Skip to comments.Defense and War: A Biblical Perspective
Posted on 11/23/2001 4:03:53 AM PST by Ada Coddington
Defense and War: A Biblical Perspective
by Ron McKenzie
A key responsibility of the civil government is to protect its citizens from attack by wrongdoers. This involves punishing those who break the law. It also involves defending the nation from every external attacker, including nations, other groups of people or dangerous pests and diseases. All these responsibilities are encompassed in the power of the sword (Romans 13:1-8). Therefore, pacifism is not a Christian option.
The Bible gives a nation the right of self-defence. However there are a number of principles which should control the civil governments exercise of this authority in the fulfilment of its responsibilities.
1.War is only justified for defence (Romans 13:1-8). It should not be used to expand a nation's boundaries, or to take control of another nation, or to extract trade advantages. This is a fundamental principle. A nation should never need to establish military domination in another region or nation.
2.The idea of a Christian Holy War has no basis in Scriptures. The nation of Israel conquered and destroyed the Canaanite nations. This was only done after a specific and direct command from God (Deut 7:1,2). This was a special case where God had a specific purpose in terms of the salvation he planned for Israel. It is not an example that can be followed by Christians or a Christian nation. We should not use war to win people for the gospel. (We should be honest and admit that the crusades were a mistake, however well-intentioned the crusaders may have been).
3.A Christian nation must not have a large "standing army"(Deut 17:16; 1 Kings 10:26-29). An army that is constantly training for war is dangerous, because it will be tempted to find a situation where it can use its skills. The military should not be given too much political power, as they will have a tendency to use war to solve all problems.
4.The defence force should take the form of a part-time local militia. The central command structure may be full-time professional so that the defence of the nation can be well organised (Deut 20:5). However, most of the soldiers will be trained civilians who can be called up when a defence force is needed. As they have other interests there will be no danger of them becoming over militant and fighting unnecessary wars. However, because they will be defending their families and friends they will be highly motivated if they are needed. They will be well prepared, but they will be only rarely called upon to fight.
5.The militia should be up made of volunteers. Anyone who is faint-hearted or afraid should not be forced to fight (Deut 20:5-9). People who are at a critical stage in their lives should not be forced into military service. For example, men who have recently married, started building a house or started a business should be freed from service, because they would not be focused on the battle.
6.The army of a Christian nation will not have offensive weapons (Deut 17:16). God forbade the king from acquiring great numbers of horses for himself. The reason for this was that horses and chariots, at that time, were offensive weapons used for attacking other nations. The defence of the nation would not need large numbers of them. A modern defence force should choose weapons that are best for defensive purposes.
7.Only the civil government has authority to declare war. Individuals or companies do not have the authority to commit a nation to war. Any declaration of war must be in accordance with correct legal processes (Deut 20:10).
8.War should always be the last resort. Before declaring war, the civil government should try every means possible to obtain peace (Deut 20:10). We should never forget the horror of war. It is always costly in terms of human suffering. Christians should never glorify war. While it is an honour for a man to give his life to defend his family and community, war is never an ideal solution. A Christian government should be prepared for war, if it is attacked, but it should also hope that it would never have to fight.
9.A Christian nation should always seek Gods will before declaring war. A nation going to war, because it thinks it is right, is being presumptuous (Deut 1:41-44). Presumption is a terrible sin. If the war has Gods blessing, the army is more likely to have success.
10.A Christian government should only declare war if it thinks it has a reasonable chance of success. Jesus said that before a king goes to war, he should sit down and consider whether he can match the army that is coming against him. If not he will send a delegation to ask for terms of peace (Luke 14:31-32), even if this involves a loss of freedom. For Christians freedom is not an absolute value. It may be better to lose freedom to govern, than to lose a large number of lives in an unsuccessful defence. In fact, because Jesus has set us free, we cannot lose our freedom.
Two things should always be remembered,
a.Christianity can survive under extremely hostile environments. It was born in the hostile world of the Roman Empire. In our own time, Christianity has blossomed under the hostility of both the Soviet Union and Communist China. Therefore, Christianity will never be dependent on winning a war for its survival. If a Christian government has no hope of defending against attack, it should surrender, knowing that Christianity will survive. b.It is God who determines the appointed times of the nations and the boundaries of there habitations. (Acts 17:26, cf Job 12:23, Deut 32:8) If a nation is invaded by another and this is not Gods will, he will not allow the situation to last long. For example, after the Second World War, the Russian Empire took control of most of Eastern Europe. However, because this was contrary to Gods will, that empire had collapsed within fifty years. If a nation is unable to defend itself, all is not lost; God will have his way in the end.
Counting the cost of war, is not just a matter of estimating how many soldiers will be lost. The full cost of the war should be counted. There are generally very few winners in war. The cost for the families of those who die is enormous. For the soldiers who survive the cost can also be high. Many will have injuries that blight their lives. Worse still, war has a desensitising effect on its participants, and good men can be drawn into doing great evil. They will have to live with there consciences. War is also an enormous waste of economic resources. There are actually very few situations serious enough to justify the enormous costs of war.
