What Does The Bible Say About War?

What Does The Bible Say About War? Curt Daniel 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Introducti...
Author: Daniella Glenn
2 downloads 3 Views 310KB Size
What Does The Bible Say About War? Curt Daniel

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Introduction to the Subject. .................................................................................................................. 2 The Biblical Justification for War......................................................................................................... 2 Examples of Godly Soldiers. ................................................................................................................ 3 War and the Second Love Commandment. ......................................................................................... 4 Necessary Qualifications for A Just War............................................................................................. 4 The Unjust War...................................................................................................................................... 5 Objections Answered............................................................................................................................ 7 God's Rules of War. ............................................................................................................................ 10 Preparation for War............................................................................................................................. 11 Prayer................................................................................................................................................... 13 National Defense. ................................................................................................................................ 14 Principles of Action............................................................................................................................. 14 Surrender and Victory......................................................................................................................... 15 The Hard Cases. .................................................................................................................................. 16 The First Strike, or Preventative War. ................................................................................................ 17 Invasion of Another Nation's Territory. ............................................................................................. 17 Wars of Aggression to Free Another Country from Tyranny. .......................................................... 17 Revolution............................................................................................................................................ 18 Assassination...................................................................................................................................... 20 Extreme Weapons. .............................................................................................................................. 21 The Extremest Weapons..................................................................................................................... 21 Total War.............................................................................................................................................. 24 Why Does God Allow War? ................................................................................................................ 26 Counsel for Soldiers. .......................................................................................................................... 26 The End of War.................................................................................................................................... 27

1

1.

Introduction to the Subject.

Someone has said that the history of mankind is the history of war. Ever since Cain slew Abel, wars have been waged between individuals, families, tribes and nations. Some have been minor skirmishes, others have been massive. Some have been as short as 38 minutes, while others have lasted 100 years or longer. All have brought misery. And because of that misery, men have long asked whether war can ever be justified. On one side are the pacifists of various kinds, who argue that no war is ever right. At the opposite extreme are the war-mongers who live and love to fight wars. In the middle are those who contend that most wars are wrong, but not all. This viewpoint argues for the Just War, the Justum Bellum. But what saith the Scriptures? Men's opinions vary and change; God's does not. The only sure anchor of truth is the Word of God on the subject. In sum, our Creator tells us, "There is a time for war and a time for peace" (Eccl. 3:8). Actually, the Bible has much to say about the subject of war and warfare, more than many Christians realize. The purpose of this study is to explore the basic truths of Scripture concerning war. It is not intended to comment one way or the other about any war in particular, though some reference will be made to various wars as illustrations of Biblical principles. Before we can approve or disapprove of a certain war, we must first understand what God says about war in general. We must establish the unshakeable foundation of the Biblical case for war and peace, and then and only then can we match the factors of any particular war with it to see if it is a "just war".

2.

The Biblical Justification for War.

Let us first establish some preliminary truths. First, God has ordained families as an institution. Part of the sanctity of the family is the necessity of the protection of the family. God holds fathers responsible for the protection of their families (I Tim. 5:8; Ex. 22:2-3). An individual may not always have to protect himself from danger, but he is responsible to protect his family from any and all dangers. Second, God has ordained the State as the means of protecting society at large, which is simply the collection of many families (Rom. 13; Matt. 22:21; I Pet. 2:13-14; Tit. 3:1; I Tim. 2:1-2). Romans 13 is the crucial passage on the subject. Paul says that the State is ordained by God and rightly has the power of the sword to protect its people. This protection has two inter-connected aspects. The first is internal justice. God has ordained the establishment of police forces and law courts to protect human lives. When a life has been taken wrongly, it is the right and duty of the State to execute the murderer. Scripture repeatedly teaches the rightness of capital punishment (Gen. 9:6; Num. 35, etc.). But the same principles apply to external injustice, or threats to human life from without. Harold O.J. Brown remarked, "If we can justify the police, we can justify the army." The two are but parts of the one sword that has been given to the State by God. Just as a father must protect his children from one another's fights and tantrums, so he must protect them from intruders. It would be odd if God ordained internal justice but not external justice, or protection from aggression. "If magistrates... are armed with a right or power of life and death over their own citizens", wrote Charles Hodge, "they certainly have the right to declare war in self-defense." When Paul wrote Romans 13, the Roman empire made no major differentiation between the army and its police. For example, Paul himself appealed to Rome's army for protection in Acts 21, 23 and 25. He was a Roman citizen and had the right of protection. By the same standard, Rome had the duty to protect Paul from harm. That being so, the State has the God-given duty to protect its people from external danger as well, for as Robert Lewis Dabney noted, "Aggressive war is wholesale murder." Responding to aggression is legitimate because of the principle of just protection against murder. 2

Martin Luther rhetorically asked, "What is just war but the punishment of evildoers and the maintenance of peace?" If national defense is not a legitimate use of the divinely approved sword, then what else could be? Biblically, then, war is as justified as capital punishment. The same principles establish both. For one, it is the State and not individuals who are ordained to wage war and execute murderers. Soldiers no more act as mere individuals than judges, as observed by Loraine Boettner: "The policeman or the soldier who defends his country, like the judge who protects society, does not act with a malicious motive to avenge a personal wrong, but with an altruistic motive for public safety. He performs his duty not as an individual but as an officer of the state. And in the Scriptures war among nations is given the same status as capital punishment among individuals." Naturally, capital punishment is not pleasant. But it is necessary because of the heinousness of murder. The same is true with war. Gen. Sherman was reputed to have said, "War is hell!" He was not condemning all war in that opinion. Rather, he was saying that war is bad but often a necessary evil to avoid worse evil. In his short treatise to German soldiers, Luther adduced the same logic: "What men write about war, saying that it is a great plague, is all true. But they should also consider how great the plague is that war prevents."

3.

Examples of Godly Soldiers.

Another proof of the "Just War" can be found in the many examples of godly soldiers in the Bible. Abraham, who is regularly commended for his faith and is called "the friend of God", went to war in Gen. 14. His nephew Lot had been kidnapped by hostile neighbors. Abraham gathered his men together and led a commando raid to free him. God gave him success and blessed him. In this the first of justifiable wars, we see many of the basic principles of war: defense, decisive action, pure and just motives, and victory. Another great soldier was Joshua. God ordained him as Moses’ successor. Even during the wilderness wanderings he served as commander-in-chief of the Israeli forces. But it is especially in the Canaanite Conquest that his exploits are manifest. He went from victory to victory with few losses. In fact, Joshua stands out as one of the best and most successful generals of all time. And like Abraham, he was blessed for it. And after Joshua's death, God raised up a series of judges to serve as military leaders: Othniel, Ehud, Gideon, Samson and a host of others. Then there was the greatest military general of all Israel: King David. We remember David as the shepherd but tend to forget that he was a soldier and leader of the armies of Israel for many years. At this point someone will object to adducing David as a godly example for war. "Does not I Chron. 22:8 say that God forbade David from building the Temple because he was a 'man of blood?" Yes, that is true. But that was not a rebuke of David as such. Let us remember that God had directly told David to wage war on several occasions (e.g., I Sam. 23:2, 4) and blessed his battles, such as against Goliath and the Philistines. And God even calls David "a man after God's own heart." The point is just this: God commanded all these to fight and blessed their campaigns. God approved of their just wars. Heb. 11:32-34 commends these warriors as examples of faith. What was recorded in the Bible was written for our instruction, and God gave such men as tangible examples to imitate (Rom. 15:4; I Cor. 10:6, 11). Hence, it is wrong to accuse all soldiers of being "blood-thirsty warmongers". Just as Hebrews 11 says that the list of Biblical heroes could go on and on, so we could add to this heroic list many other godly soldiers in church history. England had Oliver Cromwell and Thomas Fairfax, America has had godly generals such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and there are others. One could also mention the many godly military chaplains (Ulrich Zwingli, Richard Baxter, 3

John Owen, Robert Lewis Dabney, Orville Nave, and others). A similar argument could be made from three examples in the New Testament. First, when the Roman soldiers came to John the Baptist for counsel, John did not tell them to leave the army because it was inherently sinful. Augustine commented, "Certainly he did not prohibit them to serve as soldiers when he commanded them to be content with their pay for the service." Someone might object that this is an argument from silence, but we would point out the great difference between the way that John dealt with soldiers and the way Christ dealt with harlots. Could you imagine either Jesus or John saying to a harlot, "Be content with your pay"? The other two examples are how Jesus commended the Centurion (Matt. 8) and how Peter welcomed Cornelius the Centurion (Acts 10 and 11). There is not the slightest hint that these soldiers were rebuked for being soldiers as such.

4.

War and the Second Love Commandment.

Another vital proof of the Just War is the principle of love for one's neighbor. This is especially important to understand because many opponents of war adduce the love commandment as proof against all war. The principle is simple: love for one's neighbor requires that one protect his life if possible. Pro. 24:11 says, "Deliver those who are being taken away to death, and those who are staggering to slaughter, 0 hold them back!" The strong have a responsibility to protect the weak. This is especially pertinent to war against the helpless. Francis Schaeffer saw this and confessed, "This is why I am not a pacifist. Pacifism in this poor world in which we live - this lost world - means that we desert the people who need our greatest help." Love and justice must go together. The Just War therefore is also a Loving War. It is true love to protect an innocent person's life, even at the risk of one's own life. "Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:3). The odd thing about Pacifism is that it becomes neither just nor loving. The innocent are slain and the unjust aggressor is rewarded. It is for this reason that many, if not most, Pacifists are also opposed to capital punishment. They have more pity on the guilty murderer than on the innocent victim. In their excellent book, A Just Defense, Karl and Keith Payne note, "Just war theorists argue that Christian pacifists may personally choose nonresistance in the face of attack, but they have no biblical right or justification to require others to die with them because of their own personal choice... Pacifists emphasize love of enemies and nonviolence, even at the expense of innocent neighbors and friends." For this reason, God justifies war as a means of love and justice for society. This principle also applies to a neighboring country under attack. While "Country A" may not be under attack, it has the right and duty to show love by protecting "Country B" from unjust aggression by "Country C". Hence, the notions of isolationism and neutrality are incompatible with Biblical love for one's neighbors. As a contemporary example, you might remember the horrifying account of the famous public murder of Kitty Genovese in New York in 1964. She screamed for help but was murdered without anyone coming to her rescue. Upon further police investigation, it was found that dozens of neighbors heard her cries and could have helped, but all replied, "I didn't want to get involved." Pacifism is the same philosophy.

5.

Necessary Qualifications for A Just War.

