What Does The Bible Say About War?

28 Pages·2007·0.3 MB·English

by  Bob Hill

What Does The Bible Say About War?
Curt Daniel

1. Introduction to the Subject...................................................................................................................2

2. The Biblical Justification for War.........................................................................................................2

3. Examples of Godly Soldiers.................................................................................................................3

4. War and the Second Love Commandment..........................................................................................4

5. Necessary Qualifications for A Just War.............................................................................................4

6. The Unjust War......................................................................................................................................5

7. Objections Answered............................................................................................................................7

8. God's Rules of War.............................................................................................................................10

9. Preparation for War.............................................................................................................................11

10. Prayer...................................................................................................................................................13

11. National Defense.................................................................................................................................14

12. Principles of Action.............................................................................................................................14

13. Surrender and Victory.........................................................................................................................15

14. The Hard Cases...................................................................................................................................16

15. The First Strike, or Preventative War.................................................................................................17

16. Invasion of Another Nation's Territory..............................................................................................17

17. Wars of Aggression to Free Another Country from Tyranny...........................................................17

18. Revolution............................................................................................................................................18

19. Assassination......................................................................................................................................20

20. Extreme Weapons...............................................................................................................................21

21. The Extremest Weapons.....................................................................................................................21

22. Total War..............................................................................................................................................24

23. Why Does God Allow War?................................................................................................................26

24. Counsel for Soldiers...........................................................................................................................26

25. The End of War....................................................................................................................................27

