Click here for an old (1999) version of this article
Is War Ever Justified?
"You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth
for tooth.'
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes
you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
...
"You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor
and hate your enemy.'
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those
who persecute you,"
Jesus, (Matthew 5:38-39,43-44, NIV)
The words of Jesus seem crystal clear. He calls his followers
to refrain from fighting enemies under any circumstances.
Surely, then, he calls his followers not to participate in war.
However, throughout history, the majority of Jesus' followers
have not taken this command literally. They have found ways to
justify taking part in war.
Until recently, I was in that number. Then, late in 1998, I read
an article in the magazine "On Being Alive", by Alan Walker,
which challenged my view.
Walker pointed out that the earliest Christians did take
literally Jesus' call to pacifism, and refused to join the Roman
army. Theologically, the turning point came in the fifth century
when Augustine of Hippo formed the doctrine of "Just War".
Since then, countless wars have been rationalised by Christians
as being "Just Wars". Walker's thesis was simple: the church must
do away with the "Just War" doctrine. There is no such thing.
The words of Jesus preclude it.
Walker's article led me to examine the traditional theological
arguments against pacifism. To my surprise, they are very weak.
Let me take you through these arguments:
"What about war in the Old Testament?"
"'There is a time for war' (Eccl. 3:8)"
"Jesus used war in a parable (Luke 14:31-33)"
"What about soldiers in the New Testament?"
"But Jesus was using hyperbole!"
"Paul in Romans 13 says we must obey the State!"
"But there will never be peace on Earth until Christ returns!"
There however is one argument which may be convincing,
and I discuss that on a separate page:
"Jesus told his followers to buy a sword."
(Which includes arguments about using self-defence).
Response: It is clear enough that the New Testament brings in
a new era in humankind's dealings with God. Jesus' commands
about loving our enemies were so radical because they were new.
Many Old Testament practices are superceded in the New
Testament.
In particular, one big difference between the Old Testament and New Testament
is the issue of land. In the Old Testament, God's promises revolved around
Israel occupying the land of Palestine. So war was an unfortunate
necessity.
In the New Testament, there is no promise of land, so there is no analogous
reason to fight.
So we cannot use the Old Testament alone for
forming our doctrine of war.
Again, this is an example of misusing the Old Testament.
The Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes (like Job)
is a book of speculative wisdom: various
sayings are discussed and thought over, but not all are truth.
The writer (and the reader) ponders over different angles before
arriving at the truth. Consider the following verses:
So the book of Ecclesiastes contains numerous verses which are
to be read as human sayings, not as God's truth. Here are
a few obvious examples (all NIV):
'"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher.
"Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.' (Eccl 1:2)
'A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and
find satisfaction in his work.' (Eccl 2:24)
'And I declared that the dead, who had already died,
are happier than the living, who are still alive.
But better than both is he who has not yet been,
who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.' (Eccl 4:2-3)
None of the above verses are presented as truth,
but as the writer's speculation as he searches for truth.
(Which is deliberately how it was written, because it was written
in the style of "speculative wisdom").
I would suggest that Eccl 3:8 falls into the same category.
The notion that "There is a time for war" is a human philosophy,
which the author of Ecclesiastes eventually rejects.
(I have seen this argument seriously used)
Response: You might as well say that the parable of the "shrewd"
manager (Luke 16:1-8) endorses dishonesty, or that the parable of
the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) endorses irresponsible living.
Jesus told parables to make a certain point, and the parable of
the Luke 14:31-33 was certainly not about the rights or wrongs
of war.
In at least three cases soldiers are followers or potential
followers of Jesus: the soldiers who came to be baptised
by John the Baptist, the centurion who had great faith (Matt 8:5-13,
Luke 7:1-10), and Cornelius (Acts 10).
In no case is there a hint that they are involved in an
immoral occupation, in the same way that prostitutes are.
In response, we note that in none of these cases were they
fighting battles. Soldiers also fulfilled peacekeeping roles,
akin to modern police, and this was more than likely the
case in all the instances mentioned. So this case does not
carry much weight when compared to several clear passages
of teaching.
Response: While it is true that Jesus uses much hyperbole in the
Sermon on the Mount, it is not at all clear that this
passage does. Hyperbole is deliberate exaggeration to
make a point. So if this is hyperbole, what is the
actual point Jesus is making? I can see no point
except "love your enemies" and "do not resist an evildoer".
But an even more telling answer is the fact that the
same teaching turns up in other places in the New Testament.
Not only do both Matthew and Luke record it on the lips
of Jesus, but both Paul (Romans 12) and Peter (1 Peter 3)
have basically the same commands: to not resist an evil
person, and to love our enemies. These are in straight
teaching passages, there is no hint of hyperbole.
Since they agree very closely with Jesus' commands
(without going quite as far, but they do agree in
general tone), I see no reason not to also take Jesus'
words at face value.
A related argument is that Jesus
commands in the sermon on the mount are for a different
dispensation: they were only for the Jews. While I reject
this form of dispensationalism, in the case of pacifism
this argument can also be dispelled by pointing to the
similar passages in Romans and Peter (see above) which,
even the dispensationalists would agree, are teaching
for the Christian church.
(Click here for a fuller answer to this
important question.)
This is perhaps the most common objection to Christian
pacificism, and always turns up in some form in arguments
against it. It was an argument I agreed with for many years.
The response is so obvious it is a wonder I never saw it
before:
Response: Since when did the laws of the State take precedence
over God's laws?
Christians have always responded to unjust laws in the way
the apostles responded in Acts 5:29: "We must obey the laws
of God, not men". If the law of the state conflicts with
God's laws, we are called to disobey the State!
Evangelical Christians have no hesitation in saying that
we should go against State laws on issues such as abortion
or racism. So why not war? Why not say, "Sorry, we believe
that God says that we must not fight our fellow human
beings"?
There is a second problem with trying to invoke Romans 13
in support of war. Paul says to obey our governments because
"The authorities that exist have been established by God"
(Romans 13:1). But if we are to follow that reasoning consistently,
it follows that the government of the other country
(that which we are going to war against) has also been
established by God! And so it follows that our government has no
right to attack and destabilise this other government.
When we look at it this way, it is clear that Romans 13 does
not address the issue of war at all. It simply tells us to
be good citizens, obeying the laws of our country when they
do not go against God's principles. Nothing more.
True, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can.
The Bible also says that false teaching will also increase.
Does that mean Christians shouldn't oppose that?
Beside, I find that we Christians (like all groups) are very good at getting
active when our rights are threatened. But what about the rights
and the lives of others?
And it's all very well to say 'There will never be peace on earth'
when we are enjoying peace in the West. But if we are to
practice love to all people, then we must also work to eliminate war
in all places.
Home
Contact Us.
