noticed already1 what policy Jesus advocated for his fellow-countrymen; and it remains for us to see whether a fair exegesis of his teaching-both direct and indirect on the subject of war substantiates the views we have already been led to take.

JESUS' ILLUSTRATIVE ALLUSIONS TO WAR.-In order somewhat to clear the ground, we may begin by adverting to the two or three references made to war by Jesus for the purpose of illustrating some point in his teaching. The first of these has already been referred to: "Think not that I came to bring peace to the earth: I came not to bring peace, but a sword." Jesus is here simply saying that, as a result of his coming, fierce antipathies will arise against his adherents on the part of their fellow-men.2 The second is the passage in which Jesus speaks of violent men snatching the Kingdom of Heaven, or of people forcing their way into it. Here again the allusion is purely metaphorical, the point being that eagerness and enterprise are needful in order to secure entrance into the Kingdom.3 The third case is Jesus' parabolic description of the king with ten thousand men taking counsel whether he can engage in war with another king who is coming against him with twenty thousand, and, if he cannot, sending to ask for terms of peace. The parable is meant to teach the duty of counting in advance the cost of that renunciation which is involved in being Jesus' disciple. Another parabolic reference to war occurs in the parable of the king's marriage-feast, where he sends his armies to kill those who murdered his messengers and to burn their city: but this is almost certainly a gloss of the evangelist's, meant to illustrate God's punishment of the wicked.5 Lastly, if we are justified in including it under this heading, there is the extremely obscure and difficult passage, in which, at the Last Supper, Jesus says to the disciples: "Let him who has no sword, sell his cloak and buy one." When the disciples point out that they have two swords, Jesus terminates the conversation abruptly with the words: "It is enough." The obvious fact that two swords were not enough to defend twelve men is sufficient of itself to rule

1 See above, pp. 35f, 46.

Mt x. 34; Lc xii. 51. See above, p. 32f n 9. "Gemeint ist die Entzweiung in den Familien, welche die Folge der Verkündigung des Evangeliums sein wird, und der Friede ist hier der häusliche Friede (Harnack MC 4).

3 Mt xi. 12; Lc xvi. 16. "Der Sinn ist also: Weil das Himmelreich jetzt mit Gewalt d. h. stürmisch eindringt, so muss man gewaltsam zugreifen, um es nicht vorübergehen zu lassen, sondern um es für sich zu gewinnen, Etwas Kriegerisches liegt nur im Bilde, nicht in der Sache" (Harnack MC 4). Lc xiv. 31-33.

Mt xxii. 6f; contrast Lc xiv. 21 and see above, p. 37 n 1, and below, pp. 54f.

out a literal interpretation; but to get a satisfactory sense on any other lines is almost equally difficult. The interpretation adopted by Harnack, viz. that the sword was meant metaphorically to represent the steadfast defence of the Gospel under the persecution which was about to befall the disciples, is possibly the best within our reach at present.1

It is hardly necessary to repeat what has already been said in another connection in regard to such illustrative and parabolic allusions. We can no more infer from them that Jesus would have approved of his disciples bearing arms than we can infer from parables mentioning the scourging and execution of offenders that he would have approved of his disciples participating in these practices.2 The utmost we can say is that, at the moment of making these comparisons, the mind of Jesus may not have been concerned with the subject of war as an ethical question for members of the Kingdom, and his words have accordingly no significance in connection with that question.3

JESUS AND THE CENTURION.-In the little intercourse that Jesus had with soldiers, we find no hint that he uttered any disapproval of the military calling as such. His record in this respect is somewhat similar to that of John the Baptist. When he was asked by a gentile centurion, in the service of Herodes at Kapharnaum, to cure his paralytic servant, he not only granted his request, without (so far as we know) uttering any sort of disapproval of the man's profession, but even expressed a warm appreciation

