The Christian Doctrine of War

One night an intruder bursts into your home.  He proceeds to gun down your wife and several children.  You and two children remain.  What is the Christian way to handle this situation?  Do you “turn the other cheek” and allow the gunman to kill your remaining two children and yourself?  Do you take action to defend your children and yourself?  And how far do you go in defending yourself?  You run and hide.  The gunman announces his intention to kill you and your remaining children.  Is it permissible to kill the gunman to protect your family?

The questions this writer has just posed are not merely hypothetical.  Broaden the question to encompass our country or nation.  We are attacked.  Innocent people (non-combatants) are killed by the enemy.  The enemy announces their intentions to attack again.  Should the nation collectively “turn the other cheek?”  Is it wrong from a Christian point of view for a nation to defend itself when attacked?  And how far does a nation go in defending itself?  Should the enemy be annihilated or should we protect innocent (non-combatant) members of the enemy society?

One may immediately be tempted to object to the comparison between the attack of one family and an entire nation.  If so, is it fair to apply the “turn the other cheek” ethic to a state when Jesus spoke those words with reference to the individual?

Indeed, could Jesus be rightly interpreted to advocate pacifism?  This writer thinks not.  Furthermore, this writer finds the typical proof texts cited in favor of pacifism are interpreted wrongly by those who hold the pacifist view.  Indeed, the current president of the United States asserted on the campaign trail that the actions of the previous administration's defense department couldn't withstand the scrutiny of Jesus' teaching. This writer also believes that all Scripture is the Word of Christ and must therefore be brought to bear upon the nettlesome issue of what constitutes a just war.

Before this writer begins to examine the biblical perspective regarding the issue of war, in the interest of “full disclosure” he needs to reveal the background from which he examines this issue. This writer has worn several hats during his lifetime.  He was born into a military family.  He is the last of a family that was made up of 3 older brothers  & a father who were all Army officers.  He was educated at military schools for nine years prior to entering the Army as a young officer for a mere three and a half years.  Unlike his father & oldest brother, this writer never served in combat, and is thankful to have avoided dodging live ammo.

Since this writer has worn the soldier’s hat, he can tell you that most soldiers don’t like war any more than anyone else.  This writer’s oldest brother once described war as similar to fights in the stone ages but with bigger, more lethal clubs.  The average soldier trains for battle hoping that they never have to put their training to use.

This writer also wore the hat of a military dependent.  This writer knows the anguish of worry about a father and older brother serving in combat.  As a first-grader, this writer saw his father leave to serve in combat in the Dominican Republic.  Some will be tempted to discount that as a “little war.”  My Dad assured me that “when bullets are bouncing all around you, it is a BIG WAR.” My Dad was a member of what Tom Brokaw calls: "The Greatest Generation."  He also fought in World War II & in the Korean War. 

This writer also had the experience of seeing his eldest brother serve two tours in Vietnam in the very thickest combat.

He returned with 16 air metals, a purple heart, and bronze stars to show for it.  He also returned with the emotional scars that accompany the horror of war.

Last year this writer’s young nephew was deployed to the war in Iraq as part of a surge which brought order out of chaos in the continuing war on terror.  The reader may rest assured that this

writer was praying for his nephew’s safe return.  In January he'll return for a second tour of duty over there.  I'll be praying for his safety again.

Speaking of prayer, this writer also wears the hat of a pastor.  For 20 years this writer has served in pastoral ministry.  He is passionate about studying and interpreting aright the Word of God and teaching people to apply it in their lives.

At a time when our nation is engaged in war, it makes sense to examine the biblical teaching regarding the issue of war.  It must first be understood that Christians for centuries have held widely divergent views regarding the morality of war.  Opinions range from absolute pacifism on the one hand to a “kill them all and let God sort them out!” mentality on the other hand.  In light of God's teaching regarding the sanctity of human life surely a decision to go to war must be tempered with a desire to do so only if all means are taken to solve a dispute peacefully.

But can the other extreme - that Jesus was a pacifist  - be biblically defended?  

