable government of man on the earth.
But is this the code laid down for the Christian to follow? No, the Christian is “not of the world,” and the directions given him are suited to his heavenly character and his association with the “patience” of Christ. He is a follower of Him who “was brought as a lamb to the slaughter,” “who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously.” How then is the believer to act? In just the same way. “If, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye should follow His steps” (1 Peter 2:20-23). Such, too, are our Lord’s own directions. Instead of demanding “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” as the Israelite was to do, His instructions are—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” (Matt. 5:39-41).
And this, though strongly put, is no figure of speech. Paul exclaims, as though the idea was shocking to entertain—“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?” It is incredible that “brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” (1 Cor. 6:1, 7). Imagine such language addressed to a Jew! It is absolutely subversive of the whole principle on which the institutions of his state were founded—absolutely ruinous to any scheme of righteous government on earth. Why then is it urged, as an almost self-evident principle, on the believer? Because the believer is not of the world. He belongs to Christ. True, he will judge the world, and judge angels, but this will be with Christ; and if Christ waits for this time, so must he. He is not even to assert his rights now, but is called to suffer wrong as Christ did; not to render “evil for evil, or railing for railing; but contrariwise blessing” —not to avenge himself, “but rather give place unto wrath” (1 Peter 3:9; Rom. 12:19).
“The Lord’s Coming, Israel, and the Church”
T. B. Baines (1890)
Personal Enemies
“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” (Romans 12:19).
Did He, whose precious name we bear, avenge Himself? The day of vengeance, of judgment on an ungodly world, will come; but are we not the followers of Him who healed His enemy’s ear? Oh, to be more like Him! What tender words are these: “if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink.” Where shall we find such words apart from the inspired Scriptures of truth? Leave man to himself, will he act thus? No, no, these are the precious fruits of the Spirit. May they abound in us more and more.
“On the Epistle to the Romans”
Charles Stanley (1884)
A Heavenly Country and the Affections Proper to It
It is clear to me that a Christian, free to do as he will, could never be a soldier, unless he were ... 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 toward the whole world. At bottom, human affection must have a center, 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 “I.” One would sacrifice one’s life—everything (not oneself, or one’s honor) 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 center of all; and the Christian, if consistent, declares plainly that he seeks a country—a better, that is to say, 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 honorable 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 England were to be invaded tomorrow I should trust in Him. It would be a chastisement upon this people who have never seen war, but I would bend before His will.
Many Christians are laboring 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 keep His own.
J. N. Darby (1870)
From his letters.
Earthly Powers Ordained by God
It is a solemn thought that wrath and vengeance belong to God. It becomes us, instead of avenging ourselves, to bend before the blast, looking to God; nay, to render service to an enemy in need and distress. This will bring him to a point with God or with you; if he melt, so much the better for all; if he harden himself, so much the worse for him. For the Christian it is exercise in the divine nature, that is in faith and patience and love. For the Christian rule is Christ—not to be overcome by evil, but to overcome it with good. So God, in our own case as with all who love Him, overcame our evil with His good in Christ our Lord; and now also He gives us to be imitators of Him in grace, which wins the victory in His sight and to our own consciousness, even when we may seem most downtrodden before the world. For this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith —of course faith working through love.
The Apostle next enters on the relation to worldly authority of the saints, after treating of their attitude towards all men as the witnesses of the good they had learned in Christ, where God overcame all evil with His good, and privileges us as partakers of it both to be active in it and to suffer for it.
“Let every soul be subject to authorities in power. For there is no authority save from God, and those that exist are ordered by God: so that he that setteth himself against the authority resisteth the ordinance of God, and those that resist shall receive judgment for themselves. For rulers are not a fear for the good work but for the evil. Dost thou wish then not to be afraid of the authority? Do good, and thou shalt have praise from it; for it is God’s servant to thee for good; but if thou do evil, fear; for not in vain doth it wear the sword; for it is God’s servant, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore [it is] needful to be subject not only on account of wrath but also on account of conscience. For on this account ye pay tribute also; for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing” (Rom. 13:1-6).
