by George Gillespie
While I have occasion to discuss human covenants, it shall be profitable to address a question that has been much debated, both among Divines and among Politicians and Lawyers: whether a confederacy and association with wicked men or those of another Religion is lawful or not. To answer this question briefly, let us distinguish among three types of covenants: 1. Civil Covenants, 2. Ecclesiastical, Sacred, or Religious Covenants, and 3. Mixed Covenants, which are partly civil and partly Religious. I consider the last two, when made with wicked men and those who differ in Religion from us, to be unlawful, and this view is shared by the best Writers. When the Israelites were forbidden to make a Covenant with the Canaanites, special mention was made of their gods, altars, and images (Exodus 23:32 and 34:13-14, Judges 2:2) to ensure that no superstitious and unlawful worship would be tolerated. Regarding civil Covenants, if they are for commerce or peace, as termed "συνθῆκαι" in Greek, they are permitted according to the Scriptures (Genesis 14:13, Genesis 31:44, 1 Kings 5:12, Jeremiah 29:7, Romans 12:18). The Venetians, for example, have such covenants with the Turks due to their proximity. Christian Emperors of old also occasionally formed such covenants with Pagans. The violation of a civil Covenant of peace with the Turk was exemplarily punished by God in Vladyslaus, the King of Hungary. However, if the civil Covenant involves joining in military expeditions together, referred to as "συνταγματίαι" by the Greeks, it is a subject of great debate and controversy among Writers. Personally, I consider it unlawful, as do many reputable Writers. I believe that Exodus 34 not only forbids Religious Covenants with the Canaanites but also civil Covenants (Exodus 34:12) and conjugal Covenants (Exodus 34:16). This is also Junius' opinion in his Analysis of that passage. The reasons for the unlawfulness of such confederacies are as follows: 1. Derived from the Law (Exodus 23:32 and 34:12-15, Deuteronomy 7:2). God makes this a principal stipulation and condition when making a Covenant with them (Exodus 34:10-12, Judges 2:1-2). To ensure it is not thought that this only pertains to the seven enumerated Nations in Deuteronomy 7, the same Law is applied to four other Nations (1 Kings 11:1-2), making it clear that it is a general prohibition against confederacies with Idolaters and those of a false Religion. The reason behind this Law is moral and perpetual: it aims to prevent the ensnaring of the people of God. Hence, they were forbidden to Covenant with either their gods or themselves because a conjunction of Counsels and familiar conversation (which are consequences of a Covenant) could lead to a fellowship in Religion. 2. Grounded in disallowed and condemned examples, such as Asa's Covenant with Benhadad (2 Chronicles 16:1-10) and Ahaz's Covenant with the King of Assyria (2 Kings 16:7-10, 2 Chronicles 28:16-23). If it is argued that these are only examples of Covenants with Idolatrous heathens, it is also reasonable to condemn confederacies and associations with wicked individuals of the same Religion. To counter this, it can be noted: 1. The argument holds even stronger against confederacies with those from the seed of Jacob who have defected from the true Religion. Grotius, in his "De Jure Belli et Pacis," Book 2, Chapter 15, cites Numbers 9 to emphasize that God would have such individuals more abominated than heathens and to be removed from among their people (Deuteronomy 13:13). Additionally, we can add: 2. There are examples in other Scriptures that apply to that case as well. Jehoshaphat's confederacy with Ahab (2 Chronicles 18:3, 2 Chronicles 19:2) and later with Ahaziah (2 Chronicles 20:35) are condemned. Although Jehoshaphat initially made this mistake, he later corrected it by refusing to join with Ahaziah when he sought association for a second time (1 Kings 22:49). Similarly, Amaziah, after associating himself with the Israelites in an expedition when God was not with them, disjoined himself from them upon the Prophet's admonition and risked their anger (2 Chronicles 25:7-10). Lavater, in his interpretation of that example, notes it as one of the reasons for the Christian Wars with the Turk having poor results, asserting that such associations with the wicked bore fruit in this way. 3. These confederacies arise from an evil heart of unbelief, as is evident from the reasons presented against Ahaz's League with Benhadad (2 Chronicles 16:7-9) and the criticism of the confederacy with the King of Assyria (Isaiah 8:12-13). As Calvin noted in that context, the unbelievers among the people, recognizing their own inability to manage such a great War, deemed it necessary to form a confederacy with the Assyrians. However, this was rooted in faithless fears and a lack of faith in relying on God as all-sufficient. 4. If we must avoid fellowship and conversation with the sons of Belial (except when natural bonds or the necessity of a calling bind us) (Psalm 6:8, Proverbs 9:6, Proverbs 24:1, 2 Corinthians 6:14-15) and if we are to consider God's enemies as our enemies (Psalm 139:21), then how can we join them as confederates and associates? By doing so, we would have fellowship with them and view them as friends.
