Faith Theological Seminary

2392 History of NT Interpretation

4 May 1971 – Dr Alfred E. Eppard

Pacifism andBiblical Interpretation

Robert C. Newman

Introduction

One of the more persistent and controversial topics ofdiscussion in the history of Christendom has been the Christian attitude towardwar. This area is certainly animportant one, as it vitally affects the Christian's relationship to the statein which he lives, to its social and cultural life, and to many phases ofnational and international politics.

Several questions of exegesis and hermeneutics also arisewhen this problem is considered. For example: What is thenature of the Old Testament? Whatis its relationship to the New Testament? What is the range of application of the Sermon on the Mount? In fact, one's exegesis of the Sermonon the Mount and one's view on war tend to go hand-in-hand.

In this paper we shall attempt briefly to sketch the historyof pacifism in Christendom to date. Then we shall examine three important forms of such pacifism,considering each view and the arguments used to support it. We shall call these views HistoricPacifism, Liberal Pacifism, and Neo-Orthodox Pacifism. Finally we shall attempt a briefcritique of each view.

History of Pacifism in Christendom

Pacifism seems to have had its ups and downs in the historyof the church. Before about AD170, very little is known about Christian attitudes toward war beyond theteaching of Scripture, which we will discuss later. It is true that several statements from the Didache (AD60-130), Ignatius (about 110) and Polycarp (about 130) have been cited tosupport the view that the primitive church was pacifist,[1]but these passages seem to be nothing more than warnings against hatred andvengeance. I am not aware of anyChristian theologian, whether pacifist or not, who has approved of eitherhatred or vengeance.

With more justification, the statement of Justin Martyr hasbeen cited as pacifist:[2]

We who were filled with war, and mutualslaughter, and every wickedness … have changed our warlike weapons – ourswords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage …[3]

However, Justin gives no detailed discussion by which we canlearn just what his view was. Thepagan Celsus, living about this time (late second century), wrote againstChristianity, charging Christians for not taking part in government andrefusing to serve in the army.[4] While this might have been a falseaccusation, or one applicable only to some Christians at the time, Origen'slater response accepts the charge as true.

After AD 170, our information begins to increase. Tertullian (about 200) teaches that aChristian should not continue as a soldier after conversion. Hershberger claims the idea thatChristians could be soldiers was a new one which Tertullian sought to oppose.[5] This seems to be an assumption, withoutclear evidence either way, for we know Tertullian disagreed strongly with manyChristians of his day in other areas, and his doctrine paralleled that of thepietistic Montanists.

Origen (about 250), answering Celsus, admits that Christiansdo not serve as magistrates or soldiers; rather they fight by prayer. They refuse public office in order tokeep themselves "for a diviner and more necessary service … the salvationof men."[6] But while Origen felt that Christiansshould not be in the army or government, yet he commends "wrestling inprayer to God on behalf of those who are fighting in a righteous cause, and forthe king who reigns righteously, that whatever is opposed to those who actrighteously may be destroyed!"[7]

Hershberger gives pacifistic statements by Cyprian and somefathers of lesser note, yet he admits that there were many Christians in theRoman army in AD 313, before Christianity was tolerated.[8] Following toleration, the old statereligion of Rome soon vanished, and paganism per se had almost disappeared from the Imperial cities byAD 400.

Augustine was one of the first to develop a detailed view onthe relation of church and state. He claimed both were appointed by God for different spheres of activity,so Christians should obey both. Augustine also recognized the possibility of just wars.[9]

In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas developed whatbecame the Catholic view. Asopposed to Augustine, Thomas saw the church and state united. He also taught a double standard inregard to war: ordinary Christianscould fight in wars, but monks and clergy could not.[10] However, this was not the only viewheld in the medieval church, as there were military monastic orders, such asthe Knights Templar, which fought in the Crusades.