The holy wisdom of the exhortation is as worthy of God as the suitability of all that is taught is apparent for those who, though not of the world, yet have relative duties in it, as they wait for the Lord and are called to do the will of God meanwhile. By a gradual transition we are brought from not avenging ourselves, and overcoming evil with good, as becomes the children of God, to our relation to the authorities in the world whose office it is to avenge evil, punishing evil-doers, and praising those that do well...
Again, “authorities in power” is an expression that embraces every form of governing power—monarchical, aristocratic, or republican. All cavil on this score is therefore foreclosed. The Spirit insists not merely on the divine right of kings but that “there is no authority except from God.” Nor is there an excuse on this plea for change; yet if a revolution should overthrow one form and set up another, the Christian’s duty is plain: “those that exist are ordained by God.” His interests are elsewhere, are heavenly, are in Christ; his responsibility is to acknowledge what is in power as a fact, trusting God as to the consequences and in no case behaving as a partisan. Never is he warranted in setting himself up against the authority as such; for this were to resist the ordinances of God, and those that resist shall receive judgment for themselves. For it is by no means “damnation,” but “sentence,” or the charge for which he is condemned. Scripture is ever sober, as the Apostle said he was, for our sakes; if he were ecstatic, it was for God, as it might well be. Other scriptures show that, where the authority demands that which is offensive to Him, as for instance that an apostle should speak no more of Jesus or that a Christian should sacrifice to an idol or an emperor, we must obey God rather than man, but suffering, not resisting, if we cannot quietly leave the scene of persecution. For it is evident that it is impossible to plead God’s authority for obeying a command which dishonors and denies Him. Every relation has its limits in conduct which virtually nullifies it; and that is a requirement which undermines its own authority by antagonism to Him who set it up.
“Notes on the Epistle to the Romans”
William Kelly (1878)
For the Christian the question is not about the king, but how he ought to behave himself. It is not his business to meddle with others. He is called to walk, relying on God, in obedience and patience. As to the great mass of everyday obligations we can obey God in obeying the laws of the land in which we live. This might be the case in any country...
The business of the Christian is to show respect to all who are in authority, to pay honor to whom honor is due, owing no man anything save love. What makes this so particularly strong is that the emperor then reigning was one of the worst and most cruel men that ever filled the throne of the Caesars. And yet there is no reserve or qualifications, nay, the very reverse of any insinuation that, if the emperor ordered what was good the Christians were to obey, but if not they were free from their allegiance. The Christian is called to obey—not always Nero or Nebuchadnezzar, but God evermore. The consequence is that this at once delivers from the very smallest ground for charging a godly person with being a rebel. I am aware that nothing will of necessity bar a Christian from an evil reputation. It is natural for the world to speak ill of one that belongs to Christ—to Him whom they crucified. But from all real ground for such an accusation this principle delivers the soul....
It is nowhere said that we must ever disobey man. God must be obeyed—whatever the channel, God always. If I do a thing ever so right in itself on the mere ground that I have a right to disobey man under certain circumstances I am doing the lesser of two evils. The principle for a Christian man is never to do evil at all. He may fail, as I do not deny; but I do not understand a man quietly settling down that he must accept any evil whatever.... But I maintain that whatever the difficulty may be there is always the path of God for the godly to walk in.
Why then do I find practical difficulty? because I wish to spare myself. If I compound for even a little the broad way of ease and honor lies open, but I sacrifice God and come under the power of Satan. It was just the advice that Peter gave our Lord when He spoke of being put to death. “Far be it from Thee—pity Thyself—Lord.”
So with the Christian. By doing a little evil, by compromising the conscience, by avoiding the trial that obeying God always entails, no doubt a person may thus often avoid a good deal of the world’s enmity and gain its praise because he does well to himself. But if the eye is single in this God always must have His rights, always be owned in the soul as having the first place. If God is compromised by anything required of me then I must obey God rather than man. Where this is held fast the path is perfectly plain....