1
1. Introduction to the Subject.
Someone has said that the history of mankind is the history of war. Ever since Cain slew Abel, wars
have been waged between individuals, families, tribes and nations. Some have been minor
skirmishes, others have been massive. Some have been as short as 38 minutes, while others have
lasted 100 years or longer. All have brought misery.
And because of that misery, men have long asked whether war can ever be justified. On one side are
the pacifists of various kinds, who argue that no war is ever right. At the opposite extreme are the
war-mongers who live and love to fight wars. In the middle are those who contend that most wars are
wrong, but not all. This viewpoint argues for the Just War, the Justum Bellum.
But what saith the Scriptures? Men's opinions vary and change; God's does not. The only sure anchor
of truth is the Word of God on the subject. In sum, our Creator tells us, "There is a time for war and a
time for peace" (Eccl. 3:8). Actually, the Bible has much to say about the subject of war and warfare,
more than many Christians realize. The purpose of this study is to explore the basic truths of
Scripture concerning war. It is not intended to comment one way or the other about any war in
particular, though some reference will be made to various wars as illustrations of Biblical principles.
Before we can approve or disapprove of a certain war, we must first understand what God says about
war in general. We must establish the unshakeable foundation of the Biblical case for war and peace,
and then and only then can we match the factors of any particular war with it to see if it is a "just
war".
2. The Biblical Justification for War.
Let us first establish some preliminary truths. First, God has ordained families as an institution. Part
of the sanctity of the family is the necessity of the protection of the family. God holds fathers
responsible for the protection of their families (I Tim. 5:8; Ex. 22:2-3). An individual may not always
have to protect himself from danger, but he is responsible to protect his family from any and all
dangers.
Second, God has ordained the State as the means of protecting society at large, which is simply the
collection of many families (Rom. 13; Matt. 22:21; I Pet. 2:13-14; Tit. 3:1; I Tim. 2:1-2). Romans 13 is
the crucial passage on the subject. Paul says that the State is ordained by God and rightly has the
power of the sword to protect its people. This protection has two inter-connected aspects. The first is
internal justice. God has ordained the establishment of police forces and law courts to protect human
lives. When a life has been taken wrongly, it is the right and duty of the State to execute the murderer.
Scripture repeatedly teaches the rightness of capital punishment (Gen. 9:6; Num. 35, etc.).
But the same principles apply to external injustice, or threats to human life from without. Harold O.J.
Brown remarked, "If we can justify the police, we can justify the army." The two are but parts of the
one sword that has been given to the State by God. Just as a father must protect his children from one
another's fights and tantrums, so he must protect them from intruders. It would be odd if God
ordained internal justice but not external justice, or protection from aggression. "If magistrates... are
armed with a right or power of life and death over their own citizens", wrote Charles Hodge, "they
certainly have the right to declare war in self-defense."
When Paul wrote Romans 13, the Roman empire made no major differentiation between the army
and its police. For example, Paul himself appealed to Rome's army for protection in Acts 21, 23 and
25. He was a Roman citizen and had the right of protection. By the same standard, Rome had the duty
to protect Paul from harm. That being so, the State has the God-given duty to protect its people from
external danger as well, for as Robert Lewis Dabney noted, "Aggressive war is wholesale murder."
Responding to aggression is legitimate because of the principle of just protection against murder.
2
Martin Luther rhetorically asked, "What is just war but the punishment of evildoers and the
maintenance of peace?" If national defense is not a legitimate use of the divinely approved sword,
then what else could be?
Biblically, then, war is as justified as capital punishment. The same principles establish both. For one,
it is the State and not individuals who are ordained to wage war and execute murderers. Soldiers no
more act as mere individuals than judges, as observed by Loraine Boettner:
"The policeman or the soldier who defends his country, like the judge who protects society,
does not act with a malicious motive to avenge a personal wrong, but with an altruistic motive
for public safety. He performs his duty not as an individual but as an officer of the state. And in
the Scriptures war among nations is given the same status as capital punishment among
individuals."
Naturally, capital punishment is not pleasant. But it is necessary because of the heinousness of
murder. The same is true with war. Gen. Sherman was reputed to have said, "War is hell!" He was not
condemning all war in that opinion. Rather, he was saying that war is bad but often a necessary evil to
avoid worse evil. In his short treatise to German soldiers, Luther adduced the same logic: "What men
write about war, saying that it is a great plague, is all true. But they should also consider how great the
plague is that war prevents."
3. Examples of Godly Soldiers.
Another proof of the "Just War" can be found in the many examples of godly soldiers in the Bible.
Abraham, who is regularly commended for his faith and is called "the friend of God", went to war in
Gen. 14. His nephew Lot had been kidnapped by hostile neighbors. Abraham gathered his men
together and led a commando raid to free him. God gave him success and blessed him. In this the first
of justifiable wars, we see many of the basic principles of war: defense, decisive action, pure and just
motives, and victory.
Another great soldier was Joshua. God ordained him as Moses’ successor. Even during the wilderness
wanderings he served as commander-in-chief of the Israeli forces. But it is especially in the Canaanite
Conquest that his exploits are manifest. He went from victory to victory with few losses. In fact,
Joshua stands out as one of the best and most successful generals of all time. And like Abraham, he
was blessed for it.
And after Joshua's death, God raised up a series of judges to serve as military leaders: Othniel, Ehud,
Gideon, Samson and a host of others. Then there was the greatest military general of all Israel: King
David. We remember David as the shepherd but tend to forget that he was a soldier and leader of the
armies of Israel for many years. At this point someone will object to adducing David as a godly
example for war. "Does not I Chron. 22:8 say that God forbade David from building the Temple
because he was a 'man of blood?" Yes, that is true. But that was not a rebuke of David as such. Let us
remember that God had directly told David to wage war on several occasions (e.g., I Sam. 23:2, 4) and
blessed his battles, such as against Goliath and the Philistines. And God even calls David "a man after
God's own heart."
The point is just this: God commanded all these to fight and blessed their campaigns. God approved
of their just wars. Heb. 11:32-34 commends these warriors as examples of faith. What was recorded in
the Bible was written for our instruction, and God gave such men as tangible examples to imitate
(Rom. 15:4; I Cor. 10:6, 11). Hence, it is wrong to accuse all soldiers of being "blood-thirsty war-
mongers".
Just as Hebrews 11 says that the list of Biblical heroes could go on and on, so we could add to this
heroic list many other godly soldiers in church history. England had Oliver Cromwell and Thomas
Fairfax, America has had godly generals such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and there are
others. One could also mention the many godly military chaplains (Ulrich Zwingli, Richard Baxter,
3
John Owen, Robert Lewis Dabney, Orville Nave, and others).
A similar argument could be made from three examples in the New Testament. First, when the
Roman soldiers came to John the Baptist for counsel, John did not tell them to leave the army
because it was inherently sinful. Augustine commented, "Certainly he did not prohibit them to serve
as soldiers when he commanded them to be content with their pay for the service." Someone might
object that this is an argument from silence, but we would point out the great difference between the
way that John dealt with soldiers and the way Christ dealt with harlots. Could you imagine either
Jesus or John saying to a harlot, "Be content with your pay"? The other two examples are how Jesus
commended the Centurion (Matt. 8) and how Peter welcomed Cornelius the Centurion (Acts 10 and
11). There is not the slightest hint that these soldiers were rebuked for being soldiers as such.