The Reformation brought changes in many areas ofdoctrine. Luther's view of churchand state was close to Augustine's: church and state are not to interfere with each other. The individual is both a Christian anda citizen. As a Christian hefollows the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount; as a citizen he obeys thestate.[11]

According to Hershberger, Calvin's position was somewhatdifferent. The state was to beunder the church or at least under Christian principles. Even wicked people were to be compelledto be righteous in their outward actions. Hershberger claims that Calvin got his moral and ethical principles fromthe Old Testament instead of the New Testament.[12] I am inclined to question the accuracyof Hershberger's understanding of Calvin here, but a thorough examination ofthis area is beyond the scope of this paper. In any case, it is clear that the Lutherans and Calvinistswere not pacifists.

However, the sixteenth century also saw the rise of theAnabaptists in Germany, Switzerland and Holland. Some of these, particularly those continuing after theMünster episode, were strongly pacifist. Among their theologians, Pilgram Marpeck saw the old covenant as merelya shadow of the new. HansPfistermeyer thought the New Testament was better than the Old Testament,teaching a higher and more perfect doctrine. Similarly, Menno Simons' dictum, "All Scripture … isinterpreted according to the spirit, teaching, walk and example of Christ andthe apostles,"[13]provided a hermeneutical basis for discounting the Old Testament in dealingwith the Christian attitude toward war.

Another pacifist group arose in seventeenth centuryEngland. This was the Society ofFriends (or Quakers), founded by George Fox. The following century saw the rise of the Brethren (onDunkers) in Germany, started by Alexander Mack.[14]

All three of these groups are today represented in theUnited States, and especially here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These three groups represented nearlyall of the Christians holding a pacifist position until the twentiethcentury. Their views on pacifismhave been sufficiently similar for them to cooperate with each other, as we seefrom the joint statement given here:

We, Friends, Brethren, and Mennonites,assembled in the Conference of the Historic Peace Churches, at Newton, Kansas,October 31 – November 2, 1935, remembering in gratitude to God thehistoric war testimony of our churches, desire, in absolute renunciation of warfor the wholehearted practice of peace and love, to state the basis of ourCommittee's position.

1. Our peace principles are rooted inChrist and his Word.

2. Through Jesus Christ, who livedamong men as the incarnation of the God of love, we become partakers of thespirit and character of our Lord, and thereby are constrained to love all men,even our enemies.

3. Christ has led us to see the valueof human life and personality, and possibilities in all men, who by a spiritualbirth from above may become sons of God.

4. The spirit of sacrificial service,love, and goodwill, promotes the highest wellbeing and development of men andsociety, whereas the spirit of hatred, ill will, and fear, destroys, as hasbeen demonstrated repeatedly in human experiences.

5. Since good alone can overcome evil,the use of violence must be abandoned.

6. War is sin. It is the complete denial of theSpirit, Christian love and all that Christ stands for. It is wrong in spirit and method, anddestructive in results. Therefore,we cannot support or engage in any war, or conflict between nations, classes orgroups.

7. Our supreme allegiance is toGod. We cannot violate it by aconflicting lesser loyalty, but we are determined to follow Christ in allthings. In this determination webelieve we are serving the interests of our country, and are truly loyal to ournation.

8. Under God we commit ourselves to setforth in this true way of life this statement of position and assume theobligations and sacrifices attending its practice.[15]

The last hundred years have witnessed the growth of pacifismwithin churches outside these three groups. This new pacifism is of a different sort. It grew up from the soil of oldliberalism with its social gospel, and it was based on a view of mankind asbasically good.[16] Since the 1920s, this view of man hasgradually been replaced in Protestant circles by neo-orthodoxy, which views manas basically sinful (though sin is not defined in the usual way). This has led to a third formulation ofpacifism from the theological basis of neo-orthodoxy.[17]

These recent forms of religious pacifism differ from thehistoric form in their view of the Bible, as we shall see later, and in theirview of what pacifism means. Thehistoric form may be called "nonresistance." Here, no compulsion or coercion ofothers is allowed, even by non-violent means. In practice, this view usually leads to a withdrawal fromall political activity.[18] The more recent forms borrow theirtactics from Mahatma Gandhi, and may be called "nonviolentresistance." In contrast,this latter position rules out violence by its proponents, but it does not ruleout the compulsion or coercion of others. Methods of coercion employed include non-cooperation, strikes andsit-ins.[19] Needless to say, this approach is morelikely to provoke a violent response than is nonresistance.