Regarding the arguments that are often presented in favor of the opposite opinion, it is first objected that Abraham had a confederacy with Aner, Eschol, and Mamre (Genesis 14:13), Abraham with Abimelech (Genesis 21:27, 32), Isaac with Abimelech (Genesis 26), Jacob with Laban (Genesis 31:44), and Solomon with Hiram (1 Kings 5:11). In response, it cannot be definitively proven that these confederates of Abraham, Isaac, and Solomon were either idolaters or wicked. While Laban was indeed an idolater, some reputable interpreters believe that Abraham's three confederates feared God, and Abimelech is also thought to have feared God because he spoke reverently of God and attributed the blessing and prosperity of those Patriarchs to Him.
Another objection is that the Maccabees had a Covenant with the Romans and Lacedaemonians (1 Maccabees 8 and 12). In reply, it should be noted that this Covenant is disallowed by many reputable Writers. Furthermore, it is observed from the story that they did not achieve better success but rather faced more trouble as a result. The story itself, in 1 Maccabees 1:12, informs us that the initial proposal for a confederacy with the heathen in those times came from the children of Belial in Israel.
Lastly, one might object that discontented individuals with broken fortunes gathered to David, and he received them and became their Captain (1 Samuel 22:2). In response, some believe, and it is likely, that these individuals were oppressed and wronged by Saul's tyranny, which left them in debt and discontent. David, in receiving them, is seen as a type of Christ who provides refuge for the afflicted and empathizes with their infirmities. Regardless of their identity, David took great care to ensure that no profane or wicked person was in his company, as seen in Psalm 101 and Psalm 34:11, which was written during the same time he left Achish and became the Captain of those 400 men. In Psalm 34:11, he addresses them, saying, "Come, children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord."
To strengthen the argument against joining with such associates in wars when they are known to be malignant and wicked, we can turn to David's example. Psalm 118:7 states, "The Lord taketh my part with them that help me; therefore, I shall see my desire upon mine enemies." Additionally, Psalm 54:4 says, "The Lord is with them that uphold my soul." Calvin and Gesnerus both observe that although David's helpers were few and weak, his confidence lay in God being with them, making them stronger than all the wicked. David also implies that if he had not known that God was with his helpers, leading and inspiring them, he would not have expected help from them. This is evident in 2 Chronicles 25:7-8.
Moreover, it can be seen from 1 Chronicles 12 that David's helpers in the War were regarded as sincere, wholehearted, and stirred up by God. Lavater states that they were "faithful men of his own mind" and adds that they despised Saul's impiety and injustice while admiring David's virtue. Victor Strigelious refers to them as "faithful friends." The text itself indicates that some of them joined David while he was still in distress and confined in Ziklag, which is an indicator of their sincerity. Furthermore, individuals from Saul's own tribe of Benjamin attached themselves to David. The spirit came upon Amasai, who, through a special Divine instinct, spoke to assure David of their sincerity (1 Chronicles 12:2, 16, 18). Those who joined David after Saul's death were not double-hearted but had a perfect heart (1 Chronicles 12:33, 38). They all agreed that the primary focus should be on Religion, specifically, the return of the Ark (1 Chronicles 13:3, 4).
This point regarding the unlawfulness of forming alliances with individuals of a false religion is curiously misapplied by Lutherans against alliances with us, whom they refer to as Calvinists. This argument is put forth by Tarnovius in his Tractatus de Foederibus. However, we can make very good use of it for our purposes. Just as we should pray and strive for unity in Christ among all His followers, we should also pray against and avoid fellowship, familiarity, marriages, and military alliances with known wicked individuals and those who adhere to a false or heretical religion. I will elaborate on this matter in five specific aspects, which God prohibited His people from engaging in concerning the Canaanites and other pagans. These principles, partly through analogy and partly through stronger inference, are applicable to alliances and associations with those who, under the Christian banner, either uphold heresies and dangerous errors or lead a profane and wicked life.
