p. 140 | Do Violence to no Man by John Norton Loughborough

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 30, 1862

“Do Violence to no Man.”

By John Norton Loughborough

I WAS much interested in Bro. White's article in the Review on the Nation, and our duty as a people at the present time in case of a military draft. I see the different messengers and brethren are invited to speak out on this subject. I would say the positions taken in that article seemed right to me from the first, and the article brought relief to my mind on that subject. The more I look at it, and the objections brought against it, the more I am satisfied it is correct. Objections brought against it are so much like objections brought against truth (contradictory and foolish), that one would infer that it was a position hard to be disposed of.

One of the most weighty objections that I have heard used against submitting to a military draft, and which has been supposed by those using it, as sufficient to settle the whole matter, is John the Baptist's testimony to the soldiers who came to him and asked, “What shall we do?” John's reply was, “Do violence to no man.” Here, it is said, is positive testimony that it is wrong to fight under any circumstances. But let us look at the text. We will first read it to suit those who have the idea that it condemns fighting under any circumstances. “Do violence to no man, but resist the authorities, though you may have to die for it, or be imprisoned; and go home and keep the commandments, for the commandment says, Thou shalt not kill.” But it does not happen to read that way, but “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages.” Wages for what? Resisting the authorities? No! But wages for being a soldier. Certainly it can mean nothing else. But, say you, it says “Do violence to no man;” that must mean they must not fight. But how much pay would they receive for being soldiers if they refused to fight, if required? But, say you, that was not like this case. Yes, I shall claim that it was exactly a parallel to the circumstances of the present time. Well, says one, I admit that war under certain circumstances may be justifiable, as in the case of the Jews exterminating the Canaanites, the American Revolution, &c. But this war does not have as its object directly the extermination of slavery; if it did, I should not object to fighting. I will admit that to enlist in case of an unjust warfare, looks to me as a wrong; but allowing all that is claimed in reference to the evil tendency of this war, even then it is a parallel to those soldiers that came to John.

Their case was this: John—as all will recollect—had reproved Herod for having Herodias, his brother Philip's wife. Herod's real wife was a daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia. When Herod took Herodias, the daughter of Aretas fled to her father to seek redress for her grievances. Aretas raised an army and was coming against Herod. Herod hearing of this raised an army by levy—draft—and was marching them out to meet Aretas. These were the very soldiers that John told to be content with their wages. These soldiers were marching out to maintain the cause of Herod in transgressing the seventh commandment. Don't you think there is some similarity in the two cases, even admitting your own claim in regard to the tendency of the present war. One, you say, is to maintain slavery. Well, the other was to maintain a man in adultery. To enlist would be wrong in both cases. Both of a piece I should think.

As it may be gratifying to the reader, I will present the proof of the above statement. Horne in writing on Luke iii, 14, 19, 20, says:

“It has been asked who these soldiers were, for it does not appear that the Roman soldiers, who were then stationed in Judea, were engaged in any war. Now it happens that the expression used by the evangelical historian is not stratiōtai or soldiers, but strateuomenoi, that is, men who were actually under arms, or marching to battle. It is not to be supposed that he would use this word without a sufficient reason, and what that reason is, we may readily discover on consulting Josephus' account of the reign of Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee. He tells us that Herod was at that very time engaged in a war with his father-in-law, Aretas, a petty king of Arabia Petræa, whose daughter he had married, but who had returned to her father in consequence of Herod's ill-treatment. The army of Herod, then on its march from Galilee, passed of necessity through the country where John was baptizing; and the military men who questioned him, were a part of that army.”—Horne's Introduction, Vol. I. p. 50.

But, say you, John said, “Do violence to no man.” The idea is not that they should not follow in that war the manner of all national warfare, but that he as Millman says, enjoined upon them “humanity, and abstinence from all unnecessary violence and pillage;” to abstain from lawless indulgence in rapine and lust which soldiers of ancient times were apt to be guilty of. Strange as it may appear, it was one of those very soldiers that cut off John's head at the request of Herodias.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.