The theology of war is not defined in the New Testament as it is in the Old. War is generally less significant to a Christian than it was to a Jew, as Christ said: My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:36)
This does not mean that it is wrong for a Christian to engage in any war. But it does mean that the crusades were wrong, as these were to establish Christ’s kingdom of this world. Let us examine the Christian theology of war.
David killed Goliath in war and was honoured by God. And David praised God, of whom he said: he teacheth my hands to war. (2 Sam 22:35) More generally God said: if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then shall ye blow an alarm with the trumpets. (Num 10:9)
Killing in war is treated differently to that in peace time. David condemned Joab who: shed the blood of war in peace. (1 Kings 2:5) Joab had, out of revenge, killed a former enemy who had made peace with David.
And that war is not completely forbidden in the New Testament is shown when the soldiers asked John the Baptist what they should do (Luke 3:14) He never told them to quit the army.
Although war may sometimes be a necessary evil, it is nonetheless an evil. David says: scatter thou the people that delight in war. (Psalm 68:30) The kings of Israel were forbidden to multiply horses (Deut 17:16) as horses were used in war. And God condemned His people because: their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots. (Isaiah 2:7)
When David fought and captured: a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen . . . David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots. (2 Sam 8:4) So Israel was allowed some armament, but not too much.
If war is evil but allowed, it follows that the only war that should be engaged in is a just war.
Israel’s war against the Canaanites, where they destroyed the entire population for their evil, is not relevant under the New Covenant, as Christ said: He that is unjust, let him be unjust still. (Rev 22:11) This means that Christianity should not be imposed upon an unwilling population, nor in general should they be punished for their injustices by another nation.
An exception to this may perhaps be made in the case of genocide, such as happened in Nazi Germany or in Cambodia, where millions of innocent people were put death. In this case the words of Solomon are relevant when he said: If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; if thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works? (Prov 24:11,12)
But religious persecution should not ordinarily necessitate war. For example, in Pakistan, where it is illegal to preach the gospel openly, a man was put to death for preaching the gospel. The Christian’s response to this should not be war but prayer.
Sometimes there may be a fine line between the merits of the different responses, war or prayer. In these cases we must trust our nation’s leaders, if they act upon righteous principles, to make the correct decision. Solomon writes: It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. The heaven for height, and the earth for depth, and the heart of kings is unsearchable. (Prov 25:2,3)
God can give wisdom of righteous principles even to leaders who are not born again Christians. Paul says: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (Rom 13:1)
But this does not justify following orders we know to be wrong. The Indonesian soldiers who massacred civilians in East Timor, were presumably following orders, whether of the General or of someone lower in command.
In addition to a war of liberation, another type of war that is usually justified is defence of national borders. For example, the king of Ammon wanted land that Israel had won in a war with someone else three hundred years earlier. He falsely said: Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably. (Judges 11:13)
Jephthah, the leader of Israel, told the king of Ammon that he was in error over the history: Howbeit the king of the children of Ammon hearkened not unto the words of Jephthah which he sent him. Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh . . . unto the children of Ammon . . . So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands. (Judges 11:28,29,32) This is a classic example of a justified war, by Israel.
Of nations, Paul says that God: hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. (Acts 17:26) Although one might think that the country that first occupied a land had some right to it, this is not always the case.
The children of Esau and of Lot, both dispossessed, with God’s help, the inhabitants of the lands they were to occupy: the Lord destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead. As he did to the children of Esau, which dwelt in Seir, when he destroyed the Horims from before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead.) (Deut 2:21-23) And the children of Lot and of Esau were not involved in God’s spiritual purposes.
If land may legitimately be won in war, what if a country wishes to fight to reclaim it. Here a soldier must trust his nation’s leaders, who may have access to more information as well as expert advice. Leaders, however, would probably be well advised that petty border disputes are not worth fighting over. One would hope that diplomacy would prevail and a just peace could be found.
But generally, empire building, such as that of Nazi Germany, should be resisted, as too much power wielded by one nation or group of nations can be dangerous. When all the people of the earth gathered together to build the tower of Babel: the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do . . . Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. (Gen 11:6-8) A large number of smaller nations is more in keeping with God’s purposes than a few huge nations.