Firstly, God explicitly forbade all religious covenants with such individuals and made it clear that His people should not tolerate the gods, images, altars, or groves of idolaters (Exodus 23:32; Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5; Judges 2:2). Even though the Law's wording pertained to the Canaanites, the righteous Kings of Judah applied and enforced this Law by removing the groves and high places that the Jews had wrongly used for their superstitions. It should come as no surprise that if such practices were not to be tolerated among the Canaanites, they were even less acceptable among the Jews. Theodosius is commended for his efforts in suppressing and punishing heretics.
Secondly, God prohibited close and familiar interaction with these heathens, going so far as to instruct that they should not reside alongside His people in the same land (Exodus 23:33). This was to prevent situations where a heathen, having established familiarity with an Israelite, might invite the Israelite to a feast involving food sacrificed to idols (Exodus 3:15). This warning is echoed in Jude 1:21 and Psalm 106:35. The Apostle Paul imposes even stricter restrictions on us regarding associating, eating, and drinking with scandalous Christians (1 Corinthians 5:11) than with pagans or unbelievers (1 Corinthians 1:27). While there may be circumstances where we are forced to interact with wicked individuals due to no fault of our own (1 Corinthians 5:10), this should not be used as an argument for not separating or departing from a true Church on account of scandalous members within it. The Apostle reminds us that we will encounter scandalous individuals everywhere we go. Moreover, there are relationships, such as those determined by natural and civil bonds or close family ties, as well as those defined by our vocations, which may require us to interact with wicked individuals. However, knowingly and willingly engaging in fellowship or association with heretical or profane individuals, out of affection or personal gain, is undoubtedly sinful and inexcusable. Just as we take measures to protect ourselves from physical harm, such as avoiding the company of those with contagious diseases, or safeguard our livestock by not allowing a scabbed or diseased sheep to infect the others, we must show even greater care for our souls and those of our neighbors by avoiding and warning against the fellowship of the ungodly, which can lead to spiritual contamination. It is worth recalling that Jehoshaphat's friendly visit to Ahab ultimately led to his involvement in a covenant with that wicked man (2 Chronicles 18:2-3).
Thirdly, God explicitly forbade entering into conjugal covenants or marriages with individuals from these heathen nations (Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3). The same principle applies when considering alliances with other wicked individuals, whether they are idolaters or profess the same religion as us. Although there is no mention of idolatry or doctrinal differences between the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain, the great corruption that afflicted the ancient world, leading to the flood, resulted from the children of God marrying the profane (Genesis 6:1-3). Jehoram did not marry a heathen woman but the daughter of Ahab. However, it is noted that he did evil in the sight of the Lord, following the ways of the house of Ahab. The reason for this is clear: the daughter of Ahab was his wife (2 Kings 8:18), as seen in verse 27. A similar situation is observed in Ahaziah, the son of Jehoram, who did evil just as the house of Ahab did because he was the son-in-law of the house of Ahab. The Apostle Peter implies that Christians should marry those who are fellow heirs of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). Proverbs 31:30 also emphasizes the importance of choosing a virtuous spouse.
Fourthly, God prohibited His people from entering into foedus deditionis or subjectionis (or as others call it, pactum liberatorium) with the Canaanites. He desired His people to show no mercy to those whom He had destined for destruction (Deuteronomy 7:2). Ahab transgressed this command when he formed a brotherly Covenant of friendship with Benhadad, despite God delivering the enemy into his hands (1 Kings 20:32, 33, 34). In all Christian commonwealths, the Magistrate, acting as God's representative, is duty-bound to eliminate evildoers as specified by God's Word. David's reluctance to punish Joab and Shimei, partly due to necessity and partly due to political considerations (which he later regretted on his deathbed and sought to rectify by instructing Solomon to administer justice against both Joab and Shimei - 1 Kings 2:5, 6, 7, 8, 9), should not serve as a precedent or justification for Christian Magistrates to neglect the execution of justice. A better example to follow is the one David carefully deliberated upon, as expressed in Psalm 101:8: "I will early destroy all the wicked of the land, that I may cut off all wicked doers from the City of the Lord." This applies to individuals of all ranks and statuses, without any favoritism, and it should be done promptly. Even Joab himself faced consequences as he was removed from his position and command (2 Samuel 19:3 & 20:4).