4. War and the Second Love Commandment.
Another vital proof of the Just War is the principle of love for one's neighbor. This is especially
important to understand because many opponents of war adduce the love commandment as proof
against all war. The principle is simple: love for one's neighbor requires that one protect his life if
possible. Pro. 24:11 says, "Deliver those who are being taken away to death, and those who are
staggering to slaughter, 0 hold them back!" The strong have a responsibility to protect the weak. This
is especially pertinent to war against the helpless. Francis Schaeffer saw this and confessed, "This is
why I am not a pacifist. Pacifism in this poor world in which we live - this lost world - means that we
desert the people who need our greatest help."
Love and justice must go together. The Just War therefore is also a Loving War. It is true love to
protect an innocent person's life, even at the risk of one's own life. "Greater love has no man than this,
that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:3). The odd thing about Pacifism is that it becomes
neither just nor loving. The innocent are slain and the unjust aggressor is rewarded. It is for this
reason that many, if not most, Pacifists are also opposed to capital punishment. They have more pity
on the guilty murderer than on the innocent victim. In their excellent book, A Just Defense, Karl and
Keith Payne note, "Just war theorists argue that Christian pacifists may personally choose
nonresistance in the face of attack, but they have no biblical right or justification to require others to
die with them because of their own personal choice... Pacifists emphasize love of enemies and non-
violence, even at the expense of innocent neighbors and friends."
For this reason, God justifies war as a means of love and justice for society. This principle also applies
to a neighboring country under attack. While "Country A" may not be under attack, it has the right
and duty to show love by protecting "Country B" from unjust aggression by "Country C". Hence, the
notions of isolationism and neutrality are incompatible with Biblical love for one's neighbors.
As a contemporary example, you might remember the horrifying account of the famous public
murder of Kitty Genovese in New York in 1964. She screamed for help but was murdered without
anyone coming to her rescue. Upon further police investigation, it was found that dozens of neighbors
heard her cries and could have helped, but all replied, "I didn't want to get involved." Pacifism is the
same philosophy.
5. Necessary Qualifications for A Just War.
Proponents of the Just War position list a number of necessary qualifications for a war to be just.
Some lists are long, others short (Thomas Aquinas listed but three necessary ingredients). Some of
the qualifications concern the basis for a declaration of war, while others more deal with how a Just
War is to be fought in a just manner.
The main qualification is that the war be a just defense of innocent lives. This means that lives are
risked which are innocent of a capital sin or crime. All humans, of course, are guilty of sin and deserve
4
to die in Hell, but that is not the point. Not all sinners deserve capital punishment at the hands of the
State, and not all peoples deserve to be slain by aggressive war. Defense against' unjust aggression,
then, is the, primary justification for war. Augustine commented, "A just war is justified only by the
injustice of an aggressor."
This is absolutely essential at the outset. It is vital to see that God has placed a certain value on
human lives because they are made in His image (Gen. 9:6). The reason why war is just is because
God says so, and it is incumbent upon the State to determine whether such-and-such a war is just in
God's sight, not their own. This means more than simply asking God to be on their side. When
Lincoln was asked if he thought that God was on their side in the Civil War, he wisely replied, "What
matters is whether we are on God's side." God is always on the side of those who line up along Biblical
principles. Joshua was faced with a similar situation in Josh. 5:13-14, and the Lord fought for him
because he was on the side of God's justice.
A second important qualification is just motives. Basically this is what we have already commented on
- the sense of justice and love. The true motive for going to war must be that right combination of
seeking justice for the unjust and love for the innocent.
Theorists usually posit a third qualification at this stage, namely, that war must be used only as a last
resort after all other alternatives (such as negotiations) have failed. This is usually followed up with
the practice of a formal declaration of war. This qualification is important, but very difficult in
practice. For example, time may not permit negotiation; the aggressor is already fighting. Still, it is a