Let us now turn to a consideration of the Biblical supportclaimed by each of these three pacifist positions. Though some of their arguments are the same, it is importantto keep distinctive features in mind.

Historic Pacifism

For the position of historic pacifism, let us take theMennonites as representative. Bytheir traditional position (some current Mennonites are more liberal), theBible is absolutely reliable and is the infallible Word of God given to men byinspiration. Thus the 1921Mennonite General Conference stated:

We believe in the plenary and verbalinspiration of the Bible as the Word of God; that it is authentic in itsmatter, authoritative in its counsels, inerrant in the original writings, andthe only infallible rule of faith and practice.[20]

As the Scriptural foundation for their doctrine ofnonresistance, the Ten Commandments are first cited. The sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," isunderstood in the sense is "kill" is synonymous with murder.[21] Apparently this is felt to includewarfare and all violent resistance. Next, the distinctive title of Christ as "prince of Peace"(Isa 9:6; Luke 2:14) is noted. TheMennonites claim that Jesus taught nonresistance in the Sermon on the Mount(Matt 5:36-45). In Jesus'statement in Matt 26:52, "… all they that take the sword shall perish withthe sword," they place great emphasis on the word "perish."

Other passages cited in support of their claim that Jesustaught nonresistance are John 14:27, "Peace I leave with you, my peace Igive unto you…" and John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of thisworld: if my kingdom were of thisworld, then would my servants fight." They deny that Jesus used physical violence on men when He cleansed the temple.[22] This will be discussed in more detailunder Neo-Orthodox Pacifism.

Not only did Jesus teach nonresistance, so did theapostles. Examples of Paul'steachings are Romans 12:17-21 (Don't repay evil with evil; don't avenge; livepeacefully with all men; do good to enemies; overcome evil with good), 1Corinthians 6:1-8 (Don't go to law against a brother; it is better to bedefrauded), and 2 Cor 10:4, "The weapons of our warfare are notcarnal…" Peter's teaching issimilar, as seen in 1 Peter 2:20-23 (We are called to suffering on account ofour well-doing; don't revile or threaten, but commit yourself to God). Likewise James 4:1-2 describes lust andcovetousness as the source of wars and fightings.[23]

To answer the charge that nonresistance ignores the OldTestament, it is pointed out that "Thou shalt not kill," and"Love your enemies" are as clearly taught in the Old Testament as inthe New Testament (Gen 4:9-11; Ex 20:13; Deut 5:17; 2 Kings 6:13-23; Prov 25:21-22). It is admitted that the Old Testamentemphasis is more on violence, but this is because the OT period waspreeminently the dispensation of justice while the NT period is thedispensation of mercy. While Godused His people to dispense justice in the OT, they are allowed to dispense only mercy in the NT.[24]

What are we to say about the OT wars? They are ascribed to Israel's sin:

We have every reason to believe thathad the Israelites been absolutely true to God at all times they would have hadone unbroken record of victory without having to shed a single drop of blood ortaking the life of a single enemy.[25]

Thus the mightiest victories of the OT were won without thepeople of God shedding anyone's blood (Red Sea; Syrians and Elisha; 2 Kings6:13-23; Sennacherib).[26]

But this raises two questions. Why did God order Israel to kill on several occasions? How do we understand the wrath ofGod? To answer the first question,one Mennonite designates the lower level of human conduct produced by the fall as"sub-Christian."[27] When men move to a sub-Christian levelof action, God deals with them on that level. Thus, he claims, although God promised to give theIsraelites the land peacefully (Ex 23:20-33), they disobeyed the original plan,and therefore were later required to fight. Those commandments by God to kill the Amalekites, Agag andGoliath "were permissive commandments give to a sinful, lean-souled peoplewho had chosen to live on the lower 'sub-Christian' level."[28]

According to the historic pacifist view, the wrath of God isonly manifested in three ways. Godmay punish a sinner directly (miraculously); He may punish him by the naturalresults of the sinner's own actions; or, He may let him be punished by sinfulmen. Thus even a state official violatesthe will of God for His people when he takes the life of an offender.[29]

