What does the Bible say about war?

War is a terrible facet of life in this fallen world. It should be particularly odious to Christians since we serve the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). We look forward very much to the time of Christ’s kingdom on this earth, when swords will be made into plowing implements because nations will no longer war against each other (Isaiah 2:1-4). Until that time, we will have to live with the possibility of war—and the possibility that we might be called upon to take up arms. And so we must ask: can fighting in a war ever be morally permissible? Could war even be morally right in some situations?

For the sake of clarity and brevity, I’m going to assume that most people reading this post already believe that war can be morally permissible in some situations (which is the view I hold). With that assumption, I will only briefly address the biblical indications that war can be permissible. I will devote more space to examining the texts often cited by pacifists to argue that war is never permissible.

Biblical Indications that War Can Be Permissible

1. Abraham was blessed by a priest of God for going to war to save non-combatants unjustly captured by an aggressor (Genesis 14).

It is stated in this account that God delivered Abraham’s enemies into his hands, thus showing approval of Abraham’s actions.

2. God commanded the Israelites to attack the Canaanites.

At times, God miraculously aided the Israelites in these battles to ensure their success (Joshua 10:11-14).

3. God moved the biblical authors to portray Him with military imagery.

God is comfortable being called a warrior (Exodus 15:3, Psalm 24:8). He is frequently called “Lord of Hosts,” which portrays Him as a general over a vast army. Also, the return of Christ is described as a glorious military victory (Revelation 19:11-21). By contrast, God is never portrayed as an adulterer, a liar, a thief or any other person who is clearly immoral. It is unthinkable that God would allow Himself to be portrayed as a warrior if warfare can never be morally right.

4. God has given governments the right to use force against those who do evil (Romans 13:1-5).

This right would surely include the right to punish evil between its citizens (criminal justice) and against its citizens (defensive warfare).

5. Some soldiers are praised in the New Testament with no suggestion that their occupation was inherently wrong.

When a certain centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant, Jesus praised the man for his faith without giving any rebuke of the man’s occupation (Luke 7:1-10). The centurion Cornelius was called “a devout man who feared God” and he became born-again without Peter or anyone else rebuking him for his occupation (Acts 10).

“But doesn’t this verse say…?”

When we think of the possibility of going to war, there are likely a number of Bible verses that come to mind that can’t seem to be reconciled with engaging in combat. How should we understand these verses? Here’s a sampling of them with explanation for each:

“Thou shalt not kill.”—Exodus 20:13 (KJV)

The old King James Version of the Bible translated the Hebrew word ratsakh as “kill” in its translation of the 6^th Commandment. It should more accurately be translated “murder,” as the New King James Version and all other modern English translations render it. The prohibition here was not against every instance of taking a life, but only those that would constitute murder. The very same legal code (the Law of Moses) called for the death penalty for certain crimes. Also, as noted above, God commanded the Israelites to go to war against the Canaanites. If killing in war is an instance of ratsakh, then God would have issued contradictory commands. Thus, the 6^th Commandment does not rule out killing in war.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”—Matthew 5:38-41

Several comments are in order for this important passage. First, the standard “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” was given to judges by the Law of Moses as a guideline for penalties in court cases. It was never meant as a standard for personal relationships, which is the Lord’s focus in this passage. If a person seeks to inflict such “justice” himself, he is in the wrong. But according to the Law of Moses, it was acceptable for a legal authority to use such force in the administration of justice. This observation aligns with Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:1-5 about the right of government to use force. Thus, personal retaliation is wrong, but justice meted out by a governing authority is not.

Second, notice that Jesus specifically mentioned the right cheek in this statement. Why specify the right cheek versus the left? Because it indicates what type of blow Jesus was talking about. Right-handedness has always been more common than left-handedness; thus, it’s safe to assume that Jesus was describing a right-handed person striking you on the right cheek. That blow would be a back-handed slap—an insult rather than a more forceful attack. Thus, what Jesus had in mind in this verse is responding to a personal insult. He wasn’t addressing the subject of personal self-defense, let alone the legitimacy of engaging in warfare.

Third, when Jesus says, “Do not resist the one who is evil,” we have to define resistance from the context. We shouldn’t consider resistance in the abstract and consider what it might mean—the context tells us what Jesus had in mind. From the context, we could define “do not resist” in the following ways: 1) refuse to take justice into your own hands (an eye for an eye…); 2) endure insults patiently without responding in kind (if anyone slaps…); 3) don’t insist on your rights in every situation (if anyone would sue…); and 4) be kind even to those who use you (…go with him two miles).