wise principle of prudence for the State to formally announce that hostilities have commenced and
that the nation is indeed at war. Otherwise the people are confused, and the sense of justice is diluted.
This in turn leads to a fourth qualification that is usually cited: a reasonable hope of success. In other
words, the right gains of war must outweigh the unjust losses. Mass military suicide is no virtue in
war. To die to stop injustice is good and right, if it furthers that end. But to lay down one's life with no
hope of success is only a form of suicide. In fact, it could be construed as counter-productive. For one
thing, it would mean that the enemy has one less opponent to fight. So, in a situation where there is
no likelihood of success at all, wisdom would dictate that one wait for better circumstances, flee from
danger, or appeal to others for help.
Lastly, Just War proponents frequently cite a fifth qualification. It is argued that the State has the
power of the sword and therefore only the State can wage war. War may be fought by individuals but
not as individuals. Soldiers fight as representatives of the State. Personal vengeance is not a right
motive for war. The only real problem with this qualification is when the State itself is the aggressor
against its own people. In such a situation, the people themselves are under unjust attack.
Unfortunately, most wars are not as simple as all this. Motives are mixed and factors are a grayish
mixture of black and white. What is the Christian to do in such a situation? He is to prayerfully weigh
the factors involved in the particular case at hand. If they come down on the side of justice, the war is
just; if not, it is an unjust war.
6. The Unjust War.
Just as there are qualifications for a Just War, there are also qualifications for an Unjust War. There
are several excuses given by warring nations which do not meet the Scriptural grounds for a Just War.
Let us look at a few of them.
First, war-mongering for pleasure is not acceptable. Psa. 68:30 rebukes those who "delight in war".
Joab seems to have been an example of a military leader who loved war for the sake of fighting (cf. I
Kings 2:5). In the movie Patton, Gen. Patton is portrayed as saying, "God, how I love it!" If those were
indeed his sentiments, he was certainly wrong. No man should love war. A war-monger is someone
who loves war for the sake of war. This is usually the case with mercenaries, many of whom would
fight without pay on any side simply to be fighting. That is evil and wicked. And even in a Just War,
5
many young men run off to war out of a sense of excitement and fun rather than justice and love.
They think it is a game, but wiser veterans know better. When the bombs start flying at them and
their buddies start dying, they realize that war is not meant for pleasure.
Second, war for gain is wrong. James 4:1-2 specifies this as one of the major causes of war: greed. One
nation wants something another nation has, and rather than trade with them for it in the open
market, they wage war and invade and steal it. This wrong motive underlies many wars of
colonization and imperialistic expansionism.
A more subtle form of this can be illustrated in the following parable. There were once two
neighboring islands in the Pacific. They were inhabited by the Greens and the Blues. The Greens grew
lots of coconuts, which the Blues loved but could not grow for themselves. For years they simply
traded. Then one day the Greens decided not to sell their coconuts to the Blues. So the Blues
marshaled their people together, and sent soldiers off with spears and canoes to raid the Greens in
order to take over the coconuts, or at least to re-establish the coconut trade agreement. Meanwhile,
back on the island of the Blues, many of the Blues protested: "No blood for coconuts!" Who was right?
Third, war for power is condemned. This motive springs from pride and as such is sinful. This bad
example can be seen in those wars which are fought for the establishing of an empire, whether it be a
Third Reich or a New World Order or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Fourth, war cannot legitimately be fought for personal or national glory. Luther saw this and said,
"Whoever goes to war because of this vice earns hell for himself." The ancient philosopher Cicero,
who was one of the first to write in defense of the Just War, argued that honor is a justifiable ground
for war, but Christians from the time of Augustine have sorely disagreed. Again, too many young men
rush to war because of the glory that they seek to attain. That is only pride, and it is not a just motive.
Fifth, personal vengeance is also not acceptable. This too is a form of pride. It is as unjust as the man
who murders another in a duel to save his honor. No, personal vengeance is forbidden (Rom. 12:19).