Thus the Mennonite view makes a rather large distinctionbetween the Old and New Testaments. The Anabaptist view mentioned above (page 3) is refined by Hershbergerby taking the civil law of the Old Testament as a concession to the"sub-Christian" level of conduct, which concession ends with thecoming of Christ. Thus Christabolished both the civil and ceremonial portions of the OT law, but not themoral part.[30]

Liberal Pacifism

Not all theological liberals are pacifists, but we are hereconcerned with those who are. Thepacifistic views of those designated "old liberals" in recenttheological parlance are based on a very different view of the Bible than thatdescribed above for historic pacifism. John Rider Coates, the translator and editor of the first four volumesof Bible Key Words, is a good example ofa liberal pacifist. In his book, War– What Does the Bible Say? we learnthat most of the OT has been compiled by editors whose faith is often quitedifferent from that of their sources.[31] He accepts the JEDP theory,[32]finds more than one Isaiah,[33]and dates Daniel from the Maccabean period.[34] There are mythological elements in theOT,[35]the words of later prophets are ascribed to earlier ones,[36]great miracles only seemmiraculous,[37] and God'scontrol of history is only known by a "luminous intuition" of theprophets.[38]

The liberal attitude toward OT wars is well summarized byCharles E. Raven, former Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge:

Until lately the OT stood alongside theNew as inspired, authoritative, inerrant; and large portions of the OT glorifythe God of Battles rather than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. A people brought up at home and inSunday School to reverence Jael, the murderess of Sisera, and Samuel hewingAgag in pieces, and David "the bloodthirsty and lascivious brigand,"absorbed the outlook of these savageries and failed to realize that theyrepresent a time and a faith utterly remote from that of Christ. Protestantism has not yet outgrown itsbibliolatry; Catholicism still professes it. If Scripture as a whole is infallible, then warfare has itssanction.[39]

Following Wellhausen's development hypothesis, the oldliberals see a development through the Scriptures regarding the proper attitudetoward war. The earliest primitiveview is that war is a command of God. Later it is seen merely as a duty to one's nation. Then it becomes a problem, later ajudgment for sin, and finally something to be abolished.[40]

Having an optimistic view of human nature, the old liberalssaw in the "most advanced" parts of the Bible "hints of thepossibility that the human race might outgrow its barbarism" and actuallysucceed in abolishing war.[41] According to them, Christ had producedthe church as an army to fight with spiritual weapons to overcome the statesand turn then into churches. Thegoal of history, the coming of the city of God, would occur when the unitedChurch succeeded in doing the same thing on a world scale.[42]

Neo-Orthodox Pacifism

Neo-Orthodoxy is that more recent form of liberalism whichaccepts the results of Biblical criticism, but still finds religious value inthe Bible as it becomes the Word of God to an individual by an existentialencounter. As with old liberalism,not all proponents of neo-orthodoxy are pacifists. Neither Reinhold Niebuhr nor Emil Brunner are pacifists, forexample.[43]

What is the basis of neo-orthodox pacifism? Unlike the historic pacifist position,it is neither a literalistic interpretation of the sixth commandment and theSermon on the Mount, nor the repudiation of all use of force betweenindividuals or communities. Instead the basis of pacifism is found in the first principles of theChristian ethic as seen in Jesus' own teachings and life. These principles are love of one'sneighbor and "belief in a Father God who loves all men impartially andsets an infinite value on every individual human soul." Furthermore, all the teachings of Jesusare to be understood in the light of his life and his death. In all cases the "final court ofappeal is the New Testament."[44]