Proponents of the Just War position list a number of necessary qualifications for a war to be just. Some lists are long, others short (Thomas Aquinas listed but three necessary ingredients). Some of the qualifications concern the basis for a declaration of war, while others more deal with how a Just War is to be fought in a just manner. The main qualification is that the war be a just defense of innocent lives. This means that lives are risked which are innocent of a capital sin or crime. All humans, of course, are guilty of sin and deserve 4

to die in Hell, but that is not the point. Not all sinners deserve capital punishment at the hands of the State, and not all peoples deserve to be slain by aggressive war. Defense against' unjust aggression, then, is the, primary justification for war. Augustine commented, "A just war is justified only by the injustice of an aggressor." This is absolutely essential at the outset. It is vital to see that God has placed a certain value on human lives because they are made in His image (Gen. 9:6). The reason why war is just is because God says so, and it is incumbent upon the State to determine whether such-and-such a war is just in God's sight, not their own. This means more than simply asking God to be on their side. When Lincoln was asked if he thought that God was on their side in the Civil War, he wisely replied, "What matters is whether we are on God's side." God is always on the side of those who line up along Biblical principles. Joshua was faced with a similar situation in Josh. 5:13-14, and the Lord fought for him because he was on the side of God's justice. A second important qualification is just motives. Basically this is what we have already commented on - the sense of justice and love. The true motive for going to war must be that right combination of seeking justice for the unjust and love for the innocent. Theorists usually posit a third qualification at this stage, namely, that war must be used only as a last resort after all other alternatives (such as negotiations) have failed. This is usually followed up with the practice of a formal declaration of war. This qualification is important, but very difficult in practice. For example, time may not permit negotiation; the aggressor is already fighting. Still, it is a wise principle of prudence for the State to formally announce that hostilities have commenced and that the nation is indeed at war. Otherwise the people are confused, and the sense of justice is diluted. This in turn leads to a fourth qualification that is usually cited: a reasonable hope of success. In other words, the right gains of war must outweigh the unjust losses. Mass military suicide is no virtue in war. To die to stop injustice is good and right, if it furthers that end. But to lay down one's life with no hope of success is only a form of suicide. In fact, it could be construed as counter-productive. For one thing, it would mean that the enemy has one less opponent to fight. So, in a situation where there is no likelihood of success at all, wisdom would dictate that one wait for better circumstances, flee from danger, or appeal to others for help. Lastly, Just War proponents frequently cite a fifth qualification. It is argued that the State has the power of the sword and therefore only the State can wage war. War may be fought by individuals but not as individuals. Soldiers fight as representatives of the State. Personal vengeance is not a right motive for war. The only real problem with this qualification is when the State itself is the aggressor against its own people. In such a situation, the people themselves are under unjust attack. Unfortunately, most wars are not as simple as all this. Motives are mixed and factors are a grayish mixture of black and white. What is the Christian to do in such a situation? He is to prayerfully weigh the factors involved in the particular case at hand. If they come down on the side of justice, the war is just; if not, it is an unjust war.

6.

The Unjust War.

Just as there are qualifications for a Just War, there are also qualifications for an Unjust War. There are several excuses given by warring nations which do not meet the Scriptural grounds for a Just War. Let us look at a few of them. First, war-mongering for pleasure is not acceptable. Psa. 68:30 rebukes those who "delight in war". Joab seems to have been an example of a military leader who loved war for the sake of fighting (cf. I Kings 2:5). In the movie Patton, Gen. Patton is portrayed as saying, "God, how I love it!" If those were indeed his sentiments, he was certainly wrong. No man should love war. A war-monger is someone who loves war for the sake of war. This is usually the case with mercenaries, many of whom would fight without pay on any side simply to be fighting. That is evil and wicked. And even in a Just War, 5

many young men run off to war out of a sense of excitement and fun rather than justice and love. They think it is a game, but wiser veterans know better. When the bombs start flying at them and their buddies start dying, they realize that war is not meant for pleasure. Second, war for gain is wrong. James 4:1-2 specifies this as one of the major causes of war: greed. One nation wants something another nation has, and rather than trade with them for it in the open market, they wage war and invade and steal it. This wrong motive underlies many wars of colonization and imperialistic expansionism. A more subtle form of this can be illustrated in the following parable. There were once two neighboring islands in the Pacific. They were inhabited by the Greens and the Blues. The Greens grew lots of coconuts, which the Blues loved but could not grow for themselves. For years they simply traded. Then one day the Greens decided not to sell their coconuts to the Blues. So the Blues marshaled their people together, and sent soldiers off with spears and canoes to raid the Greens in order to take over the coconuts, or at least to re-establish the coconut trade agreement. Meanwhile, back on the island of the Blues, many of the Blues protested: "No blood for coconuts!" Who was right? Third, war for power is condemned. This motive springs from pride and as such is sinful. This bad example can be seen in those wars which are fought for the establishing of an empire, whether it be a Third Reich or a New World Order or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Fourth, war cannot legitimately be fought for personal or national glory. Luther saw this and said, "Whoever goes to war because of this vice earns hell for himself." The ancient philosopher Cicero, who was one of the first to write in defense of the Just War, argued that honor is a justifiable ground for war, but Christians from the time of Augustine have sorely disagreed. Again, too many young men rush to war because of the glory that they seek to attain. That is only pride, and it is not a just motive. Fifth, personal vengeance is also not acceptable. This too is a form of pride. It is as unjust as the man who murders another in a duel to save his honor. No, personal vengeance is forbidden (Rom. 12:19). Jacob's sons (Gen. 34) and Nimrod (Gen. 4) are examples of those who fought out of personal vengeance. They are not to be imitated. Sixth, hatred or racism are obviously not grounds for a Just War. Even when we fight an unjust aggressor, we are not to hate him. Hatred without just cause is only unjust hatred. Seventhly, a nation should not go to war out of a perverted sense of freedom. There is a sense in which freedom is to be fought for, such as freedom from aggression which threatens life. But a nation is not justified in going to war simply to protect its freedom to sin. This is one of the lessons of the Book of Judges. God sent Israel judges to lead them in victorious wars, so that they would be free to obey God, not that they would be free to sin. Unfortunately, Israel forgot the lesson and is often imitated. Another wrong motive for war, strangely, is more religious. It underlay many of the medieval Crusades. In brief, evangelism is not a Biblical ground for war. A Christian cannot rightly fight to convert the wicked, for Christ Himself said that His Kingdom is spiritual and is not to be defended (or expanded) by military means (John 18:36). This perverted notion of religious warfare underlies the Islamic idea of Jihad, or Holy War. The history of Islam is the history of forcing others to convert to Islam or be killed. Christians - especially Reformed Christians - reject this whole motive by arguing that the sword has been given to the State, not to the Church. Related to this motive is the strange notion that dying in a Just War guarantees that one will go to Heaven. Many Moslems rush to a Jihad for that reason, thinking that they will wake up in Paradise. Before non-Moslems laugh, let us remember that many military chaplains in the West have told their troops that they will go Heaven if they die for their country. It just is not so. Such "martyrs" will only wake up in Hell. The same Bible that gives us examples of Just Wars also gives examples of Unjust Wars. God commanded the former, but we also find Him explicitly forbidding examples of the latter (e.g., 2 6

Chron. 11:4; Josh. 22:11-34). It is incumbent upon a State to determine whether its cause is just by God's standards. And if it is not? What should the people themselves do? If a Christian finds himself in a situation where his country is involved in an unjust war, then he must not approve of it or participate in it. He cannot excuse himself by saying, "My country, right or wrong", and fight in an Unjust War. Martin Luther said the following to German soldiers, "If you know that he [their ruler] is wrong, then you should fear God rather than men... and you should neither fight nor serve, for you cannot have a good conscience before God." Christians should appeal to Acts 5:29, "We must obey God rather than men." The only legitimate grounds for a godly Conscientious Objector is when the war is unjust. He must not fight. But if it is just, he must indeed fight. If it is unjust, then he can resist, flee, or suffer imprisonment.

7.

Objections Answered.

There are many objections against the Biblical position of the Just War, and only a few can be answered here. The first runs like this: "Christ is the Prince of Peace. He rejected all violence; He never used a weapon; and He never joined the army." This objection overlooks several other truths. First, He said that He did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Even if that is metaphorical, it must not be taken as a blanket approval of all "peace" measures. True, He may not have owned a sword, but He told His followers to buy swords (Luke 22:36). As for His supposed non-violence, Pacifists would have a hard time convincing the money-changers in the Temple that Jesus rejected all use of violence! Further, Rev. 19:11 says of Him, "In righteousness He judges and wages war." Next, some quote Christ's words in Matt. 26:52, "All that take the sword shall perish by the sword." This is taken to mean that soldiers die by like weapons. Our answer is that this is to misinterpret the passage. For one thing, it simply is not true that all soldiers die in war; not all that use swords have died by swords. Rather, Christ was simply reiterating the validity of capital punishment for those who use swords unjustly. Note the parallel in Rev. 13:10, "If anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed." In a way, then, this only justifies the use of swords by the State against aggressors who murder with the sword. In his book, When Is It Right to Fight?, Robert Morey comments, "After Peter had cut off Malchus ear, Jesus did not tell Peter to throw away his sword, but to put it back in its sheath. Evidently there would be other occasions where it could be rightfully used." The third objection cites the Sermon on the Mount, and contends, "Jesus said, 'Do not resist an evil one. Just love your enemies. Blessed are the peacemakers. Turn the other cheek.’ We should not resist even an evil aggressor, but be like Gandhi and greet him with hugs and flowers. And even if he still fights us, it would be better to be Red than dead. Better a martyr than a soldier." This objection is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was setting forth personal ethics, not civil ethics. There is a vital difference between the two. For example, in Rom. 12:17-21, Paul forbade personal vengeance. But in the very next chapter he said that the State has been ordained as an "avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil" (13:4). Thus, we are indeed to personally love our enemies and not resist or punish him; but the State cannot do this with unjust military aggressors any more than it can simply ignore murderers. It is no coincidence that Pacifists are usually against capital punishment. The same is true with turning the other cheek. In the ancient East, slapping someone on the cheek was a high insult. Christ was telling us not to return the insult. He was not saying that the State cannot retaliate against an unjust aggressor in order to drive him away. As for being peacemakers, peace is not achieved by surrender to murderers and tyrants. That would only bring more injustice, not peace. The peace of the tyrant is the peace of the graveyard. The Pacifists greatly misunderstand the motives of those who advocate the Just War; perhaps they are incapable of grasping true justice. We say that war is sometimes necessary to achieve peace. Augustine said, "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have 7

