A complete theology of war must answer a number of questions: What is God's role in war? Does God cause war, and if so, in what sense does he cause it?1 What is the place of human sin in war? What is the purpose of war? When and how will war end? What are the ethical principles that Christians must consider in relation to war? As with just about almost every other doctrine, a theology of war is unavoidably connected with the doctrines of divine sovereignty, human sin, eschatology, and several others. And if we were to apply our theological formulations, it would also affect our view regarding the history, sociology, and science of war.
That said, our present aim is very narrow. I intend only to settle one question, namely, "Is it ever right to fight?" – that is, whether Christian theology produces an ethic that forbids all wars. Based on various biblical passages, many have correctly arrived at the understanding that Christianity is essentially a non-violent religion. But from this, some have further deduced that all forms of destructive physical force are excluded by the Christian faith. In the area of warfare, the Christian position then becomes one of religious pacifism, which maintains that it is immoral or sinful for the Christian to participate in any war. The Bible knows no "just war" theory that allows the bearing of arms by the Christian to take the lives of others.
In the following pages, I will present some of the biblical data on the subject, and then proceed to formulate a synthesis in order to answer the question of whether it is sometimes right to fight, even for the Christian, or whether the Bible prescribes pacifism as a moral necessity. In the process, we will also produce some conclusions regarding the use of force in personal self-defense. Due to the number of passages to be cited, and to preserve brevity, no detailed exposition will be provided for each biblical passage. In any case, the relevance of most passages will be evident, and those that are not will be quickly explained.
The Old Testament relates numerous instances in which God's people goes to war either with his approval or explicit command:
The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim. Moses said to Joshua, "Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of God in my hands." So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. When Moses' hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up – one on one side, one on the other – so that his hands remained steady till sunset. So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." Moses built an altar and called it The LORD is my Banner." (Exodus 17:8-15)
After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD said to Joshua son of Nun, Moses' aide: "Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them – to the Israelites. I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses. Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates – all the Hittite country – to the Great Sea on the west. No one will be able to stand up against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you." (Joshua 1:1-5)
Not all Old Testament wars are fought in self-defense, but some are initiated by God's command to his people according to his plans and purposes. When King Saul, in sparing the life of King Agag, fails to carry out God's instructions fully, Samuel hastens to complete the assignment: "But Samuel said, 'As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.' And Samuel hewed Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal" (1 Samuel 15:33, NASB).
More than once, when the people of God inquire of him concerning military decisions, he responds with approval and assurance, and at times even provides the strategy that would lead to victory:
David and his men reached Ziklag on the third day. Now the Amalekites had raided the Negev and Ziklag. They had attacked Ziklag and burned it, and had taken captive the women and all who were in it, both young and old. They killed none of them, but carried them off as they went on their way. When David and his men came to Ziklag, they found it destroyed by fire and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive. So David and his men wept aloud until they had no strength left to weep. David's two wives had been captured – Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail, the widow of Nabal of Carmel. David was greatly distressed because the men were talking of stoning him; each one was bitter in spirit because of his sons and daughters. But David found strength in the LORD his God. Then David said to Abiathar the priest, the son of Ahimelech, "Bring me the ephod." Abiathar brought it to him, and David inquired of the LORD, "Shall I pursue this raiding party? Will I overtake them?" "Pursue them," he answered. "You will certainly overtake them and succeed in the rescue." (1 Samuel 30:1-8)
Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jahaziel son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, a Levite and descendant of Asaph, as he stood in the assembly. He said: "Listen, King Jehoshaphat and all who live in Judah and Jerusalem! This is what the LORD says to you: 'Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast army. For the battle is not yours, but God's. Tomorrow march down against them. They will be climbing up by the Pass of Ziz, and you will find them at the end of the gorge in the Desert of Jeruel. You will not have to fight this battle. Take up your positions; stand firm and see the deliverance the LORD will give you, O Judah and Jerusalem. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Go out to face them tomorrow, and the LORD will be with you.'" Jehoshaphat bowed with his face to the ground, and all the people of Judah and Jerusalem fell down in worship before the LORD. (2 Chronicles 20:14-18)
Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city." (Joshua 8:1-2)
David even adds in Psalm 144:1, "Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle." But beyond directing his people on how to war, the Old Testament portrays God himself as a mighty warrior, an active participant in war, conquering his foes:
The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name. (Exodus 15:3)
Whenever the ark set out, Moses said, "Rise up, O LORD! May your enemies be scattered; may your foes flee before you." (Numbers 10:35)
The chariots of God are tens of thousands and thousands of thousands; the Lord has come from Sinai into his sanctuary. When you ascended on high, you led captives in your train; you received gifts from men, even from the rebellious – that you, O LORD God, might dwell there. (Psalm 68:17-18)
The LORD will march out like a mighty man, like a warrior he will stir up his zeal; with a shout he will raise the battle cry and will triumph over his enemies. (Isaiah 42:13)
Examples for all the above types of biblical passages may be amply multiplied. But lest the reader become impatient with too many quotations, and to leave room for the New Testament data, we will now proceed to the next section.