Fifthly, the same principle from the Law applies to civil covenants, but not those of peace or commerce; rather, it pertains to alliances for war, particularly offensive and defensive leagues where we join forces with idolaters, infidels, heretics, or any other known enemies of truth or godliness. This would result in having the same friends or enemies. Although peace or trade agreements with such individuals might sometimes be considered unlawful due to specific circumstances—such as granting peace to rebels, murderers, or arsonists who, by God's law, should be brought to justice, or when trade with idolaters directly supports their idolatry—entering into a confederacy that involves us in a war with such associates is absolutely and inherently unlawful. Esteemed writers from the Catholic, Lutheran, and Orthodox traditions have all condemned this practice. Some of these authors have been cited earlier. Isidorus Palusiotas argues along the same lines in his Epistle 14, Book 3: "If the Law was so severe against involuntary uncleanness, how much less would God tolerate voluntary and deliberate defilement?" It is worth noting that a part of Abimelech's wrongdoing was that he enlisted frivolous and unreliable individuals to follow him (Judges 9:4). God instructed Amaziah to send away one hundred thousand men of Israel who were already with him as a united force, warning him that if they remained, he would face defeat because God was not with them (2 Chronicles 25:7, etc.). Even when they left, these soldiers caused significant harm on their way back (verse 13). However, God rewarded Amaziah's obedience with a great victory. In the not-so-distant past, during the early stages of the Reformation in Germany, there was considerable scrutiny of this matter of conscience regarding the lawfulness of such confederacies. In 1629, the city of Strasbourg formed a defensive league with Zurich, Berne, and Basel because they were not only neighbors but shared the same faith and religion, as explained by Sleidan. Yet, about two years later, the Elector of Saxony declined to enter into a confederacy with the Helvetians because, despite their strength and potential assistance, they held different views on the Lord's Supper. He asserted that he could not unite with them as confederates, fearing that Scripture's warnings about dire consequences for seeking help from any available source might befall him. The principle was sound, though misapplied in that particular case. Even the heathens recognized the unlawfulness of forming alliances with wicked individuals. Victorinus Strigelius, referring to Aeschylus' tragedy "Seven Against Thebes," recounted how Amphiaraus, a wise and virtuous man, perished along with seven men and seven horses when he allied himself with impious commanders marching to besiege Thebes. Lastly, consider this rationale for added confirmation: as everything should be done for the glory of God, we should not wage wars for ourselves but for the Lord. This is exemplified in the "book of the Wars of the Lord" (Numbers 21:14), and the declaration that "the battle is not ours, but the Lord's" (1 Samuel 25:28; 2 Chronicles 20:15). Therefore, how can we employ those who hate the Lord to help the Lord? Can the enemies of His glory truly contribute to His glory? Would we dare to offer such assistance to our Governor, as suggested in Malachi 1?
As for the objections from Scripture, they have been previously addressed. Many other objections based on flawed human reasoning can be easily dismissed if we embrace the light of Scripture. The case of Jehoshaphat's confederacy with Ahab addresses several of these objections:
Jehoshaphat was a righteous man who remained faithful even after associating with Ahab. He was not led into idolatry or tainted by Ahab's religion. His involvement was limited to assisting Ahab in a civil matter.
Ahab lived within the Israelite community, which, despite its corruption, was still recognized as a church. Ahab was not a professed enemy of God; in fact, he had recently shown penitence. Jehoshaphat may have judged Ahab charitably due to Ahab's significant repentance, which God had partially accepted (1 Kings 21:29). Jehoshaphat's son was married to Ahab's daughter, creating a familial bond.
The enemy was the King of Syria, not a wicked individual among God's people. Jehoshaphat did not align with a wicked person against God's people but joined forces against the pagan Syrians. This was akin to Amaziah starting to form an alliance with the ten tribes against the Edomites.
The cause of the alliance seemed just, as Ramoth-Gilead, a city of refuge in the Tribe of Gad, should have been restored to Ahab by the King of Syria as per their covenant (1 Kings 20:34). Daneus cites Ahab's campaign against Ramoth-Gilead as an example to justify making war against those who have broken covenants.
Jehoshaphat's approach was pious in that he sought the word of the Lord through prophets and considered inquiring further to seek all available divine guidance. This suggests that the 400 prophets did not profess to be prophets of Baal but were seen as prophets of the Lord.
Jehoshaphat's intent was for the peace and safety of his kingdom and to prevent a new war between Judah and Israel. His actions were driven by a desire for peace. However, the Prophet Jehu rebuked him, emphasizing the seriousness of helping the ungodly and loving those who hate the Lord. Wrath from the Lord was declared upon Jehoshaphat for this.