This last statement again raises the problem of the relationof the OT to the NT. Theneo-orthodox view is basically a combination of the historic and liberalpacifist views. Thus while Jesusaccepted the OT as the word of God for its own time, this was "supersededby the fuller truth he came to bring." The OT was a "stepping stone" which preparedpeople for the NT. It taught themabsolute justice, but gradually brought them to recognize true "love thatdoes not even seek just retribution."[45] The NT is also pitted against the OTwhen the Sermon on the Mount is interpreted as correcting misconceptions heldby the OT writers themselves. Theproblem of the Biblical attitude toward war is thought to be insoluble if bothtestaments are taken as a unity on the same level. Instead, we have progressive revelation ascending to JesusChrist.[46] In fact, we may go further. "We have Jesus' warrant, too … forthe conviction that certain aspects of truth, only implicit even in Jesus' ownteaching, are bound to become more and more explicit to the Christianconscience under the guidance of the Holy Spirit" (He cites John 16:12ff).[47]

Perhaps because neo-orthodoxy has more interest in exegesisthan did old liberalism, George H. C. Macgregor, Professor of Divinity andBiblical Criticism at Glasgow, seeks to deal with a large number of NewTestament passages urged against pacifism. Let us look at his treatment of a few of these.

Does not Jesus' statement in Matt 10:34 – "Thinknot that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" – say thatJesus sends war? Macgregor feelsthat this purpose clause is not actually Jesus' purpose for coming to earth,but it is a Semitic idiom for some tragic consequences of His ministry. However, these consequences are notwars but (cp. Luke 12:51) divisions between friends, the persecution of theChristian by his former friends.[48]

In Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, the so-called OlivetDiscourse, and in the book of Revelation, we see the Messiah fighting Hisenemies. Surely if Jesus fights,it cannot be sinful per se. Macgregor, however, questions theauthenticity of the Olivet Discourse as an actual speech by Jesus or even asreflecting his sentiments. Similarly, Revelation is viewed as an apocalyptic constructed fromJewish materials and therefore not Christian.[49]

Does not Jesus' commendation of the centurion at Capernaum(Matt 8:5-10, Luke 7:1-10) indicate His approval of the military? Macgregor notes that Jesus commends thecenturion's faith, not his occupation. Jesus commends a sinner woman and Zacchaeus also. In fact, His marveling at such faithmay be due to its unlikely source. In any case the argument is one from silence. Besides, the Roman army in Palestine was a policeforce. To speak against it wouldencourage violence, which is against the principles of Christian pacifism.[50]

Macgregor admits that Luke 22:36-38 has a "perplexingmartial note":

Then said he unto them, But now, hethat hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath nosword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet beaccomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the thingsconcerning me have an end. Andthey said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Macgregor suggests several possible solutions: the words may be the work of the Lukaneditor and so not authentic; they may be literal and so against pacifism; theymay be metaphorical (meaning trouble is coming), so that Jesus breaks off theconversation when the disciples take Him literally; they may be ironic,pointing to the futility of armed resistance against the might of Rome. W. A. Curtis treats the words asinstructions to the disciples for their missionary travels beyond the reach ofthe law and armed protection, where weapons for defense would benecessary. But this ignores thecontext of Jesus' coming arrest.[51]

When Jesus cast the money changers out of the temple (in allthe Gospels, but especially see John 2:13-17), didn't He use force? Macgregor answers that the scourge(mentioned only in John) is, according to the Greek, used on the animals, noton the men. The verbεκβαλλω means "send forth" as wellas "cast out," so violence is not necessarily implied. In fact, as violence would haveprovoked retaliation, Jesus probably only used His moral authority to removethe men. In any case, the passagehas no relevance to war. Instead,as the animals were probably filling the Court of the Gentiles and interferingwith their worship, Jesus' action can be seen as a "protest … on behalf ofinternational goodwill."[52]

What can be said about Jesus' denunciations against thePharisees (Matthew 23), Herod (Luke 13:32) and one who offends children (Matt18:6)? Macgregor claims thesestatements have been strengthened from their original form. They must also be qualified by Jesus'rebuke against censoriousness (Matt 7:1). There is also a difference between words and force. The intent of these denunciations is toturn the wrongdoers back from their deeds.[53]