1Lc xxii. 35-38. Harnack says (MC 4f): "Die wahrscheinlichste Deutung bleibt die, nach der Jesus seinen Jüngern gesagt hat, ihre Lage werde sich nun gänzlich ändern; so lange sie bei ihm waren, habe er sie vor Mangel geschützt; nun aber werde nicht nur Mangel eintreten, sondern die bitterste Verfolgung über sie kommen; gegen sie müssten sie alles aufbieten, und das Schwert werde in Zukunft ihr nötigstes Werkzeug sein. Er meinte die kriegerische Bereitschaft, das Evangelium mit allen Mitteln zu verteidigen; sie aber verstanden ihn sinnlich und wiesen auf die zwei Schwerter hin, die im Gemache waren. Ironisch bricht er das Gespräch ab mit den Worten: Es ist genug. Ganz befriedigend ist freilich auch diese Erklärung nicht; denn man ist am Anfang nicht darauf gefasst, dass das Schwert bildlich zu verstehen ist." Cf. Moffatt in DAČ ii. 649. S. Hobhouse, in The Expository Times for March, 1919 (vol. xxx. 278–280), plausibly argues that Jesus' words were an ironical suggestion that he and his followers should equip themselves like robbers, since their enemies, in fulfilment of prophecy (Isa liii. 12), insisted on regarding them as such (Lc xxii. 37, 52||s). Moffatt (l.c.) and Montefiore (SG ii. 1061-1065) give interesting collections of different interpretations.

2 See above, p. 36f. 3 Lc xxii. 35-38

cannot be set up against the other pacific sayings which are so characteristic of the teaching of Jesus" (Moffatt in DAC ii. 649b).

Lc iii. 14.

of his faith in believing, on the analogy of his own military authority, that Jesus could cure the illness at a distance by a simple word of command.1 But apart from the brevity of the narrative, the fact that Jesus was addressing, not an applicant for discipleship, but a gentile stranger who was asking a favour, forbids us to draw, either from his speech or from his silence, any direct inferences on the question we are investigating.

THE WARS OF THE FUTURE.-In his prophecies of the Last Things, Jesus foretold that nation would rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, that wars and rumours of wars would be heard of, and that, as a result of the national rejection of Jesus' own policy of goodwill, endurance, and reconciliation, Judæa would be devastated, Jerusalem besieged and taken by the gentiles, and the Temple defiled and destroyed. It is difficult to separate these more detailed announcements from those other general prophecies, in which calamity is foretold as the approaching judgment of God upon the sins of the nation.3 The connection between the two is suggested by the parabolic gloss, already quoted, about the king who, angered at the murder of his slaves, sent his armies and destroyed the murderers and burnt their city.4 The thought of God punishing the Jews as a nation by means of the terrors of war, and that through the instrumentality of the Roman armies, raises a number of acute theological problems. How, for instance, is this teaching to be related to that picture of the Divine perfection, in which God is portrayed as showering the blessings of Nature upon good and evil alike? Upon this theological question it is not possible here to enter. It is sufficient for the moment to remark that, whatever may be the prima facie grounds for regarding as permissible all human action that is an imitation of Divine action, Jesus does as a matter of fact limit his counsels of imitation to the gentler side of Divine action, and never,

1 Mt viii. 5-13. Seeley sees in the words of Jesus an indication that the analogy of his Church to an army was present to his mind (Pref. to 5th edn., xvi.). The centurion, indeed, suggested the analogy between Jesus' power over disease and his own power over his soldiers; but what Jesus approved was not, as Seeley suggests, the officer's humility or his strong sense of "filling a place in a graduated scale," but the unquestioning faith in Jesus' power which his bold analogy revealed. Cf. Cadoux GJT 100 n I.

2 Mc xiii. 2, 7f, 14-20||s; Mt xxiv. 28; Lc xvii. 22-37, xix. 41-44, xxiii. 2831. The Lucan passages contain more concrete detail than the other two, and accordingly have been dated after 70 A.D. as a vaticinium post eventum (though Harnack in DA 118-124 argues strongly against this view).

3 Mt xi. 21-24, xiii. 37–43, 49f (cf. xxiv. 3), xxiii. 33-36; Lc xii. 54–xiii. 9, xix. 44b, xxi. 22, etc.

• Mt xxii. 7; cf. xxi. 41||s. See above, pp. 37 n 1, 52,

even remotely, contemplates a disciple of his own acting as the instrument of God's punitive justice. Once again, therefore, we are left without any materials for forming a judgment on the particular question before us.1

THE PERTINENT ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF JESUS.-We get at last to closer grips with our subject when we come to that ethical teaching of Jesus, which according to any natural and straightforward exegesis is obviously and flagrantly incompatible with intentional and organized bloodshed, and therefore with war. The repeated prohibition of homicide 2 (reinforced by the prohibition of anger in thought and word 3), the prohibition of resistance to and retaliation upon a wrong-doer, and the command to the disciples to love their enemies, cannot without a lot of unnatural straining and forcing be harmonized with the work of a soldier. Having already discussed this teaching at some length, it is unnecessary to repeat the reasons why it cannot be dismissed either as a counsel of perfection practicable only in a perfect state of society, nor as a mere external letter of the law' to be disregarded in the interests of the spirit,5 nor yet as a law applying only to private conduct or inner feelings and having no bearing on the disciple's duty as a citizen. The attempt to get rid of the difficulty by these means involves serious misinterpretation of the evidence before us. It is much better to admit frankly the impossibility of harmonizing the words and meaning of Jesus with the practice of