peace." War-mongers indeed love war and hate peace, but the truest peace-lovers are those who will fight for it. "Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace"(Aquinas). The Pacifist thinks that he has a higher standard of peace than we do, but they are wrong. They cry, "Peace! Peace!" when there is no peace, and their actions do more harm than good, for they play into the hands of war-mongers. The real peacemakers are those who go further than Pacifism. Robert Lewis Dabney wrote, "He who cultivates the art of peace does, indeed, make a worthy contribution to the well-being of his fellow-men; but he who defends them with his life makes the contribution of supreme value." As for the nonsense of imitating Gandhi, a few things ought to be noted. First, it has been pointed out that he was dealing with a nation that had some concept and practice of liberty and morality, namely Britain. Most others are not so fortunate. But when it comes down to it, the example of the Christian should be Jesus Christ and the godly men of Scripture, not a pagan Hindu. History is replete with examples of barbarous aggressors mowing down the "peaceniks" of their day. The flowers that are thrown at the enemy are used for the burials of the naive non-resistors. The Pacifist perspective fundamentally errs in its estimation of Man. Corporate non-resistance to evil will not stop it. Because men are personally evil, their evil increases when they are together, and it takes more than smiles and hugs to restrain that evil when it is on the march. Pacifism also errs in its "Just trust God" suggestion. God Himself permits and commands the Just War. Therefore, true trust in God will obey God, who knows best and whose Word is Law. Failure to obey God on this point is not trust; it is presumption. It is high presumption to think that a rosy and optimistic non-resistance will stop evil. And it is gross naiveté to think that the Pacifist will survive the aggression. History shows otherwise. We would remind the Pacifists of Matt. 4. Satan urged Jesus to throw Himself in harm's way and "Just trust God"; but Christ rejected this evil advice, for He truly trusted God. Similarly, there were times when God told Israel not to fight but simply to look on (e.g., Ex. 14:14); but there were other times when God told them that He would fight through them. In other words, they were to show their trust by stepping out in faith with arms against Israel's enemies. When they became afraid and lacked faith, they did not go out to fight. And the Lord rebuked their unbelief and presumption (e.g., Deut. 1:30-32). Pacifists would seem to have the same lack of faith. Then this objection recommends martyrdom rather than fighting. It is bad advice. First, dying as a Pacifist does not make one a martyr. The only way in which dying at the hands of an unjust aggressor can be construed as any kind of martyrdom is when there is no opportunity to successfully fight back or flee. The next objection is this: "But did not God tell Israel not to resist the Babylonian aggressors? (Jer. 27)" This is true. But the text also says that God was using Nebuchadnezzar as the scourge of Israel. In other words, though Babylon may not have had pure motives in its attack on Israel, Israel itself had bad motives. Israel deserved to be attacked, for it was deeply into idolatry and debauchery. So, what Jeremiah said was as if he was telling a guilty criminal to give himself up and face the consequences for his crime. Another objection runs along these lines: "Israel could fight war, but not us. War was acceptable in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament. War was temporarily permitted because of sin (as in divorce) and because of Israel's special status as a unique theocracy. Today, only a Christian nation could fight, but of course there are none." This is an important objection, for it hinges on a fine point of Biblical theology. We readily grant that Israel was a special nation in the Old Testament. That is why not all of the principles of its warfare continue into the New Testament, any more than all of its ordinances in general continue. For example, the Ceremonial Law has certainly ceased (Col. 2:16-17; Eph. 2:15). By the same standard, though, other laws for Israel were permanent and were not restricted to her alone. For example, the death penalty for murderers. Some laws are broader than the theocratic distinctives of Old Testament Israel. Some are repeated in the New Testament, some are not. But we 8

do not need an express repetition of a law in the New for it to be valid. As Charles Hodge commented in this context, "As the essential principles of morals do not change, what was permitted or commanded under one dispensation, cannot be unlawful under another, unless forbidden by a new revelation. The New Testament, however, contains no such revelation." One might also add that even if the precept ceased, the principle continues. For example, there was an Old Testament precept about not muzzling oxen as they pulled the plow (Deut. 25:4). Paul quotes this in I Tim. 5:18, not to apply the precept but to apply the underlying principle, namely, that workers ought to be paid. As for the comparison to divorce - which some Christian Pacifists make - we would point out that divorce was permitted in both Testaments (Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 5:32, 19: 9; I Cor. 7). By implication, then, war was explicitly permitted in the Old and implicitly permitted in the New. As for the question of whether only a Christian nation could ever fight a war, we can quickly dismiss this objection by asking, "Does this mean that only a Christian nation could execute murderers or imprison thieves?" The objection is ludicrous. Then there is the objection based on examples in history: "The early Church was Pacifist for three centuries until the time of Constantine. Moreover, just look how God has blessed the many godly Christian Pacifists in history, such as the Anabaptists, the Mennonites, the Brethren, Leo Tolstoy, Harry Emerson Fosdick and Martin Luther King, Jr." Well, we could dismiss this one, too, by replying that history is not our standard. Not even Church history. Scripture alone is our standard. Still, a few comments would be in order. For one, it is not true that all early Christians were Pacifists. Some clearly were not. Those that were, moreover, were Pacifists for one main reason: the Roman Army required soldiers at that time to sacrifice to pagan gods and fight unjust wars. This underlay the supposed Pacifism of fathers such as Tertullian and Origen. Too, there have been Pacifists who have been orthodox Evangelicals, but many have not been quite so pure in their doctrines. Tolstoy, Fosdick and King were by no stretch of the imagination believers in the true Gospel of Christ. In fact, they had more in common theologically with other notorious Pacifists than with true Christians. Such Pacifists include Gandhi, Bertrand Russell, the Buddhists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. The truth is that Pacifism has been a fringe viewpoint at best within Christendom, and it too frequently leads to forms of liberalism. If the Pacifists are so eager to find a worthy example, let them examine Sgt. York. Like many others, he was against all war and refused to fight. But then he saw that some evil is worth fighting against, and so he fought the Just War. Pacifists often contend that it takes more courage not to fight than it does to fight. This is only true in the rare case of true martyrdom and such. Instead, it is usually the case that the objections of Pacifism are but cover-ups for cowardice. Now, some will attempt a sort of compromise. Some are Relative Pacifists; they will serve in the armed forces as non-combatants (secretaries, medics, etc.). Actually, the Absolute Pacifist is more consistent. The Relative Pacifist is only freeing another soldier for the front lines who would have otherwise been occupied with the place now taken by the Relative Pacifist. Hence, he is really aiding the war effort, only he does not admit it. Another objection: "Violence leads to violence. You can't fight fire with fire, but with water. The only way to stop war is to cease to fight." This, too, is erroneous reasoning. For one thing, it just is not true that all violence leads to more violence. Capital punishment, for example, is certainly violent. But it is just and Biblical, and deters further crime when used rightly (Eccl. 8:11). Then there is the objection, "All war is murder. The Sixth Commandment forbids all killing, including war." This is a gross error for several reasons. First, the Hebrew word in Ex. 20:13 is "murder", not 9

simply "kill" (cf. Matt. 19:18). Second, even the very next chapter commanded killing in some cases, such as the death penalty (Ex. 21:12-17). Thus, not all killing is forbidden. As C.S. Lewis observed, "All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is not adultery." The Sixth Commandment forbids murder, not war. Athanasius tersely noted, "Murder is not permitted, but to kill one's adversary in war is both lawful and praiseworthy." Moreover, if war was murder, then David, Joshua and the Judges were all gross murderers. In fact, David would have to be labeled one of the worst mass murderers of all times, for Scripture says that David slew tens of thousands of men (I Sam. 18:7). However, there is a yet worse heresy in this objection, and it is incipient in all Pacifism. If all war is murder, then God Himself is a murderer. Scripture is replete with examples of God directly commanding war and blessing godly warriors. Therefore, this objection must be vigorously opposed outright as anti-Christian blasphemy. Pacifists have more trouble reading their Bibles than singing "Onward Christian Soldiers", a hymn they despise because of its alleged war-mongering. The fact is, though, that God portrays Himself as a warrior from Genesis to Revelation. Is God a Pacifist? No! "The Lord is a Man of War" (Ex. 15:3). He frequently describes Himself as "The Lord of hosts", which literally means, "The Lord of the Armies". In other words, He is Commander-in-Chief of the armies of Heaven. David praised the Lord in Psa. 24:8, "The Lord, strong and mighty. The Lord, mighty in battle." That referred to both spiritual battles and literal battles, for David was a warrior himself. What do the peaceniks do with verses like Isa. 42:13, "The Lord will go forth like a warrior, He will arouse His zeal like a man of war. He will utter a shout, yes, He will raise a war cry. He will prevail over His enemies." And, again, there are many instances of God Himself fighting through the valiant efforts of His godly soldiers. As we shall see later, God fights and guides all battles and Just Wars. "Many fell slain because the war was of God" (I Chron. 5:22). Num. 21:14 mentions "The Book of the Wars of the Lord." Our point is just this: God is not a Pacifist. He brings peace by true victory. Robert Morey comments, "God's angelic armies do not use the techniques of nonresistance in their fight against Satan... If pacifism does not work in heaven, neither will it work on earth." God fights evil in Heaven and we should fight evil on Earth. The last objection worth noting is this: "My conscience will not let me fight." Sometimes this is made more spiritual: "God will not let me fight" or "God has not led me to fight." The one who utters such words needs to submit his conscience to the clear teaching of Scripture. Conscience is not perfect; it is flawed by sin and needs to be educated by the Word of God. In fact, a good case could rather be made that the true conscience tells one to fight the Just War. Furthermore, a careful reading of Scripture will bring one to the conclusion that God not only permits, but commands us to fight the Just War. He makes no exceptions. And the only way in which God "leads" us is by Scripture, not internal feelings.

8.

God's Rules of War.

Thus far we have discussed why war can be waged; now it is meet that we investigate how it should be fought. Does God give us in Scripture any sort of Rules of War? Yes, He does. Even if Scripture never expressly commented on the subject, these principles could be extrapolated from other express statements and principles. But God gave us more than that; He has supplied us with a host of examples and explicit teaching on the subject. And they are far superior to the Geneva Conventions. It would be helpful to keep one basic truth in mind at this juncture: God permits war, but not all wars. He permits and even commands the Just War, but not the Unjust War. What that means is, that the Just War must be fought in a just manner. If the just side in a war over-reacts and fights it in an unjust manner, then it has become an Unjust War on both sides. God does not approve of the maxim, "All's fair in love and war." War is unjust because it is not fought according to God's rules of war. 10

9.

Preparation for War.

"Prepare for war" (Jer. 6:4). Since war is always a looming possibility for any nation, all nations would be wise to be prepared. This does not mean that one is on a war schedule when it prepares. No, those very preparations serve as a defense and deterrence. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." Ezek. 38:7, "Be prepared, and prepare yourself, you and all your companies that are assembled about you, and be a guard for them." One of the first essentials for war is an army. Scripture refers to the various ranks of soldiers in the army of Israel. For example, there is always a commander-in-chief (David, Joshua, etc.). Occasionally someone suggests an all-democratic army without rank, but the idea is both unscriptural and foolish. Scripture teaches the legitimacy and necessity of rank (e.g., Deut. 20:9, 15). Even the angels have ranks (Eph. 6:12). David had his chief-of-staff Joab, and then his three generals, and then his group of thirty. An important group of soldiers are the military advisors. "Prepare plans by consultation and make war by wise guidance... By wise guidance you will wage war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory" (Pro. 20:18, 24:6. Cf. 11:14, 15:22). The military cabinet helps the State count the cost and plan strategy. "What king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and take counsel whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace?" (Luke 14:31-32). So, the leaders are to wisely count their troops (Num. 1) and weigh the odds of victory. One of the leading ways in which they can form a strategy and determine the odds of success is by studying past wars. Military leaders should also consult with another vital group of advisors: the preachers, The King of Israel consulted with the prophets in I Kings 22:6, and though most were false prophets, one of them was a true prophet. Kings, presidents and generals need to consult preachers on whether the war is a just one, and inquire as to what Biblical principles apply to the war at hand. Similarly, Scripture gives us examples of military chaplains to serve the spiritual needs of the soldiers. Usually these were Levites, and they were generally exempt themselves from actual military action (Num. 1:49). Phinehas went to war with Israel (Num. 31:6). Deut. 20:2, "Now it shall come about that when you are approaching the battle, the priest shall come near and speak to the people." This is more than a pep-talk; it is spiritual counsel. Soldiers need to be instructed in the Word of God and told how to meet their Maker before they die, for many will certainly perish in war. Church history is replete with examples of godly chaplains, such as Ulrich Zwingli, Robert Lewis Dabney, and Orville Nave (author of Nave's Topical Bible). During the English Civil War, Oliver Cromwell surrounded himself with some of the leading preachers as chaplains. Leo Solt's fascinating study, Saints in Arms, examines how Richard Baxter and John Owen and others served England's spiritual needs among the soldiers and leaders. The bulk of the actual fighting is done by the average soldier, and Scripture says much about him, too. There are some interesting stipulations, though. For one, Scripture required soldiers to be at least 20 years old (Num. 26:2), but no maximum age was levied. Indeed, Joshua and Caleb did most of their fighting when they were over 80. On the other hand, only those who were "able to go to war" were eligible (Num. 1:3). Serious handicaps, then, would have made some men ineligible. Also exempt were men who were engaged to be married (Deut. 20:7) or who had been newly married (Deut. 24:5). The family took precedence over the military. Unfortunately, this is often ignored in more recent times, when the army allows men to sign up the day after they got married. A man was to first get married and stay with his wife for a year to lay the foundation for a marriage and a family. This might imply that a man could not go to war until his first child was born. In any case, it did not require that soldiers be either married or single. By the same standard, Scripture nowhere allowed for female soldiers. Over and over we are told that the soldiers were men, and for good reason. The woman's place is in the home (Tit. 2:5), not in the 11