Passing on to the positive position of neo-orthodoxpacifism, Macgregor identifies Matt 5:38-48 as the key passage forpacifism. The primary referencehere is to personal enemies, and Jesusis laying down a new principlewhich is distinctively Christian. Negatively the principle calls for nonresistance (but not passivity);positively, for love. Macgregornotes several attempts to "water down" this interpretation. Some (more or less liberal) personshave seen this as an interim ethic due to Jesus' eschatological outlook. Others see this as applicable only toHis coming kingdom. Thus both ofthese would deny an application for today. Still others limit the application to a particularindividual in a particular situation (like Jesus' instructions to the richyoung ruler). But there is nosupport for this in the context. If anything Jesus taught is to have universal application, surely thismust! Another view of this passageis that it is an exaggeration for effect (as in Matt 5:29-30, Luke 14:26), butMacgregor fells there is no evidence for this in the context.[54]

While Macgregor does not think that nonresistance abrogatesthe function of law in society or the moral use of force, yet he sees Jesus'method of dealing with evil as something quite different.[55] The cross was Jesus' supremedemonstration of His method:

For Jesus the cross meant riskingeverything on His conviction that God's way of overcoming evil would work. Therefore we see in the cross … theinevitable climax, under the conditions which confronted Him, to a consistentlife-practice of meeting evil not with violence, not even by invoking law, butby the way of forgiving and reconciling love. Jesus died rather than betray that love method.[56]

Yet even though the key passage for nonresistance isprimarily individual in application, Macgregor feels that it has largerimplications. Following thisprinciple, a nation might feel it necessary totally to disarm, not to seek itsown destruction, but because it is convinced that this is the best way to endprovocations. Macgregor admitsthis act would be dangerous, that the nation might be destroyed, yet perhapsthe world will not be redeemed from warfare until a nation has courage enoughto do this.[57]

A Critique of Pacifism

Having examined these three forms of pacifism in Christendomtoday, we can see both similarities and differences between them. All apparently concede that if the OTand the NT are put on the same level, then the Bible does not teachpacifism. All three, therefore,put the NT on a higher level, so that certain OT provisions are no longer inforce. Liberal and neo-orthodoxpacifists do this by means of a concept of "progressive revelation"akin to Wellhausen's evolution of religion theory, so that earlier ideas aboutGod in the Bible are actually mistaken. Historic pacifism avoids this method, but uses a kind of "dispensationalism"which cuts us off from all the OT civil law, and/or makes the morality of theOT a concession to sinful man.

As Bible-believing Christians, we repudiate those viewswhich reject the inerrancy of Scripture. We recognize a legitimate use of the term "progressiverevelation," by which later books of the Bible contain information aboutGod, man and morality (among other subjects) not specifically stated or perhapsnot even mentioned earlier. Butthis does not make the NT higher than the OT any more than the tenthcommandment is higher than the first. I believe it is impossible for God ever to command anything as aconcession to man's "sub-Christian" level of action, though Hedoubtless permitted such actions. While we may concede that the United States is not a theocracyestablished by revelation as was Israel, it does not follow that the principlesrevealed to them are to be ignored by us. All NT statements related to civil government seem to be in accord withthe OT statements, so there is no reason to suppose that the latter have beenrescinded. Likewise individualethics do not change from OT to NT, though they are more clearly spelled out.

The pacifists agree in laying great weight upon the Sermonon the Mount as the source of their ethic. As we accept the whole Bible as God's word, we must becareful not to ignore or disparage any parts of it because they are misused oroveremphasized by others. Ipersonally feel some dispensationalists have made a terrible mistake inassigning the Sermon on the Mount to the millennial kingdom so that it has noforce today. The basic principlesof this sermon, however, can be found throughout Scripture. Therefore as Bible-believers, we mustnot ignore this passage.

What, then, does the Sermon on the Mount say? A careful reading of chapters 5 through7 of Matthew should convince anyone that the major emphasis is that truereligion is a characteristic of the heart (or attitudes) rather than just theoutward actions. Now Jesus, itwould appear, clearly indicates that He is not intending to destroy or evenalter the OT in this sermon (5:17-19), but rather He is seeking to correctmisapplications of the OT, such as: restricting sin to the deed and not the attitude (5:21-22, 27-28,31-32), taking a concession as a command (5:31-32, 33-34), and using legalsanctions to justify vengeful attitudes (5:38-39), or playing with words to dosomething similar (5:43-44).