11.Deut 20:1-5 declares that a small army with God on its side can beat a large well-armed one. A good example of this is Gideon, who defeated a large Midianite army with 300 unarmed men (Judges 7). However, this promise should not be used as a justification for foolish wars.
12.Total war, as it has been practised in this last century, is prohibited by the Bible. Those engaged in war are prohibited from attacking and damaging the land (Deut 20). The same protection would apply to women and children. Non-combatants should also be protected.
13.This prohibition makes nuclear war unacceptable. Nuclear weapons would harm the land and non-combatants. The same principle would rule out many modern weapons. Only weapons which can be targeted at combatants or other weapons can be used by a Christian nation. On the other hand, anti-ballistic missile defence systems may be justified, because they are defensive.
14.Military alliances are common in the modern world. However these are forbidden over and over again in the Bible. A Christian nation has a covenant with God. It cannot be totally committed to God, and place its faith in another nation for defence (Is 31:1-3). Therefore, defence alliances are not an option for a Christian nation.
15.God determines the appointed times of the nations and the timing of their rule. (Acts 17:26). No nation has the authority to invade another nation to change its government (even if it is evil). A nation cannot even be invaded to establish democracy. (Democracy must come from the hearts of the people, it cannot be enforced from the outside.) Most attempts by great powers to establish "better" government by force in other nations have failed, because the spiritual forces that control the nation have not been defeated (Dan 10:13).
The principles outlined here allow a nation to defend itself, but there are very severe restrictions on which methods may be used. Likewise there are very strict conditions which must be fulfilled before war may be justified. Almost all modern conflicts would fail to meet these conditions. The Bible recognises the horror of war. There are probably very few situations that would justify the cost of war. It should be an extremely rare event.
The current war in Afghanistan does fit with these principles. The people who organised the attack on the World Trade Centre, committed a dreadful crime and should be punished as criminals. However, the nation of Afghanistan did not attack the United States. The Taliban did not attack the United States. Afghanistan may be harbouring the criminals who organised the attack, but that is not a justification for war. We may dislike the Taliban intensely, but that does not justify war against them. The United States does not have the right to determine who should govern Afghanistan. (The Taliban gained power through victory in a civil war. This is the same way that the current federal system in the United States was established). The United States is not defending itself against an attack by Afghanistan, so it is not justified in attacking Afghanistan.
The methods of warfare being used in Afghanistan cannot be justified either. Bombs that destroy the land and can kill and maim civilians are forbidden by Deuteronomy 20. The alliance with the ungodly men of the Northern Alliance is also contrary to the Scriptures.
November 23, 2001
Ron McKenzie is an economist in Christchurch, New Zealand. He is also a Presbyterian minister.
Personally, I believe this was part of a divine plan............Christ 'conquered' the Roman Empire, knowing full well that this would be a means of spreading the Word.
1st Timonthy 1: 3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith; 5 whereas the aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith. 6 Certain persons by swerving from these have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions.
And following in Romans 9;6b For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel
Further in the letter:
9:30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law
Pursue the law, and die within it...for:
Romans 3:20 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Spiritual Israel is NOT justified in the flesh.
Further on Spiritual Israel:Romans 3:29
Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also
And again: Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?...
Romans 4:17 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,
Nah...I'm going to give up. If you haven't read the book of Romans...then you just don't understand. If you HAVE read the book of Romans, then you have no discernment.
The lost tribes stuff is something that is kinda 'neat' to think, but has no basis in salvation. I would rather be a SAVED GENTILE, than a 'lost tribe'
And we don't have a responsibility to respect their sovereignty (being that we believe [supposedly] in allowing nations and people to make their own informed choices in peace)?
We didn't even show them evidence. We demanded that they hand him over without even a single shred of evidence.
We said "Hand him over or we'll kill you."
And this is supposedly the "American way."
I don't need to. You can't show me one that shows he does. He's the boogey man.
If ye can receive it.
Sure, we had an obligation to respect their sovereignty. We honored that obligation when we asked for his surrender. They forfeited their right to live in peace when they rejected our just demand for his surrender. This was an "informed choice" on their part knowing the death and destruction caused by this man. Having made that choice, now they bear the responsibility and the consequences.
Let me remind you, that in a case like this, one nation doesn't have to prove a persons guilt for another nation to be obligated to turn over that person. Such standards are reserved for a trial. It only need be demonstrated that a trial is justified. That this, more limited, standard was met was obvious to all. The Taliban "offer" to only refer Sammi to an Islamic court demonstrated that they would not turn him over to us for trail regardless of the evidence we presented.
Now, a question for you - Does siding with the enemies of your country, with terrorist that killed thousands of your contrymen, make you feel patriotic?
Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor either. Were we justified in attacking Germany follwing Pearl Harbor?