battlefield. Women are not physically fitted by God for warfare any more than men are fit for bearing children. Moreover, one can only imagine the nightmare of having one's female soldiers taken as prisoners of war. It is true that Deborah was a sort of Joan of Arc (Judges 4-5), but she is certainly the exception. For one thing, she was directly raised up by God. For another, she would not have been necessary had Barak played the man and done his duty. Deut. 20:8 also exempted cowards from military service: "Who is the man that is afraid and fainthearted? Let him depart and return to his house, so that he might not make his brothers' hearts melt like his heart" (cf. Judges 7:3). There is a normal fear in every soldier in the field, but the one with an abnormal fear must be sent home. In fact, he must not be allowed there in the first place, lest he spread fear and discourage the others. Scripture forbids going AWOL, going over the hill (Eccl. 8:8, "There is no discharge in time of war"). This might well apply to Pacifists, who are usually cowards at heart. Such are to be rebuked and kept out of service. "Shall your brothers go to war while you yourselves sit here?" (Num. 32:6) Some have suggested that such cowards be punished, while others say that such cowardice would bring its own punishment by public disgrace. The reason why this is so important is that the most important quality for a soldier is courage. Scripture over and over again exhorts soldiers to be brave and bold. A godly soldier is to be valiant, a man of exemplary courage and valor. He is to have resolve and determination. He should be informed of the possible consequences, but weighs them with the just cause of the war and goes and does his duty. Scripture also calls on him to be holy, have integrity and faith, and decisiveness. All these personal qualities are as important, or more so, than military skill. Godliness is vital. The Just War needs God's hand of blessing, but that can be forfeited by ungodliness. For example, remember Achen. Similarly, both soldiers and the camp are to be clean. This means more than simply the elementary rules of hygiene, though that too is required (Deut. 23:14). Rather, there should be no public indecency or crudeness or barbarity. For example, the same word in Deut. 23:14 for "filth" is used in 24:1 to refer to sexual immorality. One application of this principle is that pornography and prostitution should be forbidden in the military. Scholars differ over whether Scripture supports conscription (the draft) or not. On the one hand, Num. 1:1-3 and other passages seem to imply that all Israelite men meeting the qualifications were eligible for call-up. To paraphrase Admiral Nelson, "Israel expects every man to do his duty." Selective service might be implied in verses such as Ex. 17:9, "Choose men for us, and go out and fight." On the other hand, other scholars point to I Sam. 8:11 as a warning against conscription: "He will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots" (cf. 14:52). In any case, there is no basis whatsoever in Scripture for the conscription of women. Another important area of preparation for war is military intelligence. It is vital to know your enemy. Patton said that the most important factor to successful war is knowing how your enemy will react. In spiritual warfare, Paul said that "we are not ignorant of his [Satan] devices", or schemes. The word was used of military plans and methods (cf. Eph. 6:11). An essential military maxim is: "Know your enemy." Such knowledge is gained by a variety of means, but basically it boils down to espionage. Moses sent 40 spies into Canaan. Spies and others are to gather information for reconnaissance, thereby supplying their leaders with vital information on the enemy, his forces, his plans, location of troops, and so on. My father, who was a spy in World War II, has always said, "A spy behind enemy lines is worth 10,000 troops in the field." In many cases he is worth far more. Espionage works together with two other important devices: sabotage and treachery. Sabotage is when a spy does more than gather information; he acts as a soldier behind enemy lines by destroying military materiel or the like, even killing enemy personnel. Treachery is the practice of working together with an inside traitor to the enemy. Now a traitor to the just side in a war is guilty of death, but a traitor to an evil regime is to be commended and rewarded. Rahab, for example, was a traitor to 12

the Canaanites and Joshua did right to reward her. Judges 1:24-26 records a similar incident of spies working together with a traitor. Evangelicals differ over whether espionage requires lying and culpable deception. On the one side, some say that it goes with the job, and that a spy's lies are not guilty before God. They cite Rahab as an example. Others differ by arguing that spies, not lies, are approved by God and that espionage should avoid all untruths. The spy should refuse to divulge information, try to escape, and so forth. In any case, almost no Evangelical condones the widespread practice in almost every war of using public propaganda and disinformation. The State should never lie to its people, even to stir them up to fight against an enemy, even if that enemy is guilty and unjust. The right motive, justice, does not need such lies to fight well. Naturally, soldiers need weapons, and Scripture supports the practice of arming for war. "Arm men from among you for war" (Num. 31:3). "Prepare a war; rouse the mighty men! Let all the soldiers draw near, let them come up! Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears; let the weak say, 'I am a mighty man!" (Joel 3:9-10). Even Christ told His disciples to buy swords (Luke 22:36). Among the weapons mentioned in the Bible are the following: swords, spears, javelins, bows and arrows, slings, battle-axes, helmets, shields, armor, horses and chariots. Shamgar used an oxgoad (Judges 3:31), Samson once used a donkey's jawbone (Judges 15:16), and Ehud made his own sword (Judges 3:16). This does not mean, of course, that modern warfare should be fought with such weapons; it only means that God allows the use of appropriate weaponry. This is borne out as well by the analogy of the spiritual panoply of Eph. 6.

10. Prayer. Another vital element for both the preparation and execution of warfare is prayer. This might seem out of place to some of a more Pacifist bent, but we would refer them to the many war prayers in the Word of God, such as in Joshua, Judges and the Psalms. Specific examples worth consulting are I Sam. 23:2, 4; 2 Sam. 6:19; and Judges 20:27-28. Soldiers are to pray; leaders are to pray; the people are to pray for both their soldiers and their leaders (I Tim. 2:1-2). We are instructed to pray for God's blessing and guidance and a just victory. Among other things, we should remember that God gives strength in battle (cf. 2 Sam. 22:35, 40; Psa. 18:34, 144:1). God rules over the affairs of men, and that includes soldiers and generals on both sides of a war. God gives victory to one and defeat to the other (Deut. 28:7, 25). We should, therefore, pray that God providentially guides the just side to a just victory. He can do this by a general providence or by a special intervention. For example, God guided a single arrow that was shot "at a venture" to hit the enemy king, thus turning the war around (I Kings 23:34). This nameless, aimless archer was used in an extraordinary way. The history of war gives us many unusual examples of a single event turning the tide. Hitler's forces, for example, encountered bad weather at Dunkirk, thereby saving most of the British army to fight later a successful campaign that led to Hitler's defeat. Napoleon was ill at Waterloo. Sometimes God strikes fear in the hearts of the unjust aggressors so that they flee or even attack themselves, as in the case with Gideon. Lev. 26:6-7, "You will chase your enemies and they shall fall before you by the sword; five of you will chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand, and your enemy will fall before you by the sword." Then there is the case of Assyria's attack on Israel in 2 Kings 18-18 and Isa. 36-37. Sennacherib of Assyria marched on Israel and would certainly have won. He sent his chief general, Rabshakeh, to give Hezekiah of Israel an ultimatum. Hezekiah prayed, and God answered him. God arranged for Rabshakeh to hear a rumor of an attack in the rear guard, so he retreated back to Sennacherib without taking Jerusalem. Sennacherib's troops were later decimated by an angel who slew 185,000 Assyrian troops in a single night. And Sennacherib himself was slain by his two sons. All because Hezekiah prayed and God answered. The Book of Judges has other such stories, as does Joshua. 13

11. National Defense. Successful warfare requires both offense and defense. The old maxim is good: "The best defense is a good offence." Both are needed, just as in football, and no war has ever been won in which the victor had only one or the other. This is true in Scripture as well. For example, we find examples of walled cities and fortresses. These would protect the city from external aggression. From this principle we can extrapolate several further principles. Some have suggested that the fear of retaliation is a successful deterrence, and therefore is a good defense. This would be based on the principle of "an eye for an eye". Switzerland uses a variation of this. It uses the "Porcupine Defense". It has such an advanced civil defense system that an aggressor would find that the gains would not equal the losses. In other words, aggression may be successful, but not worth it. Others use the "Samson Defense". When Samson died, he took a great deal of his enemies with him. It is said that Israel uses this sort of defense today against the Arabs. And it underlies the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Still others, such as Karl and Keith Payne, argue that the Biblical principle of shields and walled cities justifies a national defense against nuclear attack that is not necessarily retaliatory. They offer convincing discussion that the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) is the modern equivalent. Some call it "Star Shield". Another question that touches on both offense and defense is the matter of mutual defense treaties and alliances. On the one hand, some Evangelicals contend that this is permissible because of certain Scriptural examples (such as Gen. 21:22-33 and 26:26-33). It is based on the principle of love for a helpless and innocent friend. As the saying goes, "My friend's enemy is my enemy and my enemy's friend is my enemy." On the other hand, others say that this is disallowed in Scripture. Israel was forbidden from making covenants or alliances with ungodly nations.