This passage should not be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of all uses of force. We must not even be too quick to take it out of the context of personal relationships. This passage really says nothing about a government and its responsibilities. To use it to say that a government has no right to wage war is simply a misapplication of the passage. It is far better to draw conclusions about a government and warfare from a passage that explicitly addresses that subject, such as Romans 13:1-5.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”—Matthew 5:43-45

This misunderstanding of the command to love one’s neighbor was circulating among the Jewish people at that time, so Jesus addressed it here. It is fair to ask how one could possibly love an enemy (as in an enemy combatant) and yet use lethal force against him. A few observations need to be made.

First, this passage follows directly on the heels of the previous passage that we considered. Thus, it is still dealing with the question of personal relationships. The word “enemy” should not be interpreted as an enemy combatant but as an enemy in one’s personal life.

Second, notice that the purpose behind loving our enemies is that we would imitate the behavior of God—we’re supposed to show the family resemblance, you might say. Along these lines, we should remember that God, in His capacity as judge of all the Earth, certainly did use lethal force against His enemies at times. Examples from the Old Testament could be multiplied; I will simply remind you of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Thus, even this passage does not rule out the use of lethal force by someone who is appropriately appointed to execute justice. God has that prerogative, and He has also entrusted it to human governments. A soldier acting on behalf of the government would thus carry that prerogative as well.

“The second [greatest commandment] is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”—Mark 12:31

I certainly want other people to treat me with kindness and respect, so shouldn’t I treat others the same way? On that basis, how could I justify using force against another person?

This objection, like the others above, fails to take important contexts into account. Jesus was not discussing the rights and responsibilities of a government in this passage—he was talking about personal relationships. Certainly in my personal life—as a private citizen—I am to be kind, gentle, not combative or violent. But God has given governments the right to use force, and governments are made up of people. Thus, people serving as agents of the government have a right to use force.

Should I engage in any and every war that my government launches?

The history of warfare shows that not every war is alike. Wars are fought for a variety of reasons; the combatants involved may have stronger or weaker justification for their fighting. In some wars, two nations are clearly co-belligerents; in others, one nation is clearly the aggressor. Should I as a Christian feel a duty to take up arms in any and every war that my government launches?

Norman Geisler helpfully distinguishes between two responses that we might have to this question.¹ The first is activism. This response says that I have a duty to fight for my country any time it calls upon me because of the benefits that I enjoy as a citizen. I do not need to ask whether the war is just or unjust. The second response is selectivism. This response says that I must weigh the causes and goals of the war before I answer the call to arms. It may be immoral for me to fight if the cause or goal is immoral.

Given Scripture’s teaching that we must obey the moral laws of God over the civil laws of man, selectivism seems to be the proper response. In our fallen world, the government may abuse its right to use force, and if it does, we should conscientiously object to fighting in that instance. From this perspective, for example, German citizens should have refused to fight for the Nazi Party’s goals during World War II. Some of them did, and they were right to do so. It is a blessing as Americans that our laws protect conscientious objectors and that even our military recognizes a soldier’s right to refuse orders that are immoral.

Conclusion

In the end, we can say confidently from biblical principles that fighting in war can be morally permissible. It may even be the morally right thing to do if one is battling a great evil, such as in World War II. But Christians have a responsibility to weigh the causes and goals of a war before taking up arms. If my government goes to war with an immoral aim, I must object to fighting in that instance.

Notes

Norman Geisler, “War,” in Christian Ethics, second ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010): 220-243.

Fight for Your Rights?--Sermon on the Mount Series

            There was once a champion boxer who became a Christian. After he accepted Christ, he began to study the faith intently, and after a few years he became a pastor. He felt like his new role as a pastor didn’t really fit with boxing, so he left his successful career as a boxer, which really upset some of his friends at the boxing club. They felt like he’d become “holier-than-thou,” so one evening they decided to go to his house and see if they could provoke him into a fight.

            Several of the friends went together, and when the pastor opened his door, one of the men—without warning—punched him right in the side of the face! The blow knocked the pastor to the ground, but he got up and said, “Hey, what’s this all about?” Without answering, another man punched him in the other side of the face. The pastor was dazed for a moment, but he got up, and this time he started rolling up his sleeves. He looked at the men and said, “You better get ready, ‘cause I’ve turned the other cheek, and now I have no further restrictions from the Lord.”

            Today we’re going to look at the famous statement in which Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek, and I don’t think He meant, “Let the other guy get in two punches first, then take him out!” But just what did Jesus mean? That question has been tossed around for a long time and for good reason, because this paragraph contains some of the most challenging statements in all of Scripture; yet, they are also some of the most familiar. Let’s read Matthew 5:38-42 [READ Matt 5:38-42].

