Rightly Understanding the Letter to Hodel

In an article dated April 22, 2005, Mark Igic attempts to correct what he
sees as a misinterpretation of a letter by Samuel Froehlich. The letter in 
question is dated January 18, 1848 to a Brother Hodel. When I first read 
Brother Froehlich's letter, I too was suprised at what at some of the 
statements he made, which at least at face value appear to conflict with 
long held doctrines of the Apostolic Christian Church (Nazarean).

The main drive of Mark Igic's letter is to prove that Samuel Froehlich did
not deviate from a position of non-resistance. To do this, he mainly focuses
on attempting to prove that "war service", as mentioned in the letter to Hodel,
does not entail actually killing people, but merely armed drills which apparently
entails "non-combatant" service (though I'm not so sure our church would condone
those armed drills either). From that premise, Mark Igic moves to the conclusion that 
Froehlich did not make any statements in his letter which conflict with non-resistance.

I must lovingly disagree with Bro. Mark in his conclusion for no other reason
that I wish to see this letter interpreted fairly. There are a number of issues
that would be expedient to consider.

1. Froehlich's other writings and positions, while obviously having a bearing on
the interpretation of this letter, should not overrule what this letter is saying.
For, it is very possible, that this letter could be written in a way that it is
INCONSISTENT with his other positions. This is possible, so it is important that
we look at this letter NOT ONLY as a part of the whole, but also as an individual
letter. It is important to consider the context, and I'm glad Bro. Mark is considering
that, but to a degree I believe he may be ignoring some of the propositions made
in this letter.

2. Even if, as Bro. Mark claims, we are to put the meaning "non-combatant drill
service" into every place where we see "war service", this letter can not be made
to be consistent with the "historical" Apostolic Christian Church (Nazarean) position
on war participation (see the next points for a few examples). 

3. Bro. Froehlich, in this letter, uses the standard argumentation utilized by those
who oppose non-resistance, and his interpretation on "Thou shalt not kill" can in
no way be reconcilled with a traditional non-resistance position.

4. Any cursory reading of this letter will demonstrate that Bro. Froehlich suspiciously
uses more argumentation than would be necessary if he was merely trying to excuse
non-combatant involvement in military. Why would he state his position on "thou shalt
not kill" and also expound on his view of when God actually accounts killing as sin and
when He doesn't. For non-combatant service has no direct relation to killing.

5. Bro. Mark correctly exhorts his readers to view this letter within the history of
Switzerland within the time period it was written. However, this letter is also
highly joined with Biblical history, so we must take that in account too. Perhaps
is Switzerland there was a way for service without killing, but obviously the examples
of people he quoted from the scripture did not have this privilige or option.
When Bro. Froehlich says: "I do not find that either John the Baptist or Jesus Himself, 
or His apostles gave them a command that if they become converted they would have to 
give up their rank", the implications are clear. It would be fairly safe to say that
there was not a "non-combatant" option within the military ranks in the Biblical times.
So here we have Froehlich arguing that beleivers were not required to give up there
military service when they converted.

6. The "suprise" of this letter, in my view, is not that he argues for allowing 
war service (as Bro. Mark has argued, could be interpreted differently), but
rather the content of the ARGUMENTATION that Bro. Froehlich uses. While Bro. 
Mark's letter addresses the "war service" aspect of it, he does not even begin 
to explain away the argumentation that Bro. Froehlich uses to support allowing 
"war service". This argumentation, not necessarily the reference to service itself, 
is the item that is most contradictory with a pacifist position.

In these 6 previous points, I have implied that Bro. Froehlich argues in a way 
that is decidedly non-pacifist (whether that is consistent with his other letters 
is irrelevant at this point). Here are the major arguments he lays forward:

1. All Bro. Froehlich can find in the New Testament against war service is 
that it forbids the use of carnal weapons for the defense of the faith. 

2. War service is not in itself done away with in the New Testament.

3. In the Old Testament war was like divine service. David was a man after
God's own heart, but his war service did exclude him from at least one thing.

4. There is no indication in the New Testament that believers in Biblical times 
who were in war service were required to give (note: we need to apply the historical 
situation of Bible times in interpreting what Froehlich meant here, not the 1800's 
Switzerland situation)

5. "Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to war service, but only "high-handed" killing
out of "hatred" in "peace times".  Example given: Joab killed many , but only the
assasination of Abnder and Amasa was accounted as sin.

These are not my arguments, but the arguments of Bro. Froehlich. I can not come to 
any conclusion but to state that this letter of Bro. Froehlich can not in any way, 
even with the reinterpretation of Bro. Mark, be made consistent with our churches 
historical position on non-resistance. This should be not be a major problem since, 
at least in theory, our denominational foundation is not our forefathers but rather 
God and His Word. While Bro. Froehlich's position in this letter is of great interest
to us, whether or not we accept what he says should hinge on whether it agrees with
a fair understanding of the Word of God.

Mark Nenadov
May 25, 2005