12. Principles of Action. Once hostilities begin, God lays out certain procedures of combat. The first one is the transition from peace to war, from preparation to action. Deut. 20:10 gives us the essential principle here: "When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace." This is what we call negotiation. If the guilty party surrenders, well and good. No war. But if not, then the battle is to begin. This is also the closest that the Bible comes to stating that an actual formal declaration of war is to be enforced. In modern slang, it would be equivalent to saying, "Come out with your hands up and you'll live!" More Scripturally, though, is the example of God's instructions to Pharaoh through Moses: "Let My people go - or else!" This is especially useful in dealing with an unjust nation that has innocent hostages. It needs to be hit hard so that it freely turns the hostages loose. Fair warning is to be given in advance. So, this sort of ultimatum is the last resort of negotiation before actual fighting begins. Perhaps this can be applied in modern ways, such as dropping leaflets on a city or a nation, promising that they will live if they surrender but they will surely die if they do not. Once the war begins, the trumpet is to be blown signaling that war has been declared (Num. 10:9; I Cor. 14:8). The troops now know that they are at war. One of the means of warfare is that of proportionate means. This means that the military must use all necessary means to achieve victory. It should not use any more or less that what is needed. For instance, you don't use an elephant gun to shoot a hamster, but neither do you use a squirrel gun on a tiger. This leads us to perhaps the most important principle of actual warfare. Gen. Douglas MacArthur said it best: "There's no substitute for victory. The very object of war is victory, not prolonged indecision." Scripture cites Joshua as a good example of the courageous and valiant soldier, who fought to win and did not stop until he won. David, too, gives us an admirable example in 2 Sam. 22:38, "I pursued my 14

enemies and destroyed them, and I did not turn back until they were consumed." This ultimate objective takes precedence over many, many other factors in war. War is not a game of checkers on the lawn, whereby you spot your opponent a few moves or points so that you will be evenly matched. Scripture allows for no "no-win" wars in theory or in practice. Can you imagine David sharing some of his slingshot stones with Goliath? This means that the just should not aid or abet the enemy. And it means that one should fight to win or not fight at all. To begin a war and not fight it to a successful victory, when victory is possible, is unconscionable and ungodly. It is rank cowardice of the worst sort, for it costs needless lives. Because victory is the objective, one of the major tactics is "Get there firstest with the mostest." In other words, hit hard and fast. This is the strategy of Blitzkrieg. To quote the Lord Jesus from another context, "What thou doest, do quickly." War should ideally be fast, strong and successful - not slow, weak and unsuccessful. Joshua and Gideon used the tactic of the surprise attack in this way (cf. Judges 7:19-22; I Sam. 14) Other tactics include the ambush (Josh. 8:1-2), flanking and encirclement (similar to Joshua at Jericho), the siege, and bombardment. Special tactical squads are found in Scripture which are basically commando forces. This does not, however, justify the practice of indiscriminate terrorism. Gideon used a surprise attack which struck widespread fear among the Midianites, but that was not terrorism as we know it today. There is nothing wrong with attempts to discourage or frighten the enemy, so long as it is not aimed at random slaughter of the innocent. Someone might ask about suicide missions, or Kamikazes. Actually, this could be justified as an extension of the principle of protecting others by sacrificing one's own life. Jesus said, "Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13. Cf. Rom. 5:7). Yet, this is an extreme measure. The just side in a war should try to save as many of its own soldiers' lives. As someone has wryly commented, "The object is not to die for your country, but to make your enemy die for his." Some generals have argued that soldiers must be taught to hate their enemy in order to be able to kill him. They are wrong. Rather, the just soldier must have the conviction that the war is just and that therefore the enemy deserves to die. Justice, not sheer hatred, is the correct motive. That provides for real valor. Sheer hatred only leads to barbarism, which quickly can lower a Just War to the level of an Unjust War. Ideally, only enemy combatants are to be killed, not innocent civilians. A just army, therefore, should attack the enemy army, not places where civilians are located. Generally this means that only men are to be targets, not women or children (cf. Num. 31:7). Yet in some cases, as we shall see, even women and children civilians may be slain as war escalates or if they aid and supply the enemy knowingly and strategically. For example, an unjust enemy may wrongly use hostages as human shields, and in some cases the just side would be justified in killing the innocent with the guilty. For another example, some armies station their troops in cities near homes. Deut. 20:19-20 gives another principle: soldiers, not the land, are to be killed. God told Israel not to needlessly destroy fruit-bearing trees. Naturally, sometimes this is allowed if necessary, but this is saying more. It is saying that there is to be no "Scorched Earth" policy. Trees are not soldiers, and the land is necessary for rebuilding after hostilities cease.

13. Surrender and Victory. The goal of war is victory, and this necessitates the surrender of the guilty. In some cases, the guilty leaders will surrender. In others, his troops desert him and surrender in bulk, leaving them no soldiers to fight with. But victory entails several things that bear looking at. David wrote, "I have destroyed them and shattered them, so that they did not rise" (2 Sam. 22:39. Cf. vs. 43). David ensured that the defeated foe would not rise again and resume the war. Today, that 15

would mean disarming the enemy and arrange for a state of affairs that would prevent the recurrence of the motives and means whereby the unjust forces began the aggression in the first place. Occupation might be needed. What about the notion, "To the victors belong the spoils?" This is generally misused to justify looting. Rightly used, though, it means that the loser pays for the expenses of the winner. Scripture does indeed teach the doctrine of spoils (e.g., I Sam. 20:21-25; Deut. 20:10, 12, 18, 7:1-2, 16, 22-26, 20:1920, 21:10-14; Num. 31:1-3, 7-18, 21-31, 42, etc).The reparations are to pay for the expenses of the just. After all, the soldiers must be paid: "Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense?" (I Cor. 9:7). And, lastly, what about the enemy forces themselves? First, Scripture seems to indicate that, in most cases, enemy soldiers may be killed on the battlefield, but not as prisoners. In some cases, they were to be employed as slaves, or servants to pay off reparations. This can be applied in a variety of ways today. Those enemy soldiers who defect or surrender are to be given humane treatment, both during and after the war. After all, many of them were simply deceived into thinking their cause was just. It is an entirely different state of affairs with their leaders. Scripture is quite explicit here: the guilty leaders are to be tried and executed (e.g., Agag in I Sam. 15). We find this repeatedly in Joshua and Judges. This underlies the modern concept of war trials for war criminals, such as the Nuremburg Trials. The guilty commander-in-chief should especially be executed. As one wag has recently put it, "It ain't over till the fat man swings." On the other hand, let me add one more word. Though the guilty should be punished out of justice, mercy requires that a sort of "terms of peace" be proclaimed to him before he is executed. In other words, he should be told why he is to die and that he should prepare to meet his maker. This was done after the Nuremburg trials. The Allies sent chaplains to evangelize the condemned German high command. Those guilty generals were astounded that their enemies would show them this mercy with justice. After all, they had not sent preachers into Auschwitz to preach to the Jews. Several of them were so touched that they repented and turned to Christ. Strange as it might seem, we will meet some of the most despicable soldiers who ever lived when we get to Heaven.

14. The Hard Cases. Let's summarize our findings up to this point. We have established from Scripture that God permits and even commands the Just War. Also, God requires that the Just War be fought in a just manner. Fortunately, God has not left it to ourselves to judge what is a Just War and how it is to be fought. God Himself has given the basic principles in Scripture to determine what constitutes a Just War and how it is to be fought. Yet, there are certain hard cases in both areas. In practice, some wars are mixed good and bad, and it is difficult to judge whether it is a Just or Unjust War. In those cases, the people - and especially their leaders - are responsible to God to weigh all major factors in God's scales. Virtually all wars can be determined just or unjust in this manner. Some are overwhelmingly one or the other, while others are only slightly just or unjust. In the latter case, extreme caution must be taken lest a Just War become Unjust. The scales can be tipped by new factors as the war unfurls. For example, Richard Baxter used this illustration: "If I see a stranger provoke another by giving him the first blow, yet I may be bound to save his life from the fury of the avenging party." There are also several hard cases concerning the principles of carrying out the Just War. We cannot go into great depth on any one of them here, but they must need to be addressed at least in part. For one thing, the radical Pacifists often mention these hard cases to justify their position. It is somewhat similar to the pro-abortionist: who justifies all abortions because of the hard cases of that question (such as rape, congenital defects, incest, life of the mother, etc.). So, what we will do is briefly look at these cases and see how they fit into the general pattern that has already been established from Scripture. They are not necessarily exceptions to the general rule, but are merely hard cases which in 16

fact prove the rule.

15. The First Strike, or Preventative War. The first hard case concerns whether a country is justified in waging a Preventative War. That is, may one nation legitimately strike the first blow in a war in order to prevent a potential aggressor from attacking? A good modern example of this is the nation of Israel. In 1967, Israel saw the Arabs marshalling for an obvious assault on her, so she struck first. It was decisive and successful. Later, in 1981, Israel sent fighter jets into Iraq to knock out certain nuclear reactors which were (or could) being used to develop nuclear arms which Saddam Hussein had promised to use against Israel. Other such First Strikes can been seen in history. Some end the war before it begins, while others only serve to begin the war itself. Are pre-emptive strikes just? That the First Strike can be justified is well explained by Harold O.J. Brown: "No one would expect to wait until a gun-brandishing pursuer had fired the first shot and perhaps scored a hit before shooting at him. Severely menacing behavior, depending on circumstances and extent, is generally accepted as a legitimate basis for initiating an act of self-defense. The difficulty, of course, lies in judging the extent and immanency of the danger... There is always a danger of reacting too soon as well as of waiting too long."

16. Invasion of Another Nation's Territory. This is related to another hard case: Is a nation ever justified in invading another nation's territory? The answer is quite obviously in the affirmative. In Gen. 14, Lot was kidnapped by the surrounding nations. Abraham gathered his people together and staged a commando raid to rescue Lot. In effect, this was an invasion. But since kidnapping is a capital offence, the invasion was justified. The same principle can be applied to other sorts of hostages, such as when President Carter sent in a special squad to rescue the American hostages in Iraq or when President Reagan sent in troops to rescue American students in Grenada. One of the most famous and successful such rescues was the Israeli rescue of Jews in Uganda in 1976. An, extension of this principle allows for invasion of another's territory in order to win a Just War that has already begun. For example, the Allies were certainly justified in invading Germany in World War II. Victory could not have been attained by mere containment. Gen. Douglas MacArthur argued on similar grounds for the bombing of the bridges over the Yalu River during the Korean War (Truman disagreed and fired MacArthur). Gen. Westmoreland and others argued the same for justifying the bombing missions into North Vietnam.

17. Wars of Aggression to Free Another Country from Tyranny. This in turn leads to the next hard case. Given a situation of non-hostilities between countries "A" and "B", is country "A" ever justified in invading country "B" if "B" is killing its own people? Such a scenario occurs from time to time. For example, take Idi Amin in Uganda in the 1970's. He had slaughtered at least 250,000 of his own people, but had not really posed a direct threat to his neighbors. It is possible, of course, that he may have had designs on Kenya and others, but that is not the issue we are addressing at this juncture. If he had designs on Kenya and made obvious gestures to that effect, then Kenya would have been justified in staging a first strike. Rather, would Kenya or another neighbor have been justified in actually invading Uganda when and if there was no direct threat to a war from Amin? America thought about the matter and did nothing. Britain was more involved, for Uganda was a former colony and was at the time a member of the British Commonwealth. But Britain also did nothing but talk and use economic pressure. One neighbor, however, had the guts to do something. Tanzania, under Dr. Julius Nyrere, invaded Uganda in order to topple Amin and free the people from monstrous oppression and tyranny. The invasion 17

was successful; Amin fled to Libya and is currently living in Saudi Arabia. Interestingly, Nyrere was praised around the world for his courage. Tanzania occupied Uganda for awhile in order to oversee the establishing of a more just indigenous government in Uganda. With such situations in mind, Robert Morey comments: "Wars of aggression in which one strikes the first blow against tyrants can sometimes be viewed as perfectly just and righteous." Should one request Biblical justification, the answer is obvious: love for one's neighbor. "Deliver those who are being taken away to death, and those who are staggering to slaughter, 0 hold them back" (Pro. 24:11). "Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them out of the hand of the wicked" (Psa. 82:4. Cf. Job. 29:12). Not only are other nations permitted to invade another to free the innocent from tyranny, Pro. 24:12 makes it imperative. If you can do good but do not, it is sin (cf. James 4:17). Take a more down-to-earth example. You're watering your back yard when you hear your next-door neighbor beating his wife to death. She screams to you for help. You know that he'll kill her before the police could arrive, so you jump the fence and protect her. Even current law justifies your trespassing and violence in this just cause. Some Liberals and Conservatives reject this reasoning. They plead for Isolationism and Neutralism, which is but to say, "It ain't my fight. It's none of my business." What does God say? God says to rescue the innocent. What you do or don't do for the innocent, you do or don't do for Christ (Matt. 25). As one 16th-century Calvinist explained it, "He who omits to deliver his neighbour from the hands of the murderer, when he sees him in evident danger of his life, is questionless guilty of the murder, as well as the murderer. For seeing that he neglected when he had means to preserve his life, it must needs follow necessarily that he desired his death" (Junius Brutus, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos). This same author went on to argue that logic and love would require that such an invasion is more noble than a war of self-defense, for in a war of defense one is protecting oneself, but in a Just Invasion one is risking his own life for those who are utterly defenseless.