The Lord grant that we may have no difficulty in knowing what the world is and where we are. The Jew was obliged to enter it with sword in his hand, executing judgment. But this is not the place of the Christian, who began with the world’s sword against Christ, and Himself bowing to it. We began and should go on with the cross, looking for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ... May we know more and more what it is to walk with Christ in liberty and joy! So shall we have Christ with us in every time of need.
“Lectures on the Book of Daniel” (Second Edition 1881)
William Kelly
Obedience to God is Paramount
Peter and John had before this asked, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken to you rather than to God, judge ye.” Now they all join Peter in his still firmer reply, “Obedience must be to God rather than men.” This is the great practical principle of faith, as it was the uniform characteristic of Christ in all perfection here below. “Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God”: not miracles, not doing good, not teaching, not zeal, so much as unqualified and unfailing obedience rendered to God...
Nor is there any principle so essential for the Christian. He is sanctified of the Spirit unto Christ’s obedience as well as to the sprinkling of His blood (as the gospel is for faith-obedience, in contrast with enforcement of law), and his soul is purified by obeying the truth to unfeigned brotherly love; for God chose him to salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and faith of the truth. Hence, though he may have sometimes to wait on God for light, obedience is the invariable place and duty of the believer. It is never a question of his rights; he is called to obey. He is to be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to rulers as sent by him, free but not having his freedom for a cloak of malice but as God’s bondman.
Hence, if collision come between God’s Word and the ruler’s requirement, the believer’s path is clear; God must be obeyed, but in suffering perhaps, not resistance to authority. He is always to obey, though in some cases it may be God rather than men. Nothing is so humble, nothing so firm. Naturally the believer might be feeble and timid; obedience by grace gives strength and courage. He might be self-confident and unyielding; obedience gives distrust in self and meekness in doing God’s will. “He that doeth the will of God abideth forever”; even as sin is self-will or lawlessness, and its end judgment and perdition. Therefore is obedience not only an inalienable duty, but the true pathway from every snare of the enemy.
“Exposition of The Acts”
William Kelly
The attitude of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego defines with exactitude, as already remarked, the true position of the believer in relation to the powers that be. Everywhere in the New Testament submission to these is enjoined, and such is to be the path of the Christian in the midst of political agitations and confusions. He is neither to raise questions, nor to examine the lawfulness of constituted authorities. It is enough for him that they are in power, and he pursues his way in peace as he renders the required obedience. But if these authorities, whether they be emperors, kings, or magistrates, travel outside of their own province, as Nebuchadnezzar did, and seek to substitute their will for the Word of God, and to impose that will on the consciences of their subjects—putting themselves, in fact, in the place of God—then, in very faithfulness to God, like these three children of the captivity, and at whatever cost, the believer is bound to disobey [or rather, it is a question of “to whom is obedience to be rendered”]. The limit of his obedience to kings is obedience to God in obeying them. The moment he is called upon to disobey God by yielding to a monarch’s demands, he must, if he would retain a good conscience toward God, refuse the demanded subjection, even at the cost of life. Such was the ground taken in this conflict between Nebuchadnezzar and these three subjects of his realm.
“Daniel the Prophet”
Edward Dennett (1893)
Christianity from the Beginning
I do not think that any of us have any idea of what the real type of a Christian is. The Church has let this truth slip. In the early ages of the Church “they took joyfully the spoiling of their goods,” and longed for a martyr’s crown. This is where our souls must be brought before the Lord, and we shall find that there is His grace to meet us amidst all that would press us down. The testimony may be feeble, and yet true. I notice the position in which the Lord would put His saints in the midst of the prevalence of this evil.