Jacob's sons (Gen. 34) and Nimrod (Gen. 4) are examples of those who fought out of personal
vengeance. They are not to be imitated.
Sixth, hatred or racism are obviously not grounds for a Just War. Even when we fight an unjust
aggressor, we are not to hate him. Hatred without just cause is only unjust hatred.
Seventhly, a nation should not go to war out of a perverted sense of freedom. There is a sense in
which freedom is to be fought for, such as freedom from aggression which threatens life. But a nation
is not justified in going to war simply to protect its freedom to sin. This is one of the lessons of the
Book of Judges. God sent Israel judges to lead them in victorious wars, so that they would be free to
obey God, not that they would be free to sin. Unfortunately, Israel forgot the lesson and is often
imitated.
Another wrong motive for war, strangely, is more religious. It underlay many of the medieval
Crusades. In brief, evangelism is not a Biblical ground for war. A Christian cannot rightly fight to
convert the wicked, for Christ Himself said that His Kingdom is spiritual and is not to be defended (or
expanded) by military means (John 18:36). This perverted notion of religious warfare underlies the
Islamic idea of Jihad, or Holy War. The history of Islam is the history of forcing others to convert to
Islam or be killed. Christians - especially Reformed Christians - reject this whole motive by arguing
that the sword has been given to the State, not to the Church.
Related to this motive is the strange notion that dying in a Just War guarantees that one will go to
Heaven. Many Moslems rush to a Jihad for that reason, thinking that they will wake up in Paradise.
Before non-Moslems laugh, let us remember that many military chaplains in the West have told their
troops that they will go Heaven if they die for their country. It just is not so. Such "martyrs" will only
wake up in Hell.
The same Bible that gives us examples of Just Wars also gives examples of Unjust Wars. God
commanded the former, but we also find Him explicitly forbidding examples of the latter (e.g., 2
6
Chron. 11:4; Josh. 22:11-34). It is incumbent upon a State to determine whether its cause is just by
God's standards.
And if it is not? What should the people themselves do? If a Christian finds himself in a situation
where his country is involved in an unjust war, then he must not approve of it or participate in it. He
cannot excuse himself by saying, "My country, right or wrong", and fight in an Unjust War. Martin
Luther said the following to German soldiers, "If you know that he [their ruler] is wrong, then you
should fear God rather than men... and you should neither fight nor serve, for you cannot have a good
conscience before God." Christians should appeal to Acts 5:29, "We must obey God rather than men."
The only legitimate grounds for a godly Conscientious Objector is when the war is unjust. He must
not fight. But if it is just, he must indeed fight. If it is unjust, then he can resist, flee, or suffer
imprisonment.
7. Objections Answered.
There are many objections against the Biblical position of the Just War, and only a few can be
answered here. The first runs like this: "Christ is the Prince of Peace. He rejected all violence; He
never used a weapon; and He never joined the army." This objection overlooks several other truths.
First, He said that He did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Even if that is metaphorical, it must
not be taken as a blanket approval of all "peace" measures. True, He may not have owned a sword, but
He told His followers to buy swords (Luke 22:36). As for His supposed non-violence, Pacifists would
have a hard time convincing the money-changers in the Temple that Jesus rejected all use of violence!
Further, Rev. 19:11 says of Him, "In righteousness He judges and wages war."
Next, some quote Christ's words in Matt. 26:52, "All that take the sword shall perish by the sword."
This is taken to mean that soldiers die by like weapons. Our answer is that this is to misinterpret the
passage. For one thing, it simply is not true that all soldiers die in war; not all that use swords have
died by swords. Rather, Christ was simply reiterating the validity of capital punishment for those who
use swords unjustly. Note the parallel in Rev. 13:10, "If anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he
must be killed." In a way, then, this only justifies the use of swords by the State against aggressors
who murder with the sword. In his book, When Is It Right to Fight?, Robert Morey comments, "After
Peter had cut off Malchus ear, Jesus did not tell Peter to throw away his sword, but to put it back in
its sheath. Evidently there would be other occasions where it could be rightfully used."
The third objection cites the Sermon on the Mount, and contends, "Jesus said, 'Do not resist an evil