            These verses encourage us to remember a couple of very important principles of biblical interpretation. First, we must keep statements in their context in order to understand them correctly. How many times have other people misunderstood you because they’ve taken something you’ve said out of context? We can do the same thing when we study Scripture. If we don’t consider how the context of a verse helps us understand that verse, then we run the risk of misinterpreting it. In this paragraph in particular, some people have isolated the statement, “Do not resist the one who is evil,” and have drawn conclusions from it that probably weren’t even on Jesus’ mind when He spoke those words.

            The second principle is that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. Since all Scripture comes from God, it all fits together; so if one statement in the Bible isn’t immediately clear, we can look at other passages in the Bible to give us some additional insight. This principle is very helpful for interpreting this paragraph since it’s a collection of short statements that seem to touch on very different subjects. When we keep in mind that Scripture interprets Scripture, that principle becomes a tremendous aid for interpretation.

            With these principles in mind, let’s dive into this passage. We’ll take the same approach that we’ve taken over the last several weeks of first looking at the problem that Jesus addresses and then looking at His solution.

The Problem: Misusing Scripture to justify revenge.

            In v. 38, the Lord states, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’” That’s a very short snippet from a statement in the Old Testament that was given as a guideline for judges to ensure that any punishment they meted out truly fit the crime—that is wasn’t too lenient or severe. Its very important to remember that this was a guideline for judges; it was not a license for people to take justice into their own hands.

            We find that statement three times in the Old Testament; I’d like to point your attention to Deuteronomy 19:16-21: “If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

            Again, notice how this guideline was given to the judges as a policy for them to follow. The problem was that the Pharisees and the people had turned this guideline into a license for revenge. So a principle that had been given as a guideline for justice had been twisted to excuse all kinds of injustice, because when we try to give people who’ve wronged us what we think they deserve—and that’s what revenge is—the end result is almost always injustice. If you push me down, I’m liable to think that you deserve to have your face rearranged like a Mr. Potato Head doll! Revenge does not produce justice, therefore it doesn’t line up with the character of God.

The Solution: Repay no one evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.

            In v. 39 the Lord says, “But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil.” Remember how important it is for us to keep this statement in context. The remainder of this paragraph will clarify what the Lord means. I think viewpoints that would tell us to never do anything to resist evil are guilty of taking this statement out of context. I believe the rest of this paragraph and the rest of Scripture reveal that Jesus means something much like “don’t fight fire with fire” or “don’t stoop to their level.” If someone does evil to us, we are not to respond in kind.

            In the rest of this paragraph, Jesus seems to clear away several of the limitations that we might want to place on a principle like this. When we think about refusing to take revenge, we want to draw our own lines in the sand to outline what we think we should tolerate, and if someone crosses our line in the sand, then we feel justified to take revenge. We might say, “I’ll let it slide if this guy talks about my daddy, but if he talks about my momma, he’s gone too far.” When we draw arbitrary lines like that, we become just like the Pharisees, and the rest of this paragraph wipes away any of these lines that we might draw.

1. No actions are exempt from this command (v. 39b)

            In the last part of v. 39, Jesus mentions an act that was deeply insulting to the Jews: “But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Some people have applied this statement in discussions about defending yourself from a physical assault, but I don’t think Jesus was addressing that matter. What He describes here is an insult, not an assault.

            He may have been making an intentional reference to Lamentations 3. Part of that chapter describes the good of waiting for God to make right all of the wrongs that you have suffered, and in one section we find these words: “It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD. It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth. Let him sit alone in silence when it is laid on him; let him put his mouth in the dust-- there may yet be hope; let him give his cheek to the one who strikes, and let him be filled with insults (Lam 3:26-30).” Here’s a good example of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture—Lamentations 3 clearly equates a slap on the cheek with an insult, so this sheds some light on what the Lord means in Matthew 5.

            This was a deeply insulting act to the Jews, but even then—even then—the Lord says that we should respond with patience, grace, and kindness. Jesus Himself was the perfect model of this response. 1 Peter 2:23 says, “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten.”

            The Jew of that day may have said, “I’ll put up with a lot, but if someone slaps me in the face, I’m going to take matters into my own hands.” But the Lord says that we cannot single out actions to make them exempt from the prohibition against revenge.

2. No rights are exempt from this command (v. 40)

            We Americans love our rights. We are weaned on the idea that there are unalienable rights that no one can legitimately take from us (and that is a good way for a government to act toward its people). But Jesus tells us, in this context prohibiting revenge, that we should hold even our own rights loosely enough that we will not take revenge if they are violated.