The particular concern of the pacifists is verses38-48. Here Jesus is saying thatthe sinful attitude of another never justifiesour sinful attitude toward them. We are never excused from blessing, doing good to, and praying for, ourenemies, no matter how nasty they are to us. Yet this does not excuse us from our duty as citizens toseek the welfare of the community. Nor are we encouraged here to help another do evil, to drive the getawaycar, to refuse to testify in court, to stand by while wrong is done to another,or to refuse to serve in the police force or army.

It is true that coercion is a concession to sin in onesense. Namely, if there were nosin, there would be no need for coercion. But there are many things not sinful in themselves which would not haveexisted without sin. Men neitherwore clothes nor lived in cities before the fall, yet both will exist in theeternal state (Rev 3:5; 21:1-2). Faith and hope will apparently not continue when sin is gone (1Corinthians 13).

But God Himself ordained capital punishment (Gen 9:6), setup at least one human government directly (Israel), and all governmentsprovidentially (Daniel 4), and Himself wars with and inflicts capitalpunishment on men (Rev 9:11ff). Nor is there any Scriptural indication that it is impossible for humangovernment to be righteous and involve coercion. On the contrary, we see that the saints will reign withChrist in the Millennium, using force (Rev 20:6, 3:26-27; Zechariah 14).

It thus appears that governmental use of force may berighteous, both when used internally (in police action) or externally (in war). It does not follow that all or evenmost such uses have necessarily been righteous. Thus the OT explicitly forbids wanton killing in wartime,with the specific exception of those peoples on whom God used Israel to bring ajudgment of destruction (Deut 20:10-18). As Christian citizens we should use our influence, small though it mightbe, to support the righteous use of force and to condemn its unrighteous use,both at home and abroad.

Bibliography

Boettner,Loraine. The Christian AttitudeToward War. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1940.

Bowman, Rufus D. TheChurch of the Brethren and War, 1708-1941. Elgin, IL: Brethren Publishing House, 1944.

Coates, JohnRider. War – What Doesthe Bible Say? London: The Sheldon Press, 1940.

Hershberger, GuyFranklin. War, Peace, andNonresistance. Scottsdale, PA: The Herald Press, 1944.

Kaufmann, Daniel,ed. Doctrines of the Bible. Scottsdale, PA: MennonitePublishing House, 1952.

Macgregor, GeorgeH. C. The New Testament Basisof Pacifism. London: TheFellowship of Reconciliation, 1953.

Raven, CharlesE. War and the Christian. NewYork: Macmillan, 1938.

Roberts,Alexander and James Donaldson. Ante-NiceneChristian Library. 23 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1867.

Rutenber,Cuthbert G. The Dagger and the Cross. NewYork: Fellowship Publications,1950.

[1] G. F.Hershberger, War, Peace, and Nonresistance(Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press,1944), 58-59.

[3] AlexanderRoberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Edinburgh: T & t Clark, 1867), 2:237.

[4] Hershberger,War, Peace, and Nonresistance, 59.

[7] Roberts andDonaldson, Ante-Nicene Library, 4:668.

[8] Hershberger,War, Peace, and Nonresistance, 61-62.

[15] Rufus D.Bowman, The Church of the Brethren and War, 1708-1941 (Elgin, IL: Brethren Publishing House, 1944), 268.

[16] Cuthbert G.Rutenber, The Dagger and the Cross (NewYork: Fellowship Publications,1950), 20-22.

[20] DanielKauffman, ed., Doctrines of the Bible(Scottsdale, PA: MennonitePublishing House, 1952), 141-42.

[27]Hershberger, War, Peace, and Nonresistance,15.

[31] John RiderCoates, War – What Does the Bible Say? (London: Sheldon Press,1940), 4.

[39] Charles E.Raven, War and the Christian (NewYork: Macmillan, 1938), 52.

[44] George H.C. Macgregor, The New Testament Basis of Pacifism (London: The Fellowshipof Reconciliation, 1953), 11-12.