one. Just love your enemies. Blessed are the peacemakers. Turn the other cheek.’ We should not resist
even an evil aggressor, but be like Gandhi and greet him with hugs and flowers. And even if he still
fights us, it would be better to be Red than dead. Better a martyr than a soldier."
This objection is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus
was setting forth personal ethics, not civil ethics. There is a vital difference between the two. For
example, in Rom. 12:17-21, Paul forbade personal vengeance. But in the very next chapter he said that
the State has been ordained as an "avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil" (13:4).
Thus, we are indeed to personally love our enemies and not resist or punish him; but the State cannot
do this with unjust military aggressors any more than it can simply ignore murderers. It is no
coincidence that Pacifists are usually against capital punishment.
The same is true with turning the other cheek. In the ancient East, slapping someone on the cheek
was a high insult. Christ was telling us not to return the insult. He was not saying that the State
cannot retaliate against an unjust aggressor in order to drive him away.
As for being peacemakers, peace is not achieved by surrender to murderers and tyrants. That would
only bring more injustice, not peace. The peace of the tyrant is the peace of the graveyard. The
Pacifists greatly misunderstand the motives of those who advocate the Just War; perhaps they are
incapable of grasping true justice. We say that war is sometimes necessary to achieve peace.
Augustine said, "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have
7
peace." War-mongers indeed love war and hate peace, but the truest peace-lovers are those who will
fight for it. "Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace"(Aquinas).
The Pacifist thinks that he has a higher standard of peace than we do, but they are wrong. They cry,
"Peace! Peace!" when there is no peace, and their actions do more harm than good, for they play into
the hands of war-mongers. The real peacemakers are those who go further than Pacifism. Robert
Lewis Dabney wrote, "He who cultivates the art of peace does, indeed, make a worthy contribution to
the well-being of his fellow-men; but he who defends them with his life makes the contribution of
supreme value."
As for the nonsense of imitating Gandhi, a few things ought to be noted. First, it has been pointed out
that he was dealing with a nation that had some concept and practice of liberty and morality, namely
Britain. Most others are not so fortunate. But when it comes down to it, the example of the Christian
should be Jesus Christ and the godly men of Scripture, not a pagan Hindu. History is replete with
examples of barbarous aggressors mowing down the "peaceniks" of their day. The flowers that are
thrown at the enemy are used for the burials of the naive non-resistors.
The Pacifist perspective fundamentally errs in its estimation of Man. Corporate non-resistance to evil
will not stop it. Because men are personally evil, their evil increases when they are together, and it
takes more than smiles and hugs to restrain that evil when it is on the march. Pacifism also errs in its
"Just trust God" suggestion. God Himself permits and commands the Just War. Therefore, true trust
in God will obey God, who knows best and whose Word is Law. Failure to obey God on this point is
not trust; it is presumption. It is high presumption to think that a rosy and optimistic non-resistance
will stop evil. And it is gross naiveté to think that the Pacifist will survive the aggression. History
shows otherwise. We would remind the Pacifists of Matt. 4. Satan urged Jesus to throw Himself in
harm's way and "Just trust God"; but Christ rejected this evil advice, for He truly trusted God.
Similarly, there were times when God told Israel not to fight but simply to look on (e.g., Ex. 14:14);
but there were other times when God told them that He would fight through them. In other words,
they were to show their trust by stepping out in faith with arms against Israel's enemies. When they
became afraid and lacked faith, they did not go out to fight. And the Lord rebuked their unbelief and
presumption (e.g., Deut. 1:30-32). Pacifists would seem to have the same lack of faith.
Then this objection recommends martyrdom rather than fighting. It is bad advice. First, dying as a
Pacifist does not make one a martyr. The only way in which dying at the hands of an unjust aggressor
can be construed as any kind of martyrdom is when there is no opportunity to successfully fight back
or flee.
The next objection is this: "But did not God tell Israel not to resist the Babylonian aggressors? (Jer.
27)" This is true. But the text also says that God was using Nebuchadnezzar as the scourge of Israel.
In other words, though Babylon may not have had pure motives in its attack on Israel, Israel itself had