            In v. 40, the Lord says, “And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.” The basic Jewish wardrobe had three pieces of clothing to it. The first was the loincloth, which was wrapped around the groin; it was basically underwear. The second piece of clothing was the tunic, which was much like what we call a “dress.” It was a single piece of clothing worn against the body that covered the chest, the torso, and hung down over the legs. The third piece of clothing was the cloak, which is basically what we call a “coat.” It was the outermost piece of clothing which was also used a blanket at night, and for that reason, Jewish society gave people a virtually inviolable right to keep their coat.

            If the ancient Jews had had a Declaration of Independence, it would have said, “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life and the right to hang on to your cloak.” According to Exodus 22, if I gave you my cloak as collateral for a loan, you were required to give it back to me at night so I could sleep in it.

            Yet Jesus tells His audience, “Don’t hold even your right to your cloak so tightly that you will not be willing to give it up rather than stoop to the level of an evil and unjust person.” Remember that Jesus is not saying all that could be said about lawsuits or about rights in a republican form of government like ours; rather, He is telling us not to consider our own rights to be all-important. There are goals like honoring God for which we should be willing to sacrifice our rights if the other alternative means dragging God’s name through the mud.

            Once again, our greatest example of this attitude is Jesus Himself. Philippians 2:5-8 describes the extent to which He humbled himself to carry out the plan of salvation: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped [in other words, something to be held on to at all costs], but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

            Think about Jesus’ rights as the Creator of all things. He has the right to the worship and gratitude of His creatures. He has the right to display His glory as God. He has the right to execute judgment against our sins, yet He laid down His own rights to knowingly and willingly endure the greatest injustice the world has ever seen.

            We are to hold our own rights in a similar way. There is no right that we can place into a special category and declare that the violation of that right somehow gives us permission to take revenge. As Philippians 2:5 says, “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.”

3. No people are exempt from this command (vv. 41-42)

            Jesus goes on to mention two kinds of people whom we’re often tempted to think are taking advantage of us—those who rule over us and those who ask us for help. First, the Lord says in v. 41, “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” The land of Israel at that time was ruled by the Roman Empire. The Jews hated that fact, of course, but there was little that they could do about it. Under the laws of the Empire, soldiers had the right to force private citizens to give them all kinds of assistance, which included carrying their gear up for a distance of up to a mile.

            Now, just imagine if the United States was conquered by a foreign nation and foreign troops lived right here among us and had the authority to make us serve them. You can imagine how deeply we would despise that, so you can imagine how the Jewish people felt as well. But the Lord said that even in that situation, we should be willing to extend generosity and good will. We should be willing to go above and beyond to show kindness even to those who don’t show the same treatment toward us.

            Well, its one thing when someone can force you to help them, but its another when someone simply asks you for help, which is the situation that Jesus mentions in v. 42—“Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.” Once again, remember that Jesus is not saying all that could be said about the subject of giving. Clearly, Jesus is encouraging us to be generous; in fact, I think He’s saying that our default response toward others should be generosity.

            We should not have to be coaxed into helping others, kicking and screaming the whole way. Rather, we should respond with a generosity that has to be reined in so that it is not reckless and actually harmful. This is not an easy attitude to cultivate because it is so easy to think that people are taking advantage of us when they ask for help, and that’s the link that connects this statement to the rest of the paragraph. Whether we suffer real injustice or we’re only tempted to think that others want to take advantage of us, we are not to respond by doing evil. Instead, we are to overcome evil with good.

            Now the reason that we are ever tempted to take revenge on others is that we feel like the person who has done us wrong is going to get off the hook if we don’t do something about it. If we don’t carry out “justice,” we fear that justice will never be served. But the Bible tells us that that simply is not true. Romans 12:19 states, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” Again, the Lord Jesus is our perfect example. To return to 1 Peter 2:23, it says, “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.” This is the way to squash that desire to take revenge—to remember that God will sort everything out in His time. Our role, then, is to do good to those who do evil to us, in the hope that they might repent and embrace Jesus.

            There was once a farmer who was a very ungodly man. He rejected God and mocked the Christians in his community, yet he consistently had better yields from his farm than they did. One year in particular he had a bumper crop, and like usual, he was telling all the Christians how stupid they were for worshiping God. But one wise old farmer simply told him, “God doesn’t settle all of His accounts in October.” Remember that my friends; God will one day settle all of His accounts, and He will see that justice is served. He doesn’t need us to do it for Him now, and He won’t need our help then. Until that day, let us not repay evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.