From this example, we learn that even if we maintain our purity from the false religion or errors of those we associate with, even if the individuals appear genuinely penitent, and even if there are close family ties or the common enemy is an infidel, all of these factors cannot excuse or justify alliances and associations with the wicked and ungodly. Jehoshaphat's situation, with multiple mitigating factors, still incurred God's anger. His involvement was a sin of weakness, marked by a conflicted spirit, yet it drew divine displeasure. Those who persistently engage in such transgressions, disregarding God's word and resisting reformation, will face even greater divine wrath.
If it is further argued that we are unable to wage a significant war without such alliances and assistance, the Holy Ghost has already addressed this in the example of Ahaz's alliance with the King of Assyria. Ahaz faced multiple wars against the Syrians, Israel, Edomites, and Philistines, yet his confederacy with Assyria was still condemned. Trusting in God alone, rather than employing unlawful means, should have been his course of action. God can save by few as effectively as by many, and sometimes He deliberately chooses to work with a smaller force (Judges 7). Our strength in battle should not come from unlawful allies, but from trust in God (Exodus 23:22).
If it is argued that provoking and incensing many wicked individuals by rejecting them is dangerous, the example of Amaziah and the 100,000 men of Israel he sent away provides a response. Furthermore, if one asserts the need to be gentle, patient, and meek when dealing with those who oppose themselves, the answer is twofold: First, meekness is compatible with turning away from the wicked (2 Timothy 2:24, 25; 2 Thessalonians 3:15). Second, the Angel of the Church at Ephesus received commendation for his patience while not tolerating those who were evil (Revelation 2:2).
I will introduce five distinctions that address various objections I have encountered:
Distinguish between a confederacy that is more divisive and one that is more unifying. The reason covenants of peace and commerce, even with infidels and wicked individuals, are permitted, while military alliances with them are discouraged, lies in this distinction. The former maintains separation between us and them, keeping us as two distinct entities. The latter, however, unites us with them, merging us into a single body. Thucydides defines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as a covenant that aligns us and our allies in having the same friends and enemies, often regarded as a step further in unity than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or peace covenants.
Distinguish between the endeavor of duty and the perfection of the outcome, addressing the objection that insists on having an army entirely composed of saints (meaning without any known wicked individuals). Just as it is our duty to strive for the purification of the Church from wicked and scandalous members, the Lord's field will not be completely free from tares until the end of the world (Matthew 13). Similarly, while we should make every effort to avoid wicked individuals in an expedition, it may be impossible to eliminate them entirely. Our duty is to do our utmost to ensure that their presence is an affliction rather than a fault.
Distinguish between isolated wicked individuals who may mix with us and a faction of wicked and malignant individuals. The former should be avoided as much as possible, but even more so should a partnership with a faction of wicked individuals. David refused to meet and consult with the Kahal meregnim, the Assembly of Malignants. He did not only avoid meeting with vain individuals who openly displayed their wickedness but also those who disguised their evil intentions. We have a clearer course of action when dealing with an entire field of tares, where there is no wheat, compared to scattered tares among the wheat.
Distinguish between a necessary or unavoidable fellowship with certain wicked individuals, such as marriage or familial bonds, and an elective or voluntary fellowship driven by affection for them or personal gain. We should not sever natural bonds or demand the impossible but rather maintain our purity by avoiding chosen or consented fellowship with wicked individuals.
Distinguish between infidels, heretics, repentant wicked individuals, and those who persist in their trespasses. Regardless of what individuals may have been in the past, as soon as signs of repentance and new fruits appear, we should be ready to receive them with favor and fellowship. At that point, the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the cow and the bear shall feed together—indicating a transformation in those who were once like wolves, leopards, or bears. This does not apply to the obstinate, defiant, and unrepentant individuals who remain as they are, still resembling wolves, etc.
Let us now:
Examine ourselves to determine whether there is enough tenderness of conscience within us to embrace these Scripture truths or if we are still inclined to consult with flesh and blood.
Humble ourselves for past mistakes and failures in adhering to these Scripture rules. We should reflect on our previous shortcomings and the need to walk more diligently in accordance with these guidelines.
Be vigilant for the future, remembering and applying these rules when we are faced with the opportunity to put them into practice. To emphasize this point further, I will provide additional reasons and motivations.