18. Revolution. The next hard case is that of revolution. Some revolutions are peaceful, others are violent to the point of war. Is revolution ever justified? If war is justified, and revolution justified, then it would follow that revolutionary war would be justified. Most of the Judges in the Book of Judges were revolutionaries of sorts. They did not revolt against their own Israelite government, but against the nations which had conquered them. In a sense, the conqueror became the new government, and great heroes such as Gideon and Samson led revolutions against Moab and Midian and the Philistines. Then there are several examples from the times of the kings of Israel and Judah. Some writers also point to the Jews in the Book of Esther, who were permitted to defend themselves. That probably was not a revolution as such, but it did involve some of the same principles, namely, armed resistance to one's own government. Then in the intertestamental period there were the Maccabees and the Zealots. The early Christians debated the question, but it was not until the time of Constantine that it became a real possibility. But then his "conversion" rendered the matter moot. During the times of persecution, the Christians knew that any attempt at revolution would be suicidal, so the matter rested until later times. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church wavered. On the one hand, leading theologians such as Thomas Aquinas accepted the concept of the Just Revolution against tyranny. But, on the other hand, Rome was slow to accept this in all its implications, mainly because they feared that some revolutions would be initiated by heretics and infidels against Catholic monarchs. So Rome tended to defend the status quo, even defending Catholic tyrants. Then came the Reformation. Luther strongly defended the Just War, but fell short of actual revolution. There is a certain fence-sitting in Luther on this point. First he argued that arms may 18

never be taken up against a sovereign, even by lesser magistrates. But then he himself relied on those lesser magistrates to protect him in resisting both the Pope and Emperor. The Calvinists, however, went further than Luther. In Book IV of the Institutes, John Calvin cracked the door open for a just revolution by lesser magistrates against tyrants. Theodore Beza, in his important De Jure Magistratu [The Rights of Magistrates], argued that lesser magistrates may indeed revolt against a tyrant. Christopher Goodwin expanded upon that 1n his How Superior Powers Ought to Be Obeyed, The most influential book, however, was the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos [Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants] by an anonymous French Calvinist who used the pen-name "Junius Brutus". Readers immediately saw the irony in the pen-name, for it was an earlier Brutus who led the revolt against Julius Caesar. The French monarch was persecuting the French Calvinists known as Huguenots, even slaughtering tens of thousands of them in a single night in the notorious St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. The question, then, was whether God ever sanctioned revolution against tyrants, and if so, how and by whom and why? Over in Scotland, the Presbyterians agreed and put it into practice against a series of Catholic monarchs (usually named Mary). John Knox, for example, defended the Presbyterian leaders before the Queen herself as follows. Children ought to obey their father, but what if the father becomes mad and insanely attacks the children? The children are certainly justified in using force to restrain their father, and so protect both him and themselves. So it is with subjects and their monarchs. Then there was the Puritan Revolution in the 1640's. The most influential defense of it was Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex. Most of his arguments were based on the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, but Rutherford expanded on it and applied it to the current English scene. It remains the standard Reformed treatise on the subject. Oliver Cromwell, the Roundheads and the Puritans worked together as lesser magistrates to overthrow the king and establish one of the godliest societies the world has ever known. The Calvinists argued that there is a sort of Social Contract between the king and the people: both depend on each other, and both are subjects of God. There is a third level in society, namely, the magistrates, who represent the people on the one hand and advise the King on the other. If a king becomes a tyrant, it is the responsibility of the magistrates to remove him. Much of the question revolves around the definition of "tyranny". A tyrant is more than a mere king or queen. A tyrant is one who sets himself above the law. He is a dictator, an absolute ruler whose word is law. He claims to own all the property in the realm, including the people, whom he claims to be able to judge and kill at will, even as a master has over his slaves. Generally, he also takes the power to pardon those whom the law rightfully condemns, and condemns those who the law rightfully justifies. The tyrant becomes Public Enemy #1. He is the butcher, not the shepherd. The magistrates are duty-bound to check the tyrant. If they do not overthrow him, they share in his guilt by complicity. They may restrain him or even execute him, if need be. If they are righteous military leaders, they may stage a coup d'etat. You see, it is similar to the idea of mutiny. Mutiny in most cases is definitely wrong. But it is right if the captain steers an unnecessary suicide course or kills the crew'. The sailors would be justified by the admirals for saving the ship and their lives. Hence, revolution can be acceptable in certain cases. It is the responsibility of the people's representatives, not of the people themselves, else the cure is more likely to be worse than the disease. And if there is no likelihood of success? Then the people are to wait and pray, and appeal to their magistrates again and again, and even appeal to external nations to help them. Or they can flee, if possible. Let me add that this is not to be confused with "Liberation Theology", which is but Marxism in disguise. It is the classic example of unjust revolution. This raises the question of the unjust rebellion. It should be obvious that a basically just State can use arms to quell a basically unjust rebellion or revolution. For example, David tried to put down Absalom's attempted revolution. Godly kings and presidents have the responsibility to quench revolutionary movements-with force if necessary- if 19

those movements are aimed at establishing a basically ungodly new State. Conversely, an Unjust State is not justified in using arms against a basically just revolution. One only wonders about whether an unjust State is justified in stopping another unjust revolution, or if a just State has the power to stop another just revolution. The latter is rare, while the former is too frequent. Among other problems are the mixed multitude of those involved. Even in Scripture we see those involved in a just cause for unjust motives. Christians should be doubly careful about siding with such. Their co-revolutionaries may end up being the next tyrants. And other revolutionaries are just plain anarchists who are against all governments.

19. Assassination. Another hard case concerns an extreme measure of both war and revolution. Does God ever permit assassination of leaders? Most assassinations are clearly murders and cannot be condoned. But is there such a thing as a Just Assassination - for instance, as a means of winning a Just War? The Biblical data suggests that there is. Spies sent in during wartime may legitimately kill the enemy's commander-in-chief. The reason for this is obvious: he is enemy number 1. Moreover, if that leader should be executed after the war ceases, then does it not follow that he can be executed by assassination during the war itself? We have several examples in Scripture. Ehud assassinated King Eglon (Judges 3) and Jael killed King Sisera (Judges 4). Ehud and Jael were killing foreign leaders who had conquered Israel. And the inspired author praises both of them in their actions. But what about the killing of one's own leader, in the case of his becoming a tyrant? Morey comments, "If one takes the Biblical record seriously, assassination to remove a tyrant is not murder." Two Biblical examples might justify this position. First, Jehoida the high priest gathered the other priests together and assassinated Queen Athaliah (2 Kings 11). Second, Jehu killed King Joram (2 Kings 9). Both Jehoida and Jehu are set forth as just heroes for their actions. It might also be pointed out that they were lesser magistrates, as it were, and thus were within their rights in acting on behalf of the people against tyrants. Ideally, the Just Nation should encourage the lesser magistrates in an Unjust Nation to assassinate their own tyrant, especially in time of war. Hence, the German generals were right in attempting to kill Hitler in July, 1944. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a liberal theologian, joined a group that attempted to do the same. It failed and all were executed. Was Bonhoeffer justified? Some say yes, for Hitler was a tyrant. Others say no, for Bonhoeffer was not in the position of a magistrate. The imagination reels, however, to imagine what would have happened if either had been successful. Or what if someone had assassinated Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Amin or Saddam Hussein. History shows that Brutus and Cassius were probably right in assassinating Julius Caesar, even if it did backfire on them. Someone might say that David did not slay Saul, even when he could have. But, then, it is replied that Saul was not yet a tyrant or David was not yet a magistrate. Both Brutus and Rutherford argued that a private citizen may not do the work, though a magistrate may. They said that a private citizen may, however, kill a usurper tyrant, that is, one who never had legitimate power to begin with (such as an invading tyrant, as in the cases of Eglon and Sisera). Actually, this extreme case exemplifies the basic principle of war. A tyrant murders his people and deserves capital punishment. If he is above the law, then who is the one responsible for God to carry out the sentence of capital punishment? The Emperor Trajan said to his magistrates, "If I command as I should, use this sword for me; but if I do otherwise, unsheathe it against me." Pagan that he was, he was still right. The tyrant is also guilty of high treason against his own Monarch - God. All in all, then, it would seem that the very principles that underlay the Just War also allow for a Just Assassination, be it called Regicide (killing a king) or Tyrannicide (killing a tyrant). 20

20. Extreme Weapons. The next hard case concerns the extent to which warfare may rightly be waged. May one use all available means? What about "Total War"? Some nations have restricted the weapons. For instance, 16th-century Japan outlawed all guns, for that would let even a peasant defeat a noble Samurai, which would be unbecoming to Japan. More modern nations seem to use similar justification in their disarmaments. It would be logical to conclude that if a war is justified, then weapons necessary to accomplish that end are also just. These extreme weapons fall down into two categories: Conventional and Unconventional. Conventional Warfare is the ordinary means of fighting with a certain degree of weaponry. The level of "ordinary" has been rising ever since men moved from bows and arrows to muskets and pistols. At one time, even the spear was considered Unconventional to those who had never used it before. In World War I, warfare technology took a major step forward in several ways. It was the first war to make use of aircraft. Biplanes fought dog-fights against each other and dropped "Flying Bombs" on soldiers and citizens alike. At the time, this was scorned as Unconventional by many - especially the Pacifists - but nobody classes it as such any more. This led to "Carpet Bombing" a whole area. For the first time in history, a military force could wipe out a whole territory with relatively little danger to those carrying out the destruction. This in turn opened the door to the use of incendiaries, or flying firebombs. These were especially employed in a few crucial cases in World War II, such as when the Allies decimated Hamburg and Dresden. British bombers would drop incendiaries by night and the Americans would use more conventional bombing by day. The result was a "Firestorm" - an entire city would be ablaze. Escape would be almost impossible, and tens of thousands would die in a single day. Later developments of Incendiary Bombing included the use of napalm. Several Evangelical ethicists have argued that the idea of Firestorm is not really new; it is but an amplification of the way many ancient wars were fought. Often an army would besiege a city and then burn it down in a circle, destroying everyone inside it. You may recall that God Himself told Israel to destroy certain Canaanite cities in this way. This is also related to another extreme practice, namely, the Scorched Earth practice. For example, Gen. Sherman and much of the Union Army employed it on many occasions during the Civil War. It includes more than the burning of cities and human beings; it extends to the destruction of the land, and even the animals. More recent variations of this practice is the use of Defoliation Warfare (herbicides, Agent Orange, phosphorous, etc.). Such was used in the Vietnamese War. Biblically speaking, there are two factors which must be considered here. On the one hand, Deut. 20:19-20 explicitly forbids unnecessary destruction of fruit-bearing trees during war. This would prohibit most uses of Scorched Earth, as the Southern chaplains were quick to point out to Gen. Sherman. On the other hand, this does not entirely rule out the destruction of some vegetation. In some cases, it would seem permissible in order to attack the unjust enemy. For example, would not a just army be justified in using fire to attack an enemy army that was using an orange orchard for cover? In some cases, using anything other than fire would mean that extra human lives would be lost in the name of saving the trees. Only the most fanatical Environmentalist would plead that trees are more valuable than humans.