The pacifist view of Jesus teachings appeals to the following scriptures:

Matthew 5:39

Matthew 6:10-12

1 Thess. 5:15

1 Peter 3:9

Romans 12:14, 17-19, 21

Exodus 20:13 – Additionally, pacifists appeal to the 6th commandment.

The pacifist will also point out that Jesus was willing to die rather than defend Himself.  Those who advocate a pacifistic application of Jesus’ teachings have admirable intentions.  However, in this writer’s estimation, His teachings in the aforementioned passages do not address the issue of war contextually nor does the pacifistic interpretation survive the scrutiny of Holy Scripture.

Each of the references listed above is contextually referring to individual Christian behavior.  It does not refer to the national security of any state.  War is not in view here.  Interpersonal relationships with both Christians and non-Christians are the subject of the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Paul, and Peter in these passages.

            It is well for us to examine the verses one by one.

 Matthew 5:39 – The context of this passage refers not to a physical attack, but to an insult.  An analysis of the wording of the text bears this out.  The cheek specified is the right cheek.  Most people are right handed.  Therefore, a right-handed slap on the right cheek refers to being back-handed – a form of insult in a Jewish context.  The teaching of the passage is that the believer should not return insult for insult.  There is no national application to this passage whatsoever.

Additionally, the Hebrews reading of this passage suggests that it has as its background a Hebrew proverb found in Proverbs 24:19 and Psalm 37:1, 8.  Both passages affirm that evildoers will be destroyed and thus the righteous should not fret over or give them undo consideration.  Surely Jesus was aware of that context as He taught from those passages against retaliation for an insult.

Matthew 6:10-12 – Basing the teaching of pacifism on this passage ignores two particulars regarding forgiveness.  First, forgiveness is not a synonym of pardon.  We may receive forgiveness from God for a sin we have committed, yet not avoid the consequences of our sin.

Secondly, it must be understood that one person cannot forgive another person for a sin that they have committed against a third person.  This pastor cannot forgive another person of defrauding you the reader.  (It is not my place to tell the thief that they don’t need to restore your property to you.)  This writer cannot pardon or forgive the attackers of September 11, 2001.  They didn’t attack me.  It is not this writer’s place to forgive them.

 1 Thess. 5:15 – This verse clearly refers to the individual Christian (see verse 14 “brethren”) and its practical application is that one should do what is in the best interest of other believers and indeed lost people.

1 Peter 3:9 – This verse is directed towards individual Christian behavior in the context of marriage, church, and society.  There is no reference to war, or national security whatsoever.

Romans 12:14, 17-19 – Verse 14 refers to the individual Christian being persecuted for their faith.  Verses 17-19 teach that individual retaliation is wrong.  Pacifist interpreters have not seriously addressed the meaning of the conditional clause “if possible, so far as it depends on you…”

Two implications follow.  First, the words “if possible” indicate that there will be times that it is not possible to be at peace with all men.  Indeed, when an enemy unremittingly attacks us it is not possible to be at peace with them.  Self-defense is sometimes necessary for survival.  Defense is not a synonym for revenge.  And it is revenge that is proscribed by this passage.

Notice secondly, “so far as it depends on you…”, he is referring not to a corporate army under the command of the state engaged in defending the state.  He is referring to matters of individual personal relationships over which the believer has some control.

Matthew 5:44 – Again, this is addressed to individual followers of Christ, not nations.  Were a nation in view here, then God would not have commanded the Israelites to go to war as He did in the Old Testament on several occasions.  Speaking of the Old Testament teaching on war, the final verse used to advocate pacifism is found in the 6th Commandment.

Exodus 20:13 [KJV] – This writer purposely switched to the KJV translation of this verse to illustrate the folly of basing pacifistic interpretation on this passage.  To do so is to ignore the meaning of the word rendered “kill” in the KJV. 

The word translated “kill” in the KJV is the Hebrew word Rasah and signifies to “murder.”  It is translated as such by the NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV and other modern translations.  The understanding of this text as referring to murder is also found in Matthew 5:21, which translates Exodus 20:13 into Greek and utilizes the word phoneuseis which means “to murder,” sometimes in the sense of slaughter. (See Acts 9:1; Hebrews 11:37.)  In short, there is nothing in Exodus 20:13 or Matthew 5:21 that prohibits killing in war on the battlefield.