First, it is a grave judgment when God infuses a perverse spirit into a community, as mentioned in Isaiah 19:14. Should we willingly engage in an act that Scripture describes as a dreadful judgment? Often, this spiritual judgment is accompanied by a temporal one, as seen in 2 Chronicles 16:9, 2 Chronicles 20:37, and 2 Chronicles 28:22. Hosea 5:13 and 7:8, in conjunction with Hosea 8:8-9, illustrate how judgment reflects the sin committed. The Chaldee paraphrase in the latter citation states, "The house of Israel is delivered into the hands of the people whom they loved."
Second, let us recall the consequences of God's people mingling with the heathen, as described in Psalm 106:35 and Hosea 7:8. Such associations led to spiritual decline, akin to a cake that is overbaked on one side and raw on the other. Unlawful confederacies and associations tend to foster zeal for earthly or human matters while dampening one's fervor for things of Christ. Avoiding mingling with the wicked, however, allows us to be like a properly turned cake, with zeal directed upward—towards heaven and God.
Furthermore, we should remember how both Ahaz (2 Kings 16:10) and Asa, a righteous man (2 Chronicles 16:10), were drawn into other grave sins due to their associations with enemies of God and His people. Such sins tend to ensnare individuals in further transgressions. As Calvin noted in Ezekiel 16:26, when we enter into confederacies with the wicked, we invite new temptations, essentially acting as bellows to stoke our own corruptions. Just as wine diluted with water loses its potency and white mixed with black loses its whiteness, God's people, once mingled with wicked enemies, inevitably lose their purity and integrity.
Third, these unlawful confederacies lead to both significant judgments and grave sins, resulting in a dangerous state of apathy and insensitivity towards these consequences. The state of those engaged in such associations deteriorates further (Hosea 7:9) as they remain ignorant of the strangers who have weakened them and the visible signs of decay. Such affiliations induce spiritual numbness, making their situation even worse.
Fourth, it is noteworthy that unlawful confederacies or associations, whether with idolaters or impious individuals, are seldom, if ever, mentioned in the Bible without accompanying reproof or some indication of God's displeasure. Unlike the polygamy of the Patriarchs, which is frequently mentioned without reproof, these issues are purposefully marked as dangerous by God. It is perplexing that we would persist in pursuing them when God has placed so many warning signs in our path.
Fifth, the promises of God should encourage us to never enter into confederacies with the wicked. On the condition that we avoid such affiliations, God promises not to break His covenant with us (Judges 2:1-2) and assures us of His acceptance as His sons and daughters (2 Corinthians 6:14, 16, 17, 18).
Sixth, it is a great mercy of God, as stated in Ezekiel 20:38, to promise, "I will purge out from among you the rebels and those who transgress against me." Why, then, would we forsake this mercy and disregard God's counsel to our detriment?
Seventh, as seen in the experience of Asa (2 Chronicles 16:7-8) and in our own history, God has accomplished His greatest works when we were least entangled with such men.
There is another objection I've encountered as of the time of writing this: David's confederacy and association, both with Abner (2 Samuel 3:12-13) and with Amasa (2 Samuel 19:13), whom he appointed as the General of his army (2 Samuel 20:4), even though both had previously been David's enemies and had fought against him. Abner, in particular, was known for his scandalous conduct, including adultery (2 Samuel 3:7) and his treacherous pursuit of the crown by aspiring to become king (inferred from his relationship with Saul's concubine, similar to Absalom's later actions). Additionally, he had taken up arms against David when he was aware of God's promise to make David king, contrary to his own conscience (2 Samuel 3:9, 18).
Response: First, Peter Martyr, in his commentary on these passages, disapproves of David's actions in both these instances, especially his alliance with Abner. Should we follow these two examples, even when they are not endorsed or commended in Scripture? Should we not, instead, refrain from such confederacies due to the numerous examples in the Word of God that plainly condemn them?
Second, whatever might be considered permissible or excusable in these examples of David, they are only applicable in similar circumstances. When David made a covenant with Abner, he was only the king of Judah, and Abner pledged to bring all of Israel to him, ensuring that David would rule over all the tribes. Otherwise, there was no indication that David would subdue all the other tribes without a long and bloody war. Likewise, when David formed a pact with Amasa, he had essentially fled the land because of Absalom (2 Samuel 19:9) and was forced to remain in the land of Gilead beyond the Jordan. Fearing that the men of Judah, who had supported Absalom against David, might grow desperate and unreceptive to his return to Jerusalem, he agreed to appoint Amasa as the General of his army on the condition that Amasa would convince the men of Judah to bring him back to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 19:14).