21. The Extremest Weapons. At this stage of the history of weaponry, all of the above are usually classed as Conventional Weapons. Unconventional Weapons fall down into three categories, often labeled the "ABC Weapons": Atomic, Biological and Chemical. Let us briefly examine them in reverse order, building up to the most extreme of all. Chemical weapons were first used on a large scale during World War I in the form of Mustard Gas. Later forms include phosgene, chlorine gas, nerve gas, blood gas, and others. Curiously, there was no 21

use of Chemical Weapons in World War II by either side, though there were a few isolated cases of poisoning water supplies of enemy troops. Signatories to the Geneva Conventions promised never to use Chemical Weapons before another did. That is, they promised not to resort to this extreme unless they had become the victims of Chemical Weapons by an enemy. The only major use of them has been by Iraq in its war against Iran. Iraq even used gas on its own people, the Kurds. Yet many other nations - including the US - have stockpiles of Chemical Weapons. Christian ethicists differ on whether the principle of Just Warfare allow for the use of Chemical Weapons. One group argues that chemicals are not fair; they don't give the enemy a fighting chance. Others reply that Chemical Weapons have several advantages over others. For one, gas can go where normal weapons - even bombs -cannot go (such as into underground bunkers through air vents). Moreover, unlike large-scale bombing, Chemical Weapons do not destroy buildings and usually do not harm the vegetation. Some fear that the gas may blow into civilian areas, but that is not always the case, especially when the battlefield is away from the cities. Personally, I am persuaded that Chemical Weapons may be justly used within the limitations of the Biblical rules of warfare. That Scripture does not explicitly mention them does not militate against their usage, any more than Biblical silence on driving cars means that we should walk and never drive automobiles. Then there are Biological Weapons, also known as Germ Warfare. This was sometimes used in the Middle Ages by armies who would intentionally infect the enemy soldiers with Bubonic Plague or anthrax. Occasionally there was some Biological Warfare in modern wars, but only in minor ways. What is debated, however, is the use of a more extreme form of Biological War than plague or anthrax. Modern "Germ Weapons" would release specially-developed micro-biological organisms into the air, against which there is no defense and for which there is no cure. The major problem with this is that the more extreme varieties may not be controllable. Anthrax is one thing, but the "Satan Bug" is another thing entirely. Biologists worry that the release of some of these would mean new mutations would develop as they spread through the atmosphere. Moreover, the infected area would have to be quarantined for years afterwards. Christians who defend this practice, on the other hand, are not advocating the indiscriminate use of uncontrollable organisms, but only the discriminate use of known and controllable ones. If such exist, then there can be no reason why they cannot be legitimately employed in a Just War. But because of the nature of them, they should be used with extreme caution and only if absolutely necessary. There are those who say that there is nothing that a Biological Weapon can do than cannot also be done with more conventional weapons which are more controllable. That may indeed be the case. I suspect that, deep down, those who object to Chemical and Biological Weapons do so because of an emotional revulsion to the imagined ways in which these devices operate. Perhaps they form their ideas from viewing science fiction movies rather than by reading serious scientific literature on the subject. In any case, the question brings us to an important fact. Opponents argue, "What a horrible way to die, being gassed with poisons and infected with diseases!" They overlook the one basic purpose of war: weapons are meant to kill. Whether by stones, arrows, bullets, fire, gas or germs, the very purpose of weapons of war is to kill the enemy. It parallels the debate over the means of Capital Punishment. Perhaps someday someone will devise a weapon which is totally painless. Actually, there have been suggestions along those lines. It may sound like science fiction, but what if scientists and engineers were to develop a sort of mass "Phasers on Stun" device which would simply put all the enemy to sleep temporarily until they could be captured by the Just Army? Such would be quite ideal. Maybe there could be a Chemical Weapon which would serve as a mass sleeping pill. Nothing would be wrong with its deployment. But we don't have such a device yet. The question of pain needs to be addressed nonetheless. Opponents of Chemical and Biological Weapons are arguing exactly as did their forebears in ages past, who argued that Flying Bombs and Firestorms brought an especially brutal way of dying. All these fail to see that, in most ways, modern 22

weapons are actually less painful than older weapons. Bombs usually kill quicker and with less pain than bows and arrows. But in the end, death is a sad but necessary means of fighting wars. That being so, there can really be no acceptable objection to Unconventional Weapons. This brings us to the extremist weapon known to Man: Nuclear Warfare. They fall down into different categories (Atomic, Hydrogen, Cobalt, even the Neutron Bomb which is said to destroy people but not buildings). The United States was the first to develop and use this extremist of all weapons. For all the debate over whether they can be justified, it would be useful to keep in mind that only two nuclear devices have ever been used in war, and those were used a half-century ago. More important to keep in mind is the fact that they ended the worst war in human history. Defenders of Nuclear Warfare - including myself - argue that horrible as the explosions on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, they ended World War II once and for all. Furthermore, the 200,000 Japanese lives lost were far fewer than the million or more lives that would have been lost had Japan not surrendered. The Empire of Japan had already been subjected to mass bombing, but they seemed determined to fight to the end in a national Kamikaze suicide. If the Allies were to win, they had two options. First, they could invade Japan, as they did in Europe. That would surely mean at least a million American, British and Chinese deaths. Moreover, imagine how many Japanese lives would be lost. The other option - the nuclear option - was chosen because it would be swifter and decisive. One could even argue that it was more merciful for the Japanese, for they most certainly would have lost at least 500,000 or more lives had the Allies invaded and prolonged the war. That being the case, I cannot agree with those who unreservedly rule out all Nuclear Warfare. One friend actually opined to me that dropping the Bomb on Hiroshima was the worst sin in human history. I sorely disagreed, and still do. Calculated by death statistics, the worst crime would be the German and Japanese aggression which began World War II. We must be sure to place blame where it belongs. Then there are "Nuclear Pacifists". They are not military Pacifists. Rather, they accept and support the doctrine of the Just War, both in theory and in practice. But because of the extremity of nuclear war, they contend that there is no way in which a nuclear war could be a just war. The effects of a nuclear bomb go against God's stated principles of just warfare. One of their arguments is the one which we have applied to Scorched Earth. True, a nuclear explosion would destroy plant and animal life for miles around. But so would a Firestorm, and such was used by the Israelites at God's command. In other words, the factors must be weighed. There are situations in which plant life must be destroyed in order to destroy guilty human life, thus protecting innocent human life. Then there is the argument that any use of nuclear arms means the annihilation of the entire human race. Well, that just is not so. It didn't happen in 1945. We would point out to our opponents that there is such a thing as a limited nuclear war. For example, a nuclear bomb could be dropped on a single large military site in a relatively small war. This might happen when the US fights a non-Soviet nation, such as Iraq. If an unjust army gathers in large numbers in a certain area, and digs in like the Japanese did, I can see no reason why a limited nuclear strike would not be a justifiable - though extreme - means of engagement. The point I wish to make is just this: there is no major qualitative difference between Conventional and Unconventional Warfare. The difference is quantitative, not qualitative. For example, let's look back at World War II. It would surprise many "Nuclear Pacifists" that more died in Hamburg and Dresden than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, the nuclear warheads of today are far greater than back then, but you see my point. The end is still the same - mass destruction. Earlier we established the principle of Proportionate Means. In modern warfare, that would mean that a Just Army must use its extremist weapons only as a last resort. Given the nature of post-WW2 warfare, it boils down to this: as war should be the last resort between nations, so nuclear warfare should be the last weapon to be used. 23

22. Total War. Probably the major objection to Unconventional Weaponry (ABC), is that it necessarily breaks one of the fundamental principles of Just Warfare: the killing of civilians. Earlier we mentioned briefly that a Just War (jus ad bell um), must be fought in a just manner (jus in bell um). This includes the principle that the Just Army should destroy only enemy soldiers; under no circumstances must noncombatants be killed unnecessarily. The problem, though, is with that vital adverb, "unnecessarily." To understand the situation properly, we need to examine several other principles relating to the question of "Total War". Total War has two aspects to it. First, there have been those such as Hitler and Goebbels (who especially popularized the term in the closing months of WW2) who have advocated a Neo-Hegelian sort of Total War. Goebbels rallied the Germans in the end by resorting to the old German notion that noble defeat is better than surrender. Thus, he called for Total War, for Germany to give the War everything it had, down to the death of every last German, if need be. Suicide is better than surrender. Biblically speaking, this sort of Total War cannot be justified. I am not just speaking of an unjust nation such as Nazi Germany. Rather, if a small nation is attacked by a much larger nation and therefore has no chance of defeating it, then it would be suicidal to declare Total War on the aggressor. In other words, the end would be the same as the worst scenario of defeat; both mean total death. In such a case, then, one would be wiser to flee, appeal to others for aid, negotiate, or accept defeat in anticipation for a future day when a successful uprising would be possible. There is another kind of Total War, however, though the terms here are somewhat fluid. Sometimes the term is applied to the total destruction of an enemy. One not only defeats him, but completely wipes him out. No prisoners are taken among either soldiers or civilians. This may be on a national scale or on a more localized scale. On a local scale, it would mean that all persons in a locality are destroyed; such would happen in ABC warfare, especially nuclear warfare. Is there any justification for this kind of Total War? To answer that, we must briefly examine what has been called "The Ban". Scripture records several instances in which God directly and verbally commanded the Israelites to completely wipe out a group of people (Deut. 2:33-34, 3:6, 7:1-5, 13:12-18, 20:16-18; Josh. 6:21, 8:24-26, 10:28-40, 11:11-23; I Sam. 15:3-9, 18, 20:16-18, 27:8-11). God placed the Canaanites "under the Ban" and ordered the Israelite army to kill every man, woman and child in the locality. This is infallibly recorded in the Bible, and so it will not do to contend - as some do - that "My God wouldn't command such a thing". The one true God did so command and the Israelites did so do on occasion. But why? The answer is to be found in several texts. Gen. 15:16 says that God gave the land to Abraham's descendants, who would take it from the Canaanites when their sin was filled up. As bad as it was at that time, it had not yet reached a certain stage. Sodom and Gomorrah evidently reached that stage in Abraham's day and were completely destroyed by God Himself (Gen. 19). Later Canaanites would reach that stage in Moses and Joshua's day, and would come "under the Ban". Lev. 18:1-30 and Deut. 18:9-14 tell us that God commanded their destruction because of two major sins: extreme sexual perversion and human sacrifices in their pagan religious rituals. Both were capital offenses. And since they were everywhere in Canaan, writes Robert Morey, "When Israel conquered Canaan, it was simply applying the death penalty on a national level." How does this apply to the question of war today? Rousas J. Rushdoony explains: "The sentence of death against Canaan is simply a realistic fact of warfare. Warfare is sometimes waged with limited objectives; at other times, war is unto death, because the nature of the struggle requires it... These laws were not applicable to all peoples but only to the most depraved. They assert a still valid general principle: if warfare is to punish and/or to destroy evil, the work of restoration requires that this be done, that an evil order be overthrown, and in 24