That empire building power is often associated with corruption is borne out by recent history. Nazi Germany, which sought to build an empire, was desperately cruel to the Jews, and sent millions to their death in concentration camps. The situation in Russia is a little different. The genocide of peasants in Russia, was for resisting farm collectivization and had nothing to do with religion. And the concentration camps had more to do with the evils which communism gave to Stalin, than to any evil of the Russian people. It was Russians who suffered under Stalin, not foreigners.
There is little purpose in engaging in a war when the king knows he will lose. Jesus said: what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. (Luke 14:31,32) Surrender is the only sensible option, if suitable conditions of peace can be obtained from an enemy of greater force.
And when a country has surrendered, that should be an end to all hostility. Terrorism is murder because it sheds the blood of war in peace, like Joab. Terrorism is also unfair and cowardly, because the superior state has allowed their state to continue in peace, and yet they get murdered, with no one willing to declare a battle with an enemy that can be seen. Terrorists should not be treated as political prisoners, and they should not be released from prison if conditions of peace change.
If a city refused just terms of surrender, every male in that city, could be put to death. One must ask whether the West's retention of a first strike nuclear option, if they lose a conventional war with Russia, makes every male in the West worthy of death. It is certainly a crime much more serious than refusing to surrender.
Only soldiers should be targeted in war, not civilians, especially women and children. For this reason chemical, biological, and nuclear war should all be condemned. Men are supposed to sacrifice their lives for their wives and children. And for the just, death is not the end, but merely a transition.
Nuclear war in general contravenes this principle that only soldiers should be killed in war.
A possible resolution to this dilemma would be a protocol requiring advance warning of a nuclear strike on any civilian area, so that all relevant cities could be evacuated prior to bombing. This advance warning would probably give the enemy little advantage in an airplane bombing, and no advantage in a missile attack. Military targets should also be placed well away from major population centers to reduce the risk to civilians.
The loss of the infrastructure of a city would be a sufficient deterrent for any purpose. There is no need to kill all the people within a city for any purpose. Therefore I regard this as murder. And even if it was not a sufficient deterrent, one should not say that the state must be protected at all costs.
The Scriptures teach that prisoners should be well treated. When Elisha had smitten an army with temporary blindness, and led them far away as virtual captives to Samaria: the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I smite them? . . . And he answered, Thou shalt not smite them: wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master. (2 Kings 6:21,22)
In this case detention of the prisoners was not necessary, as the demonstration of divine power convinced them not to fight any more against Israel.
The Christian’s ultimate concern is not with national boundaries, as Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. His concern is: that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:2-4)
Solomon built the house of God in a time of peace, God saying of Solomon: I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. He shall build an house for my name. (1 Chron 22:9,10)
Peace is required for the church to fulfil her mission of doing good and preaching the gospel. And for this peace it is God’s will that: prayers . . . be made . . . for kings, and for all that are in authority. (1 Tim 2:1,2) Defending such a peace is more important than national boundaries.
Jesus said: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Matt 5:9)
A dialogue between antagonists is often helpful to remove suspicions and misconceptions. The Scriptures record in 2 Sam 10 how once mere suspicion led to a war between Ammon and Israel. When the king of Ammon died, David sent comforters to console his son. But the princes of Ammon told the son that these were spies. And this led to a war which the Ammonites lost.
Isolationism, I believe, leads to mistrust. Children at school should learn about other countries, not just their own, to remove barriers and excessive nationalism.
And countries should trade as freely as possible (I am not advocating zero tariffs) to remove hardships, due to insufficient supplies, which may lead to war. And with trade comes communication and this generates trust.
While pacifism may sound appealing to a Christian, who should be alert to the spiritual conflict, and not distracted by the turmoil of this life, there is a problem with this doctrine. If all Christians were pacifists who refused to fight, Christian countries would become swift and easy prey to countries advocating military expansionism.
So I believe it is allowed for a Christian to be a soldier, provided he believes that only just war will be engaged in. If he is conscripted against his will, he could perhaps request to join the ambulance corp.