Other than reference to Exodus 20:13, citations from the Old Testament are often discounted by pacifist interpreters as being part of the “Old Law” and not applicable to the doctrine of war in the Christian age.  This argumentation must be rejected at once by any believer who holds to the inerrancy and authority of the Bible or the deity of Christ or the Trinity.

The God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament.  The Bible says in Hebrews 13:8 God didn’t “change His mind” when He sent Jesus into the world.  Jesus didn’t come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.  He said that not one jot or title will be removed from the Law until all is fulfilled.  To ignore two-thirds of the Bible when considering the issue of war is unwise.  Jesus inspired the writers of both Testaments.  Thus they hold equal importance.  The new is the old contained.  The old is in the new explained.  Therefore, we must consider relevant passages from the Old Testament and shed light on the Christian understanding of war.  Several concise truths can be gleaned from the Old Testament.

First, God at times commanded His people to engage in war.  (Psalm 144:1) “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle;”

(1 Chron. 5:22) – If God is a God of goodness, justice and peace, how can He conduct war?  God’s goodness cannot be called into question by war because waging war and justice and peace and goodness are not necessarily incompatible.  God sometimes waged war against the enemies of peace.  This is why in some cases God commanded His people to totally annihilate their enemies.  (Numbers 31)  For example God’s command to exterminate the Midianites stemmed from the corruption of God’s people by the Midianites having led them into idolatry at Baal-Peor.  Twenty-four thousand Israelites died in the plague (Numbers 25:9).  It was necessary to totally eliminate the evil influence of the Midianites upon Israel.

Second, pacifism was never a part of Jewish doctrine.  The Scriptures are replete with examples of violence permitted for the purpose of self-defense.  For example, if someone breaks into another’s home, the homeowner is permitted to kill the intruder, (Exodus 22:2), without penalty.

Third, the imprecatory Psalms of David – a man after God’s own heart – implore the Lord to grant him victory over his enemies.  For example, Psalm 35:1-3 “Contend, O Lord, with those who contend with me;  Fight against those who fight against me. Take hold of buckler and shield And rise up for my help. Draw also the spear and the battle-axe to meet those who pursue me; Say to my soul, "I am your salvation."

Psalm 69:23-25 May their eyes grow dim so that they cannot see, And make their loins shake continually. Pour out Your indignation on them, And may Your burning anger overtake them. May their camp be desolate; May none dwell in their tents.”  See also Psalms 83, 88, 109, 137, and 140

In the New Testament, Jesus does not repudiate the Old Testament teachings regarding the waging of war.  It is pointed out by some who believe Jesus taught pacifism that Jesus was willing to die rather than fight to defend Himself.  But Jesus’ willingness to die upon the cross with no resistance had nothing to do with advocating pacifism.  His death was to save us from our sin by providing a sin sacrifice upon the cross.

If Jesus was a pacifist, then He missed a golden opportunity to teach it in His encounter with a Roman centurion in Luke 7:1-10.  This centurion – the equivalent of an army officer – achieved his rank no doubt through demonstrated prowess on the field of battle.  Jesus did not rebuke the centurion for his military service.  Jesus didn’t command the centurion to disarm and quit the army.  Instead, He praised the centurion for his great faith.  Consistent pacifism requires that armed forces be abolished.  Jesus didn’t command the abolition of the armies of His day.

While Jesus did not put up a resistance to His capture, He was concerned enough for His disciples to suggest that they bear arms for their own protection. (Luke 22:36, 38) “And He said to them, ‘But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one… They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ And He said to them, ‘It is enough.’”

Whatever may be gleaned from the teaching of the Lord Jesus, one cannot make a credible case that Jesus forbade self-defense. 

Much of the discussion about the biblical warrant for war is found in debating the practical application of passages related to retaliation and whether or not the context allows for the application of the precepts to nations rather than merely individuals. 

The purpose of the army is to kill PEOPLE and break things.  The purpose of Christ is to save INDIVIDUALS and advance His kingdom.  The two must not be confused.  And the soldier can and in many cases has both defended our country and advanced the cause of Christ by showing compassion upon our enemies.