some cases, some or many people be executed." I do not accept all of Rushdoony's conclusions and applications, but this one I do. Just as God permitted destruction of Canaanite civilians in certain wars, so He permits the destruction of civilians in wars today if certain criteria are met. If, for example, a society existed which matched that of Canaan at the time of Joshua, then it would come under the Ban now as then. This is flatly rejected by most who are involved in the debate. Even Greg Bahnsen, a leading Theonomist, rejects the application of "The Ban" to Nuclear Warfare: "The warrant for aggressive warfare came only to Israel by direct revelation and upon special circumstances (God's temporal judgment upon an abominable society). Since such direct revelation has ceased today, no nation can claim the right to aggressive warfare to policing the world." He thus advocates Nuclear Pacifism and Isolationism. The odd thing for Bahnsen is that this undermines one of the major points of Theonomy: that Israel is to be an example, not an exception. He frequently argues in other contexts that the civil laws given to Israel were applicable to other nations, without the Ceremonial and Theocratic distinctives. But not the Ban, he says. Without advocating a full-blown Theonomy on this point, I would beg to differ with Bahnsen. God told Israel to slay the Canaanites, but He also told them to slay murderers in Israel (e.g., Num. 35). Shall we say that capital punishment was only for the Jews because of special and unrepeatable revelation? Of course not. The point is that the Canaanites deserved capital punishment, and that is exactly what war is. There is one important difference, and in this Bahnsen is correct. No other nation is like Israel in having a direct land grant from God. No, not even America. That was a Theocratic distinctive of Israel, regardless of whether one thinks that the land grant was abolished by the New Covenant or is still in force. Bahnsen rightly applies this to wars of aggression. No nation can appeal to the "Ban" passages in order to justify their land-grabbing imperialism or colonialism and mass-murder. My point is that Israel was allowed to destroy non-combatants in certain cases, and by the same standard, other nations may be permitted to kill non-combatants in certain cases. Some civilians will always be killed in war; the question is which ones and how many. There are cases - such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki - in which some civilians were killed in order that far more be saved. Moreover, there is something more here, and it touches on the Ban. In some cases, it becomes obvious that society at large, and not just the enemy soldiers, are responsible for the unjust aggression. They support the war and thereby open themselves up to attack by the Just Army. For instance, there is the modern Israeli slogan, "Israel considers every Israeli a front-line soldier." In effect, Nazi Germany had gotten to the point where those who remained in Germany were to be considered soldiers, whether they were in uniform or not. The same was true in Japan. This is especially true in the light of Goebbels declaration of "Total War" from their perspective. Japan did much the same. That being the case, then, the civilians opened themselves up to the same penalty as the soldiers. This might be illustrated in another way by looking at the "Terms of Peace" in the Old Testament. As we showed earlier, Israel was to offer "Terms of Peace" to their enemies. If they surrendered, they would live; if not, they would die. In modern parlance, it would be like saying, "Come out with your hands up and you'll live; otherwise you will all die." Rahab came out with her hands up and lived. Some Germans switched sides and lived, too. Those Canaanites who rejected the "Terms of Peace" thus aligned themselves with the guilty parties and incurred the same penalty. It is a matter of complicity. If two men rob a bank, but only one of them kills the teller, they are both guilty of murder. The other one may not have pulled the trigger, but he went along with the other robber and could have prevented it; at the least, he did not have to go with him. In war, a society is guilty of complicity when it supports the troops in unjust aggression, and so opens itself up for attack. Ideally, the soldiers alone should die, but in extreme cases, even civilians may die because of "Total War". 25

23. Why Does God Allow War? Total War is the nadir of any war, and the statistics and horror are overwhelming. The mind of Man can imagine few things worse than what is actualized in war. Mass misery, the stench of death, and scarred lives leave many wondering if it is all worth it. Some battle-scarred soldiers become Pacifists or alcoholics, many others turn cynical of life. Those who lose loved ones to war's graves beat their breasts and cry out in anguish, "Why?" Because war is such a terrible thing, many have asked the question, "Why does God allow war?" Unbelievers use the horror of war as an excuse to mock God or deny His existence ("If God exists, why are there wars?"). The faithful Christian, too, is exercised in his faith as he seeks to discover God's ultimate purpose for allowing war. God is sovereign. He has ordained everything that comes to pass, including war. He providentially rules in the affairs of men and has the final say in all matters, including war. And He uses all things to His own ultimate purpose of glory, including war. But how? We would be skeptics and atheists if we were to suggest that God has no control over war. As we know from the Word of God, God has a major purpose in everything as well as many minor purposes in each detail. Ultimately, all things will glorify God. Even war tells us something about God, who describes Himself as a "Man of War" (Ex. 15:3). He fights for good and defeats evil. Among other things, war teaches us that there is a spiritual battle going on behind individual wars. Satan inspires war by instigating sin in the hearts of men. God calls on the godly to resist the evil oppression of evil men who make war for devilish reasons. The deeper one gets involved, the more he becomes aware of the spiritual dimension. God also has individualized purposes in allowing war. He deals with individual persons according to their situation and His purpose in unique ways during war that would not be possible in times of peace. For one, He tests men's character. Will they fight the Just War or will they compromise like cowards? All tribulations test the hearts of men, and war is no exception. Therefore, it behooves every man to examine his own heart before God. Men will be driven to do that more during war than during peace. Also, God allows war in order to punish evil-doers in this life. Granted, He does not punish all evildoers in this life, and even those who are so punished face yet more punishment after death. Still, the Just War is meant to protect the innocent by thwarting and punishing the guilty. This applies even when the wicked appear to win. Augustine observed, "Every victory, even when won by wicked men, is a divine judgment to humble the conquered and to reform and punish their sin." One of the major purposes of war is to remind us of the utter seriousness of life. "There are many here among us who think that life is but a joke" (Bob Dylan, "All Along the Watchtower"). Those who espouse that folly are often rudely awakened by war. War is no joke. War is mass death. War shakes us to our very bones and reminds us that we will all one day die.

24. Counsel for Soldiers. An old adage says that there are no atheists in a foxhole. War stirs soldiers to think about God. Unfortunately, it leaves many soldiers with the awareness that they are still in their sins. This affects their living as well as their soldiering. Richard Baxter, who served as one of Cromwell's wartime chaplains, commented: "Many a debauched soldier I have known, whose conscience hath made them cowards, and shift or run away when they should venture upon death, because they knew they were unready to die, and were more afraid of Hell than of the enemy. He that is fit to be a martyr is the fittest man to be a soldier." Soldiers, get ready to meet God! Others have died in battle; you may, too. There will be many at the Judgment Day of God who left this life in an army uniform, ushered into the next life by an enemy bullet. God shouts to you in the echo of every bomb, "Prepare to meet thy God!" Alas for those who 26

fail to heed the warning. Many soldiers turn cowards in wartime. Others become Pacifists, which is much the same thing. Still others go to the opposite extreme. They indulge in military bloodlust. They glory in war. They laugh about it and boast of how many men they sent to meet God. Drunkenness and vice abound in the barracks, and they excuse it as wartime gung-ho. They follow Machiavelli rather than God. They have more in common with Hegel, Bismark and Hitler, who gloried in war, than they do with Moses, Paul and Christ. They deceive themselves into thinking that it is honorable to "go out in a blaze of glory." Strangely, such fools share the same error of many Pacifists. Both reject the idea of life after death. The Humanistic Pacifist feels that this life is all there is, and therefore nothing is worth dying for. The opposite is the soldier who reasons, "You only go around life once, so get all the gung-ho you can and go out in a blaze of glory and guns and blood." What fools. Both will wake up after death with the stark reality of facing God. Satan has deceived them and they die lost in their sins. Other soldiers heed God's warnings and turn to God in time of war. They are rightly afraid of dying, for they know they are sinners. They do the only wise thing and turn to God while there is still time. The others mock such soldiers, but there can be no more right thing to do than humbly beseech God for preparation for death. And only God can prepare us to die right. Many a soldier has been converted to Christ while praying in a foxhole or in a lonely barracks at night before the battle. In fact, there have been several great revivals of true Christianity among soldiers in war. The best example is the widespread religious revival among the Confederate troops under Stonewall Jackson. Every soldier and student of war should read the accounts for the lessons of why God allows war.

25. The End of War. There is one last purpose in God's permission of war that deserves attention. All wars are foreshadows of that last great war between Man and God. Morey calls them "eschatological pictures of the judgment when Christ returns." Scripture compares Christ's Second Coming to the great divine destruction of ungodliness in history, such as the Flood (Matt. 24:36-39), Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:24-33), and the Destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 24). Men are currently waging war against God. That war will culminate in the Battle of Armageddon. Contrary to popular misconceptions, Armageddon is not so much a war between men as between all men and God. It is a war which Man all men - will lose. Christ will be the victor, and He will destroy all His enemies. Jesus told us that there will be wars and rumors of wars until He returns (Dan. 9:26; Matt. 24:6). But He will put an end to warfare; After the Judgment Day, He will abolish all war. Listen to His promises: "He makes wars to cease to the ends of the earth" (Psa. 46:9). "And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war" (Isa. 2:4.,Cf. Micah 4:1-3; Hosea 2:18; Zech. 9:10). Until that day, let us not prematurely beat our swords or other weapons into plowshares. For in the meantime, God allows and commands the Just War, and requires that it be fought in a just way God's way. To God alone be the glory.

Recommended Reading Morey, Robert A. When Is It Right to Fight? Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1985. Boettner, Loraine. The Christian Attitude Toward War. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1985. 27

LIoyd-Jones, D. Martyn. Why Does God Allow War? London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1939 (reprinted Bryntirion: Evangelical Press of Wales, 1986). Clouse, Robert G., ed. War: Four Christian Views. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981 (reprinted Winona Lake: BMH Books, 1986). Holmes, Arthur F., ed. War and Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975. Payne, Keith B.; and Payne, Karl I. A Just Defense. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1987. Thieme, R.B., Jr. War: Moral or Immoral? Houston: Berachah Church, 1970. Ramsey, Paul. War and the Christian Conscience. Durham: Duke University Press, 1961. Ramsey, Paul. The Just War. New York: Scrinbers, 1968 (rep. Lanham: UPA, 1983). Hobbs, T.R. A Time for War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989. Barclay, Oliver R., ed. Pacifism and War. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984. Lindsell, Harold. The Armageddon Spectre. Westchester: Crossway Books, 1985. Schaeffer, Francis, et al. Who Is For Peace? Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983. Harnack, Adolf. Militia Christi: The Christian Religion and the Military in the First Three Centuries. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Yadin, Yigael. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands. 2 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963. Luther, Martin. Luther's Works, vol. 46, pp. 87-137. St. Louis: Concordia Press, 1958. Jones, J. William. Christ in the Camp. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications, 1986 (1887). Dabney, Robert Lewis. Discussions, vol. I, pp. 614-625. Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1982. Rutherford, Samuel. Lex Rex. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications, 1982. Brutus, Junius. A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants. Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1963. Bainton, Roland. Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace. Nashville: Abingdon, 1983. Baxter, Richard. The Practical Works of Richard Baxter, vol. I, pp. 774-777. Ligonier: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1990. Meeter, H. Henry. The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, pp. 158-186. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990. O'Brien, William. The Conduct of Just and Limited War. New York: Praeger, 1981. Stott, John R.W. Issues Facing Christians Today, pp. 80-108. Old Tappan: Revel, 1990. North, Gary. Healer of the Nations. Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1987. Clausewitz, Carl Von. On War. New York: Penguin Books, 1982. Curry, Dean C. A World Without Tyranny. Westchester: Crossway Books, 1990.

28

Suggest Documents