Let those who argue for the lawfulness of confederacies with wicked individuals from these examples of David first ensure that the circumstances align. That is, the wicked party must have control over an army and a significant portion of the kingdom, which could either continue in rebellion and enmity or submit. Additionally, it should be noted that both Abner and Amasa rendered a great service, one that was highly meritorious in the eyes of men, for the benefit, peace, and security of the king and the kingdom. They did so at a time when David was weak, and they had the power to continue a war against him, which is a rare scenario and quite different from those who actively seek to pervert and lead many thousands of God's people astray, rather than bringing thousands into obedience, as Abner and Amasa did.
Third, there are specific responses relevant to each case. There is nothing in the text to suggest that David made a covenant of the type the Greeks called "συμμαχία" (summachia) with Abner, or that he covenanted to make Abner the General of his army (as he did later with Amasa). At that time, he had no apparent reason to remove Joab from his position, as he did later. Thus, it is reasonable to understand, as Sanctius suggests, that the covenant Abner sought from David was a covenant of peace. Jerome's reading suggests that it was a request to "make friendship with me," given their previous enmity. Consequently, this covenant does not align with the type that is primarily under dispute. Regarding Amasa, I will not attempt to excuse or diminish his fault in joining Absalom, as it was not due to malice or wicked intentions against his uncle David. However, there is some probability that Amasa was a penitent and hopeful man. Certainly, David had higher hopes for him than for Joab. If it is true, as Josephus writes, that messengers frequently came from Amasa and the men of Judah to request reconciliation with the king, and that Amasa was willing to do so much for David when he could have done the opposite, David had some reason to be hopeful. Furthermore, Amasa was not driven by any offense or anger against the other party, as was the case with Abner.
Fourth, just as this example pertains to the removal and replacement of Joab, and not elevating his brother Abishai to his position (both of them were guilty of Abner's blood, 2 Samuel 3:30, and both posed difficulties for David), it reinforces the argument I have been presenting.
The point being now so fully clarified from Scripture, there is all the less reason to argue contrarily from human examples in Christian states and commonwealths. The Word of God must not bend to men's practices but they to it. Even among those whose examples are alleged to support the contrary opinion, there are instances that reflect caution and conscientiousness in choosing or refusing confederates. For instance, among the Helvetians or Swiss, the people of Zurich and Berne, after their reformation, renounced their prior alliance with the French King to assist him in his wars. They resolved only to maintain peace with him but would not continue the covenant of "aide" or joining him in his wars. Although there were old alliances approximately 300 years ago, binding these cantons to each other for aid, defense of their country, preservation of their rights and liberties, and settling disputes between individuals from different cantons (as recorded by historians of that commonwealth), after the Reformation, religious zeal led to a war between the Popish and Protestant cantons. While the Popish side strengthened their position through a confederacy with Ferdinand, the Emperor's brother, the Protestant side, including Zurich, Berne, and Basel, entered into an alliance first with the city of Strasbourg and shortly thereafter with the Landgrave of Hesse to bolster their position and receive assistance against the Popish cantons. Differences in religion compelled them to choose different confederates. Nevertheless, I can readily acknowledge what Lavater astutely observes concerning Ezekiel 16:26-29: covenants made before true religion shines among a people should not be hastily broken. Similarly, a believing husband should not divorce his unbelieving wife, whom he married when both were unbelievers, provided she is willing to remain with him. Regardless of arguments in favor of such covenants, confederacies with enemies of true religion, established after the light of reformation, are utterly inexcusable.
Perhaps some may raise another objection: "This is a hard saying," say several Malignants, "We are regarded as enemies if we do not enter and accept the Covenant. Yet when we have entered and taken the Covenant, we are still considered enemies to the cause of God and His servants." Answer: This objection is akin to if those traitors, covenant breakers, and other scandalous individuals from whom the Apostle bids us turn away (2 Timothy 3:5) were to object, "If we lack a form of godliness, we are seen as foreigners and not among God's people. Yet now that we have taken on a form of godliness, we are no better regarded by Paul; he still urges Christians to turn away from us." It's similar to workers of iniquity within the true Church objecting to Christ Himself, saying, "If we do not pray, if we do not hear the word, etc., we are not accepted, but are rejected for neglecting essential duties. Yet when we do pray, hear, etc., we are still told: 'Depart from me, you workers of iniquity, I never knew you.'" People are to be judged based on their actions, words, and way of life. If anyone who has taken the Covenant demonstrates through their words and actions that they remain wicked enemies, their profession of the Covenant should not blind us to their true nature.