Of course not. Hitler made the mistake of declaring war on us after we declared against Japan. If he did not, we would not have been justified in attacking Germany as it had assiduously avoided all the traps we had laid before it.
That deer caught in the headlights look apparent on some of our leaders after 911 suggests that the War Against Afghanistan was a panic response. The public demanded we do something and that particular war was convenient.
The Spainards claim they have the real terrorist and aren't going to hand them over. I expect we will treat them different than we treated the Afghanis.
What's ridiculous about their position is they hate admitting that men and women are different, have different roles in life, different abilities. But this is a good thing. Differences make the world go round and what one lacks the other complements, making it a stronger union, stronger world, but only if one allows each other to excell in their unique differences.
For a group of people who incessantly speak of diversity, they truly hate the idea to the core.
Wrong. It was exactly what needed and needs to be done.
These people would only continue to attack us. The "panic response" you refer to is anything but panic.
When you defend Sammi's accomplices, you side with him. When you insist that the Taliban offered to turn him over to us, you side with his accomplices. There was not point in giving any information to Afghanistan since they would never hand Sammi over to anyone other than an Islamic court.
And, Mullah Omar made the mistake of committing an act of war when he insisted upon allying himself, and his country, with someone who made war on us. See, it really is like Hitler and Pearl Harbor.
The cold hard facts are that might makes right.
The USA or any other country has the right to anyting it pleases if it has the might to back it up. Of course, if a country misuses its "might" very often it could find itself facing a coalition determined to reduce that might.
Oh, but you are. When you say that our actions in Afghanistan are not justified you are defending Sammi Bin Laden and his Taliban accomplices.
Because you say so. That's about the level of evidence I've seen that bin Laden is responsible for 9/11.
Its the same "right" that the bully who steals the 2d graders milk money has.
Well, something had to be done, but it would have been better to go after the perps.
These people would only continue to attack us. The "panic response" you refer to is anything but panic.
"These people" are not Afghanis but Saudis and Egytians. Something, though, had to be done and we had already planned to replace the Taliban, so we chose the convenient response.
It's not what I say that is at issue, it's what you say. Do you deny this:
"What state harbored McVeigh? I agree with your assesment. This war is unjustified." 30 posted on 11/23/01 8:08 AM Pacific by Demidog
That statement of yours is sufficient evidence to support my allegation. Now, do you admit that sufficient evidence of Sammi's involvement in 9/11 exists to support our demand that Afghanistan surrender Sammi? Or will you continue to insist that Afghanistan was justified in denying our request?
No it isn't.
Yes, it is. It is sad to say, but yes it is. Like it or not, it is a fact. Might is right but it is not usually Just. Happily, history has shown that such might does prevail until the weaker unit.
If enough of the world thinks the USA is swinging its weight around unfairly, they may well unite to to stop us.
Why don't you make this real simple so there is no confusion by answering this question: "Do you support or agree with the Taliban's refusal to hand Sammi over to us?" And, please, don't try to dodge by saying we should have given them evidence when they had made it very clear that they would not hand him over to us regardless of the evidence we provided.
Not unless it is our own government no. When do we declare war on China?
For your information, we Presbyterians do not believe that the nation of Israel are the spiritual decendants of Abraham. Abraham's spiritual decendants are based on faith not on genetic lineage (read Romans Ch 9, and Hebrews Ch 11), otherwise they would only be physical decendants. The church (Christians) are reckoned to be the spiritual decendants of Abraham (Romans 9).
I guess I did not make myself clear: Israel is the spiritual decendents of Abraham not the genetic lineage.
I infer we are not to make war on those who did not attack us. Rather we should treat the attacks as a criminal matter.
You can't tell the difference and neither can the daisy cutters. Secondly, the Taliban did not attack us.
As the Afghanis (or the Taliban if you prefer) did not attack you, you cannot claim to be defending yourself against them. You might be able to claim "defense" if you attacked Saudi Arabia, Egypt or even Spain.
They clearly sponsored this action.
I disagree wholeheartedly.
The whole world, and indeed the Afghan people will be much better off without these Nazies.
I realize that the above word is bandied about quite a bit on FR, but I assure you they have earned this description.
It is a government that marches in, subjugates the people of the land, then believes it can launch attacks with impunity against whomever they feel like........all the while putting up feeble protestations as to how our campaign is terrorizing the very people they have tortured beyond belief.
No question of it but that does not justify killing the Taliban. The Spainards tell us they have the actual terrorists but will not extradite them. The actual people responsible for 911 as opposed to a suspect and they are even less cooperative than the Taliban. When are you going to send the daily cutters to Madrid?
Yes, the verse I quoted agrees.
I agree with almost all of McKenzie's points. My agreements, with any reservations, are posted below:
The Orthodox Presbyterian (FReeper formerly known as "Uriel1975" -- these days I post almost entirely on religious or quasi-religious subjects, so I felt like a suitable name-change)