The New Testament does not contain the type of passages that address the topic of warfare as the Old Testament does, but this relative silence does not translate into agnosticism on the subject for the Christian. Rather than asserting a false dispensational theology that divides the Old and New Testaments, we affirm that silence in the New implies agreement with the Old. Popular readership, brainwashed by poor theology, often assumes a sharp dichotomy between the Old and New Testaments, while the Bible itself asserts the essential unity and continuity of the two.
Therefore, we agree with Loraine Boettner's assessment: "There is absolutely no question that in the Old Testament wars were sanctioned as a means of gaining righteous ends…When rightly understood the two Testaments are supplementary, not contradictory. The silence of the New Testament on the subject of war apparently rests on the assumption that the subject had been adequately treated and did not call for any addition or modification."2
Note that our question is, "Is it ever right to fight?" and not how often is it right to fight, or under what conditions is warfare justified. We proceed with the acknowledgment that the New Testament's view of war is like the Old. Our interaction with the New Testament will mainly consist of showing that the teaching of Jesus and the apostles does not lead to pacifism, nor does it alter the view of war as presented in the Old Testament, and thus provides an affirmative answer to our question, that it is sometimes right to fight.
One of the most cited biblical verses in support of pacifism is Matthew 5:39, where Jesus says, "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." But we must be sensitive to the use of hyperbolic language in the teaching of Jesus. This verse appears in a context where Jesus also says, "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell" (Matthew 5:29-30).
Therefore, verse 39 may also be interpreted with the possibility in mind that Jesus employs hyperbole. The point of the verse is to speak against avenging oneself of personal wrongs and insults, and does not constitute an open welcome of abuse in every type of situation. It is true that some people seem to consider the biblical passages they refuse to accept as figurative, so that the Scripture loses its claim on their souls. However, this is not done when we say that verse 39 is hyperbolic, since the behavior of both Jesus and Paul give evidence to this understanding:
Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. "I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said." When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded. "If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" (John 18:19-23)
Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, "My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day." At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!" (Acts 23:1-3)
Neither of them "turn the other cheek," but protest against the wrongful violence directed against them. How this reconciles with Matthew 5:39 to produce a principle on how to react when suffering under abuse I will not say here, but let it be known that the Sermon on the Mount does not teach that one must always have no reaction, or even to have a positive reaction, when coming under unjust cruelty and insult.
Except for the irreverent souls who would suppose that Jesus and the apostles3 could act hypocritically, their examples serve to illustrate how one may understand relevant passages in the Bible. Thus, Exodus 20:12 does not contradict Matthew 8:22, and then also note Mark 7:10-13.4 The important principle is to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, so as to render specific and explicit the meaning of a given verse.
In addition, Matthew 5:39 applies to personal injustice, and does not automatically forbid military actions, capital punishment, or self-defense. Often, the verse has been used against all of these things except to promote patience when suffering personal insults and wrongs. Boettner explains, "If we are truly Christian, we will live unselfish lives, not always seeking to vindicate our own petty dignity, but returning good for evil…A reasonable amount of patience on our part, together with the manifestation of a good motive, will go a long way toward smoothing over difficulties."5 This appears to be closer to the intended meaning of Jesus than the pacifist's interpretation, and does not exclude the use of physical force for reasons of retributive justice or national security.
Luke says John the Baptist "went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Luke 3:3). While giving instructions for godly living directed at specific groups of people, some soldiers ask him, "And what should we do?" If there ever is an opportunity for John to speak up against military service, this would be it – and he knows Roman soldiers fight wars and kill people. He answers, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely – be content with your pay" (v. 14). While warning them of sins and temptations that surface frequently for them, he speaks nothing directly against their profession, and does not call them murderers for being soldiers.