If any disaffected individuals still insist and say, "Why then are we received into both the Covenant and the Sacrament, nay, why are we forced and compelled into the Covenant?" Answer:
If any known Malignant or collaborator with the Rebels or any enemy of this Cause has been received into either the Covenant or the Sacrament without displaying signs of repentance for their past Malignancy and scandal (by signs of repentance, I mean those that people in charity should be satisfied with), it is beyond what Ministers and Elderships can justify, either to God or to the Acts and regulations of this national Church. I trust that all faithful and conscientious Ministers have striven to maintain purity in such matters. Moreover, the General Assembly has decreed that known collaborators with the Rebels and those who obtained protections from the enemy or maintained correspondence and intelligence with them shall be suspended from partaking in the Lord's Supper until they demonstrate their repentance before the Congregation. If, after showing signs and declaring their repentance, individuals return to their previous ways of Malignancy, their iniquity is their own responsibility, not ours.
People are not drawn or compelled into the Covenant any differently than they are into other necessary duties. It should not be described as coercion or compulsion. Are people forced to spare their neighbor's life because murder is severely punished? Or are people compelled to be loyal because traitors are punished as examples? While there must be a willingness and eagerness to fulfill the opposite duty, great sins must not go unpunished. People are not coerced into virtue simply because vice is punished; otherwise, virtue would cease to be virtue. Those who reject the Covenant, revile it, or rail against it should be regarded as enemies of it and treated accordingly. Yet if anyone is known to have taken the Covenant against their will, they should not be received.
These two aspects can coexist: censuring the contempt or neglect of a duty and simultaneously censuring wickedness in the person who has undertaken the practice of that duty. Just as any Israelite who refused to worship the true God was to be put to death (2 Chronicles 15:13), but if they were found to be murderers, adulterers, etc., despite worshipping the true God, they were also to be put to death. The General Assembly of this Church has decreed that individuals who persistently neglect prayer and the worship of God in their families, even after admonition, should be suspended from partaking in the Lord's Supper until they amend their ways. However, if anyone is found to be using Family Worship as a cover for swearing, drunkenness, adultery, or similar sins, these scandalous sins should not be excused because they have adopted a form of godliness. God forbid. It is the same with those who refuse the Covenant and rail against it; they are rightfully censured. But if wickedness and Malignancy are found in anyone who has taken the Covenant, their offense and censure should not be downplayed but rather heightened.
I would have been much briefer in addressing this question if new objections that reached my ears hadn't prompted me to elaborate. And now, I encounter one more objection. Some argue that the arguments previously presented from Scripture prove the unlawfulness of confederacies and associations only with Idolaters, Heretics, or profane individuals from other Kingdoms but not those from the same Kingdom. Answer:
By the concession of those who raise this objection, it is at the very least unlawful to associate with anyone from another Kingdom who adheres to a false religion or lives wickedly.
If intimate fellowship with the wicked from the same Kingdom is unlawful, then a military association with them is also unlawful, for it would entail consulting, conferencing, and frequent interaction. To suggest that we are forbidden to converse familiarly with the ungodly of another kingdom but not with the ungodly of the same kingdom would be a profane misuse and distortion of Scripture.
Were not those military associations condemned in 2 Chronicles 19:2 and 25:7-8 for the reason that the associates were ungodly, haters of the Lord, and God was not with them? Therefore, the same reason holds against associations with anyone who can truly be described as ungodly, haters of the Lord, and without God's favor.
God desired the camp of Israel to be entirely holy and clean (Deuteronomy 23:9-14), but from whom? Not so much from wicked heathens (there was less fear of that) as from wicked Israelites.
Does not David say, "I will early destroy all the wicked of the land" (Psalm 101:8) and "Depart from me, all you workers of iniquity" (Psalm 6:9)? How, then, can anyone imagine that he would make any of them his associates and helpers in war?
Amandus Polanus Comment, in Ezekiel 16:26, 27, 28: "He who reproves the Church's fornication, that is, idolatry or false doctrine, and confederations with the wicked, is not a Heretic, not a Schismatic, not ungrateful towards Mother Church. Otherwise, even Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and other Prophets would have been Heretics, Schismatics, or ungrateful."
-----
Source: A Treatise of Miscellany Questions (ch. 14), by George Gillespie