1 See above, pp. 36f.

2 Mt v. 21f, xv. 19||, xix. 18||s. No doubt the sixth commandment in the Decalogue (Exod. xx. 13) was meant to apply to private murder, not to the taking of life in battle: and the ethical distinction between the two acts is not to be ignored. But while there is an ethical distinction, there is also an ethical similarity, as the usage of the same Greek word for the two indicates: poveúw and póvos are used in classical Greek and in the LXX of slaughter in war (e.g. Herodotus i. 211; Æschylus Theb. 341; Exod xvii. 13; Levit xxvi. 7; Numb xxi. 24; Deut xiii. 15, xx. 13; Josh x. 28, 30, 32, 35; Isa xxi. 15), as well as of murder proper.

3 Mt v. 21f.

5 B.-Baker ICW 11-13:

4 See above, pp. 41-43.

Thus it is that Christ never seems to wish so much to assert a new truth, or a new law, as to impress upon His hearers the spiritual significance of some old truth or law; to raise them altogether out of the sphere of petty detail into the life of all-embracing principles. It is essential to our understanding of Christ's meaning to observe that He designs to give a spiritual turn, if we may say so, to the old specific law. .. So we cannot regard the extension which the law Thou shalt not kill' received from Jesus as a comprehensive denial of the right of man ever to deprive a fellow-creature-in the beautiful language of the sermon on the mount, a brother of his earthly life. . ." Later on (15): "What we have already considered of His words and actions, and we shall notice more to the same effect, shows that He countenanced and sanctioned war, at all events in the existing circumstances and conditions of mankind." And again (18): “We have seen

war, and to seek, if need be, some other solution of the difficulty.1 Many, ignoring the real limitations and conditions under which compliance with this teaching has to be contemplated, treat it as obvious that literal obedience to it would result in disastrous social disorganization and a riotous increase in crime; and they find a way of escape in the argument that Jesus' belief in the impending break-up of the world-order not only explains his indifference to the stability of society, but invalidates his teaching for those who do not share his historical perspective. When, however, due attention is paid to these limitations and conditions, the groundlessness of this assumption of a sudden relaxation of all restraint on crime becomes clearly visible, and the pragmatic motive of the appeal to the interim-ethic theory simply disappears. Be that as it may, seeing that we are here concerned to discover the meaning of the historical Jesus, and not to argue as to its modern practicability, the interim-ethic theory is of interest as virtually conceding that the teaching of Jesus himself cannot be harmonized with the practice of war.

2

THE PERTINENT SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS OF JESUS.-While no occasion is recorded as having presented itself to Jesus for any considered pronouncement on the general question of how his teachings applied to service in the armies of the then existing states, yet two utterances of his are preserved bearing on the disciples' duty in particular cases: and both of them-so far as they go confirm the conclusion to which we are led on other grounds.

The first occurs in the apocalyptic discourse and bids the disciples, at the time of the devastation of Judæa and the defilement of the then so far that war is sanctioned . . . by the teaching and practice of Christ." In these passages the vital distinction between the standard applicable to a heathen society and that applicable to enlightened disciples is ignored; and this oversight, taken in conjunction with the forced interpretation of Jesus' words, vitiates the argument and invalidates the conclusion, so far as it is meant to refer to the conduct of Christians. The reader may judge for himself how far astray this author's interpretation of the teaching of Jesus leads him, from the following statement, taken from the same context (12): The theory upon which the Inquisition acted, that physical sufferings are of no moment in comparison with the supreme importance of the spiritual welfare, is quite consonant with the tone of Christ's commands and teaching."

"

1 So Herrmann SG 217f: As a result of that frame of mind whereby we are united with Him, we desire the existence of a national State, with a character and with duties with which Jesus was not yet acquainted; we will not let ourselves be led astray, even if in this form of human nature various features are as sharply opposed to the mode of life and standpoint of Jesus as is the dauntless use of arms (italics mine). Similarly, K. Lake, The Stewardship of Faith, 30–36, 71, Landmarks in the History of Early Christianity, 33-35, and in The Hibbert Journal, Oct. 1924, 18,

2 See above, pp. 45-47.