Having mentioned murder in connection with warfare, let us now deal with the pacifist's argument against all wars from the basis on the Sixth Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13, KJV). Translating the Hebrew word rasah (or ratsach) as "kill" has been the source of much confusion relating to establishing the Christian view on warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense. The NIV appropriately states the commandment as, "You shall not murder." William White endorses this latter translation as "a more precise reading than the too-general KJV 'thou shalt not kill.'"6
I define murder as the unjustified killing of another human being; a justified killing would be one sanctioned by biblical precepts. When we speak of justification for an action, we refer to intellectual reasons sufficient to establish the act as morally good or acceptable. If killing another human being requires such a justification to be present in the mind of the one who kills, then murder is no longer mainly a physical act, but is as much intellectual in nature as it is physical. That the proposed definition requires a conscious moral justification in the mind of the one who kills is consistent with Matthew 5:22 and 1 John 3:15,7 which makes a person who strikes with an unjustified intent to kill a murderer in the sight of God even if his victim survives.8
There are those who wish to adopt a much broader definition, and may allege that the one proposed above imports information and concepts foreign to the commandment itself as stated. They wish to understand the verse to say that any killing, or at least any intentional killing,9 of another human being as constituting murder. However, if our opponents would like to take the words of the commandment at their face value without understanding them in the light of the rest of Scripture, then even the killing of bacteria may be considered immoral, since the verse does not exclude this by virtue of its own wording.
But once we allow knowledge of other parts of the Bible, we see that God at least permits the slaughter of animals for food: "The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything" (Genesis 9:2-3).10
To kill an animal, therefore, is not murder; to kill an animal that belongs to another person without his permission is still not murder, but only theft, which is serious enough in itself. God provides instructions for the treatment of animals and warns against abuse, and Proverbs 12:10 says, "A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal"; nevertheless, even a righteous man may kill his livestock to put food on the table, and he has committed no murder.
In Genesis 9:6, God restricts the definition of murder to the killing of human beings due to the fact that they have been made in the divine image: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Here, as elucidated in other places of the Bible, God institutes capital punishment as just compensation for murder. But if capital punishment is itself murder, it would require that the executioner be executed also, and whoever executes the first executioner would also be a murderer, and so on ad infinitum. Biblical teaching is such that it is not murder to perform a just execution of a criminal deserving of such according to divine precepts. And so the murderer is to be killed, and the executioner is not thus morally culpable in the sight of God.
By the same principle, not all wars involve murder, since some are divine sanctioned, either by special revelation or the moral precepts of Scripture. One may question whether unjustified individual killings of other human beings in the context of war – such as civilians, foreigners, and children – constitute murder. This is a good question, but it is not as plain and straightforward as it may first appear, and therefore we will not discuss it here.
The above has demonstrated that Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture, and any passage should be read in the light of the whole scope of divine revelation – never out of context, and often not even only within its immediate context. This should be encouragement enough for Christians to study systematic theology day and night. In any case, if our opponents will only take as seriously the Bible's unqualified condemnation against such things as homosexuality, materialism, divination, and non-Christian religions, our society's spiritual and moral climate would improve.
Prior to his arrest, Jesus gives instructions to his disciples: "Then Jesus asked them, 'When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?' 'Nothing,' they answered. He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one'" (Luke 22:35-36). Some pacifists, but probably not many, try to make the sword into a reference to "the sword of the Spirit" (Ephesians 6:17), but are the purse, bag, cloak, and sandals also spiritual? If not, then neither is the sword spiritual unless there is good reason to believe otherwise. Nor does the sword represent an aggressive spiritual attitude, as some say, since one cannot buy an attitude with the money gained from selling a cloak.
Jesus is clearly telling his disciples to purchase weapons for self-defense. Whereas he was still with them when he sent them out before to preach, he would soon depart from them, and they are thus encouraged to obtain the proper tools for self-preservation, such as sandals and swords. Likewise, in terms of God's moral precepts, we should be permitted to acquire reasonable means by which we may secure our own welfare and protection, although in practice such freedom may be heavily regulated and restricted by the laws of the land.
Shortly after this, Judas betrays Christ into the hands of his enemies, and as he is being arrested, Peter11 strikes out with his sword and wounds one of the men: "While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, 'Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?' When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, 'Lord, should we strike with our swords?' And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, 'No more of this!' And he touched the man's ear and healed him" (Luke 22:47-51).
Against our assertion that Jesus permits using physical force in self-defense as inferred from his instruction for the disciples to obtain weapons, the pacifist objects that Jesus promptly stops the disciples from resorting to violence, and heals the one already wounded by Peter. Matthew's account of this incident adds, "'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword'" (Matthew 26:52). That Jesus statement comes in the form of a proverb is relevant to how it may be interpreted and applied, but we may grant an adequate answer without exploiting this fact.