bad motives. Israel deserved to be attacked, for it was deeply into idolatry and debauchery. So, what
Jeremiah said was as if he was telling a guilty criminal to give himself up and face the consequences
for his crime.
Another objection runs along these lines: "Israel could fight war, but not us. War was acceptable in
the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament. War was temporarily permitted because of sin (as
in divorce) and because of Israel's special status as a unique theocracy. Today, only a Christian nation
could fight, but of course there are none." This is an important objection, for it hinges on a fine point
of Biblical theology. We readily grant that Israel was a special nation in the Old Testament. That is
why not all of the principles of its warfare continue into the New Testament, any more than all of its
ordinances in general continue. For example, the Ceremonial Law has certainly ceased (Col. 2:16-17;
Eph. 2:15).
By the same standard, though, other laws for Israel were permanent and were not restricted to her
alone. For example, the death penalty for murderers. Some laws are broader than the theocratic
distinctives of Old Testament Israel. Some are repeated in the New Testament, some are not. But we
8
do not need an express repetition of a law in the New for it to be valid. As Charles Hodge commented
in this context, "As the essential principles of morals do not change, what was permitted or
commanded under one dispensation, cannot be unlawful under another, unless forbidden by a new
revelation. The New Testament, however, contains no such revelation."
One might also add that even if the precept ceased, the principle continues. For example, there was an
Old Testament precept about not muzzling oxen as they pulled the plow (Deut. 25:4). Paul quotes this
in I Tim. 5:18, not to apply the precept but to apply the underlying principle, namely, that workers
ought to be paid.
As for the comparison to divorce - which some Christian Pacifists make - we would point out that
divorce was permitted in both Testaments (Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 5:32, 19: 9; I Cor. 7). By implication,
then, war was explicitly permitted in the Old and implicitly permitted in the New.
As for the question of whether only a Christian nation could ever fight a war, we can quickly dismiss
this objection by asking, "Does this mean that only a Christian nation could execute murderers or
imprison thieves?" The objection is ludicrous.
Then there is the objection based on examples in history: "The early Church was Pacifist for three
centuries until the time of Constantine. Moreover, just look how God has blessed the many godly
Christian Pacifists in history, such as the Anabaptists, the Mennonites, the Brethren, Leo Tolstoy,
Harry Emerson Fosdick and Martin Luther King, Jr." Well, we could dismiss this one, too, by replying
that history is not our standard. Not even Church history. Scripture alone is our standard. Still, a few
comments would be in order.
For one, it is not true that all early Christians were Pacifists. Some clearly were not. Those that were,
moreover, were Pacifists for one main reason: the Roman Army required soldiers at that time to
sacrifice to pagan gods and fight unjust wars. This underlay the supposed Pacifism of fathers such as
Tertullian and Origen.
Too, there have been Pacifists who have been orthodox Evangelicals, but many have not been quite so
pure in their doctrines. Tolstoy, Fosdick and King were by no stretch of the imagination believers in
the true Gospel of Christ. In fact, they had more in common theologically with other notorious
Pacifists than with true Christians. Such Pacifists include Gandhi, Bertrand Russell, the Buddhists,
the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. The truth is that Pacifism has been a fringe viewpoint at best within
Christendom, and it too frequently leads to forms of liberalism.
If the Pacifists are so eager to find a worthy example, let them examine Sgt. York. Like many others,
he was against all war and refused to fight. But then he saw that some evil is worth fighting against,
and so he fought the Just War.
Pacifists often contend that it takes more courage not to fight than it does to fight. This is only true in
the rare case of true martyrdom and such. Instead, it is usually the case that the objections of
Pacifism are but cover-ups for cowardice.
Now, some will attempt a sort of compromise. Some are Relative Pacifists; they will serve in the
armed forces as non-combatants (secretaries, medics, etc.). Actually, the Absolute Pacifist is more
consistent. The Relative Pacifist is only freeing another soldier for the front lines who would have
otherwise been occupied with the place now taken by the Relative Pacifist. Hence, he is really aiding
the war effort, only he does not admit it.