“Ministry of G. V. Wigram”
(Prior to 1873)
Even Prayer for Vengeance Out of Place
The fifth seal shows us souls under the altar, who had been slain for the word of God, and for their testimony, who cried aloud for vengeance to the Sovereign Ruler. They are vindicated before God, but must wait; others, both their fellow-servants and their brethren, must be killed as they were ere that day comes.
The sixth seal marks a vast convulsion, a partial answer to the cry as I suppose. Many a person thinks that those in question are Christians. But if we look more clearly into the passage, we may learn that this again confirms the removal of the Church to heaven before this. “How long, O Sovereign, holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” Is this a prayer or desire according to the grace of the gospel? Reasoning is hardly needful on a point so manifest. I think that anyone who understands the general drift of the New Testament, and the special prayers there recorded by the Holy Ghost for our instruction, would be satisfied but for a false bias otherwise. Take Stephen’s prayer, and our blessed Lord—the pattern of all that is perfect. On the other hand, we have similar language elsewhere; but where? In the Psalms. Thus we have all the evidence that can be required. The evidence of the New Testament shows that these are not the sanctioned prayers of the Christian; the evidence of the Old Testament, that just such were the prayers of persons whose feelings and experience and desires were founded on Israelitish hopes.
“Lectures Introductory to The Acts, The Catholic Epistles and The Revelation”
William Kelly (1870)
On Luke 22:35-38
Jesus then takes occasion to forewarn them that all was about to change. During His presence here below, the true Messiah, Emmanuel, He had sheltered them from all difficulties; when He sent them throughout Israel, they had lacked nothing. But now (for the kingdom was not yet coming in power) they would be, like Himself, exposed to contempt and violence. Humanly speaking, they would have to take care of themselves. Peter, ever forward, taking the words of Christ literally, was permitted to lay bare his thoughts by exhibiting two swords. The Lord stops him by a word that showed him it was of no use to go farther. They were not capable of it at that time. As to Himself, He pursues with perfect tranquility His daily habits.
“Synopsis of the Books of the Bible”
J. N. Darby
“And they said, Lord, behold here [are] two swords. And He said to them, “It is enough”— a correction of their thought, however mild. For had it been a question of the literal use of the sword in self-defense, two must have proved a wholly inadequate means of protection. The Lord had employed the sword, purse, and wallet as symbolic of ordinary means on which the disciples would henceforward be thrown, but certainly not to abandon personally the ground of grace in presence of evil, even to the last degree of insult and injury, on which He had insisted at the beginning of their call and charge as apostles. No more, however, is said; the true sense is left for that day when the Holy Spirit being given would lead them into all the truth.
“Exposition of the Gospel of St. Luke”
William Kelly
Verses 35-38 show an entire change of circumstances. Previously He had protected them and supplied all, as Messiah disposing of everything here. That was now gone, since the Righteous One was being more and more rejected. He had come, able to destroy Satan’s power, but it was the Lord, and man would not have Him; that is the condition the world is in. He must be reckoned among the transgressors! What link could there be between God and man? Humanity is a condemned thing, because it refused Christ...But the disciples still rested on man’s strength, not on Messiah crucified in weakness, and said, “Here are two swords.” The Lord in saying “It is enough,” alludes to their words, and implies that they did not enter into His mind. He did not want to say more.
“Gospel of Luke”
J. N. Darby
On John 18:10-11
Peter, always energetic, had recourse to the sword in order to defend his Master from His foes. But the sword—the weapon of vengeance—was out of place in such a defense. The Lord was about to surrender Himself into the hands of sinful men for the fulfillment of His mission here below; and self-defense was therefore no part of His gracious plan. He abandoned it in order to accomplish the Scriptures.
But such an act of surrender was scouted by the rash and impulsive disciple. He, like Samson, was shorn of his locks, yet he flew to the sword; he appealed, in his weakest moment, to the verdict of the weapon of natural strife. His intention was no doubt good, but his conduct was sadly at fault. He strikes and cuts off the ear of Malchus.