Another objection: "Violence leads to violence. You can't fight fire with fire, but with water. The only
way to stop war is to cease to fight." This, too, is erroneous reasoning. For one thing, it just is not true
that all violence leads to more violence. Capital punishment, for example, is certainly violent. But it is
just and Biblical, and deters further crime when used rightly (Eccl. 8:11).
Then there is the objection, "All war is murder. The Sixth Commandment forbids all killing, including
war." This is a gross error for several reasons. First, the Hebrew word in Ex. 20:13 is "murder", not
9
simply "kill" (cf. Matt. 19:18). Second, even the very next chapter commanded killing in some cases,
such as the death penalty (Ex. 21:12-17). Thus, not all killing is forbidden. As C.S. Lewis observed, "All
killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is not adultery." The Sixth Commandment
forbids murder, not war. Athanasius tersely noted, "Murder is not permitted, but to kill one's
adversary in war is both lawful and praiseworthy." Moreover, if war was murder, then David, Joshua
and the Judges were all gross murderers. In fact, David would have to be labeled one of the worst
mass murderers of all times, for Scripture says that David slew tens of thousands of men (I Sam.
18:7).
However, there is a yet worse heresy in this objection, and it is incipient in all Pacifism. If all war is
murder, then God Himself is a murderer. Scripture is replete with examples of God directly
commanding war and blessing godly warriors. Therefore, this objection must be vigorously opposed
outright as anti-Christian blasphemy.
Pacifists have more trouble reading their Bibles than singing "Onward Christian Soldiers", a hymn
they despise because of its alleged war-mongering. The fact is, though, that God portrays Himself as a
warrior from Genesis to Revelation. Is God a Pacifist? No! "The Lord is a Man of War" (Ex. 15:3). He
frequently describes Himself as "The Lord of hosts", which literally means, "The Lord of the Armies".
In other words, He is Commander-in-Chief of the armies of Heaven. David praised the Lord in Psa.
24:8, "The Lord, strong and mighty. The Lord, mighty in battle." That referred to both spiritual
battles and literal battles, for David was a warrior himself.
What do the peaceniks do with verses like Isa. 42:13, "The Lord will go forth like a warrior, He will
arouse His zeal like a man of war. He will utter a shout, yes, He will raise a war cry. He will prevail
over His enemies." And, again, there are many instances of God Himself fighting through the valiant
efforts of His godly soldiers. As we shall see later, God fights and guides all battles and Just Wars.
"Many fell slain because the war was of God" (I Chron. 5:22). Num. 21:14 mentions "The Book of the
Wars of the Lord."
Our point is just this: God is not a Pacifist. He brings peace by true victory. Robert Morey comments,
"God's angelic armies do not use the techniques of nonresistance in their fight against Satan... If
pacifism does not work in heaven, neither will it work on earth." God fights evil in Heaven and we
should fight evil on Earth. The last objection worth noting is this: "My conscience will not let me
fight." Sometimes this is made more spiritual: "God will not let me fight" or "God has not led me to
fight." The one who utters such words needs to submit his conscience to the clear teaching of
Scripture. Conscience is not perfect; it is flawed by sin and needs to be educated by the Word of God.
In fact, a good case could rather be made that the true conscience tells one to fight the Just War.
Furthermore, a careful reading of Scripture will bring one to the conclusion that God not only
permits, but commands us to fight the Just War. He makes no exceptions. And the only way in which
God "leads" us is by Scripture, not internal feelings.
8. God's Rules of War.
Thus far we have discussed why war can be waged; now it is meet that we investigate how it should be
fought. Does God give us in Scripture any sort of Rules of War? Yes, He does. Even if Scripture never
expressly commented on the subject, these principles could be extrapolated from other express
statements and principles. But God gave us more than that; He has supplied us with a host of
examples and explicit teaching on the subject. And they are far superior to the Geneva Conventions.
It would be helpful to keep one basic truth in mind at this juncture: God permits war, but not all wars.
He permits and even commands the Just War, but not the Unjust War. What that means is, that the
Just War must be fought in a just manner. If the just side in a war over-reacts and fights it in an
unjust manner, then it has become an Unjust War on both sides. God does not approve of the maxim,
"All's fair in love and war." War is unjust because it is not fought according to God's rules of war.
10