Thus Peter does exploits, but they are out of keeping with the times. David had his “mighty men,” the records of whose prowess are placed on the pages of history. They fought and won by the use of carnal means; but they acted in keeping with their times.
Jesus came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. His disciple understood not.
Alas, how slow we are to learn grace, or to apprehend the unworldly, the heavenly nature of Christianity! How slow to learn the differences that God has made in the dispensation of His ways! The law and the sword agreed well; but grace and the sword are absolutely incongruous. Nature understands the former and readily acts upon it; but the Christian should seek to know the latter, and act upon that. The disciple acted in law, and used the sword; but the blessed Master acted in grace, and healed the ear of Malchus. How bright the contrast.
J. Wilson Smith
(About 1890)
In Spirit Out of the World
There is no way in which the Christian so shows how much he is above the world, as when he seeks not the world’s vindication in anything. If we belong to the world, we ought all to be volunteers. If the world is our home, a man is called upon to do battle for it. But for the Christian this world is not the scene of his interests, and why fight for what does not belong to him? If a Christian fight in and with the world (save his own spiritual warfare), he is out of his place. It is the duty of men, as such, to repel wrong; and if the Lord uses the world in order to put down revolution and make peace, the Christian may well look up and give thanks. It is a great mercy. But the truth which the believer has to get firmly settled in his own soul, is that “they are not of the world.” To what measure are they not of the world? “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” In John 17, where our Lord repeats this wondrous word, He speaks in view of going to heaven, as if He were no longer on earth at all. Thus, in the spirit of one away from the world, He says, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world,” A little before He had said, “Now I am no more in the world.” His going up to heaven is what gives its character to the Christian and to the Church. A Christian is not merely a believer, but a believer called to the enjoyment of Christ while He is in heaven. And, as Christ our Head is out of the world, so the Christian is in spirit lifted above the world, and is to show the strength of his faith as above his mere natural feeling. Nothing makes a man look so foolish as having no side in this world. Christians do not like to be nonentities; they are apt, one way or another, to wish their influence to be felt. But the Lord delivers from this.
“Lectures on the Gospel of Matthew”
William Kelly (1868)
Can Christ’s Name Be Joined to War?
Notwithstanding, all obedience in man has its limits. There are cases where the Christian is bound...“to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
Take a peremptory call on a Christian to fight the battles of his country. If he knows his calling, can he join Christ’s name with such unholy strife? If right for one side, it is right for another; or the Christian becomes a judge instead of a pilgrim, and the name of the Lord would be thus compromised by brethren on opposite sides, each bound to imbrue their hands in one another’s blood, each instruments of hurrying to perdition souls ripening in sins.
Is this of Christ? Is it of grace? It may suit the flesh and the world; but it is vain to plead the Word of God to justify a Christian’s finding himself engaged in such work. Will anyone dare to call human butchery, at the command of the “powers that be,” Christ’s service?
The true reason why people fail to see this is, either a fleshly mind or an unworthy shrinking from the consequences. They prefer to kill another to please the world, rather than to be killed themselves to please Christ.
William Kelly
Conclusion
Surely the foregoing principles are clear enough for any unbiased Christian. What these writers say is nothing that is not backed by both principles and plain statements of Scripture.
Those who would gainsay these principles usually bring up a certain line of hypothetical cases by means of which they hope to have the follower of Christ admit he would depart from them under certain circumstances. (Example: “If such and such were to take place, what would you do to protect a loved one?”) There is, however, one common defect in all their reasonings; namely, they are predicated on the premise that God will not intervene; they leave God out. Any calculations or suppositions that do not take God into account cannot be properly founded. The Christian is to “obey God” and count on Him for the results, be they what they may.
We need to have more of the spirit of those three Hebrews who would not bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s image: “Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us ... But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up” (Dan. 3:17-18). These men were not moved by the “ifs” of hypothetical cases, nor even by the dread assurance of danger. They took God into account, and that settled all their problems.
P. Wilson