We can agree that Jesus does not want the disciples to physically defend him against those who have come to arrest him. However, the passage cannot be used to prove that Jesus forbids all uses of weapons in self-defense. In Luke 22:38, we read, "The disciples said, 'See, Lord, here are two swords.' 'That is enough,' he replied." Some try to have Jesus exclaim, "That is enough!" as if to express frustration over the disciples' lack of spiritual aptitude in failing to understand that he refers to the sword of the Spirit. But as we have established, neither the sword of the Spirit nor spiritual aggressiveness can be purchased with money obtained by selling one's cloak.
Now, if "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" is intended as a universal prohibition against violence, even in self-defense, then Jesus could instruct the disciples to dispose of their swords – but he does not. He says to Peter, "Put your sword back in its place" (Matthew 26:52), rather than to discard it altogether. This would be another lost opportunity if Jesus does not want the disciples to own any weapons.
Finally, the obvious reason for Jesus to restrain the disciples is recorded in John's account: "Jesus commanded Peter, 'Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?'" (John 18:11). Jesus has been telling his disciples of the things that he must suffer (Matthew 16:21), and this is one situation where injustice is not to be resisted: "Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" Therefore, the biblical view is that force is permitted in self-defense, and the example of Jesus' arrest does not contradict this.
Besides the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus instructs one to "turn the other cheek," the most popular objection against using physical force is probably his command to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39). When speaking of murder, we have seen how important correct definitions are; I propose that the pacifist in this case is using a definition of love that is foreign to Scripture. As with the former discussion, we must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, so that a concept expressed in one verse may be defined and illustrated by other parts of the Bible.
First, we must insist that love and the use of physical force in biblically sanctioned circumstances are not mutually exclusive. Even the commandment of Jesus to love originates in the Old Testament: "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD" (Leviticus 19:18) – and we need not repeat what the Old Testament says about war. Therefore, we reject the false view that the New Testament teaches a "love ethic" that contradicts the Old Testament "law ethic"; instead, both the Old and New Testaments command God's people to walk in love, and the definition of love remains the same.
Paul defines love in Romans 13:10, saying, "Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."12 Love does not abolish the moral laws of God, but fulfills them; it performs what the law commands. Galatians 5:14 says that love is a summary of the law, and not its replacement: "The entire law is summed up in a single command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" A summary that summarizes nothing is meaningless; the Christian concept of love depends on God's moral laws.
Some say that if one walks in love, he will not need to consciously obey the Ten Commandments – one who loves another will not steal from him. However, without already knowing the commandment not to steal, how does one know that this is what love implies? "Love" by itself is without intelligible content, and remains undefined. The problem is that they think of love almost as a mystical force, but if so, there is nothing to consciously obey.
Jesus says, "If you love me, you will obey what I command" (John 14:15). To walk in love is to obey God's moral laws, including the Ten Commandments. Note Ezekiel's prophecy regarding the New Covenant: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws" (Ezekiel 36:26-27). Rather than being free from all moral laws, the Christian is given the ability to obey them. And in this way love is clearly defined – perhaps uncomfortably so for liberals and antinomians.
In the same passage where Paul states, "Love does no harm to its neighbor" (Romans 13:10), he also says concerning the law enforcement official, "For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (v. 4). There is no contradiction if we allow the Bible to define love, so that verse 4 excludes the idea of absolute non-violence from verse 10. It is obvious that many people's definition of love contradicts verse 4, and they try to read it into verse 10 and other texts that mention the subject.
The difference in love's definition generates one of the greatest misunderstandings between unbelievers and informed Christians, with the unbelievers being usually the ones at fault. They have taken the biblical command to love, and require the Christians to submit to this command using the unbelievers' definition of love. But we are only obligated to love as the Bible defines the concept. While unbelievers may have a definition of love resembling "affection resulting in non-harmful, non-offensive, nonthreatening words and deeds," biblical love requires us to obey God's moral laws, to speak the truth (Ephesians 4:15), and to "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them" (Ephesians 5:11).
If the unbelievers wish to hold us accountable for obeying biblical commands, they must then also allow us to believe and practice all of the Bible, including taking a stance against homosexuality, abortion, and non-Christian religions – from our perspective, this does not contradict the command to love, since the same Bible commands them. Although the Bible says, "God is love" (1 John 4:8), he is also the one who sends unbelievers to hell (Matthew 10:28). Truth and justice are thoroughly consistent with the biblical concept of love. If the unbelievers wish to define love differently, they can only do so based on an authority that demands our submission – our authority is God, what is theirs?
Some pacifists sincerely believe that the Bible forbids all forms of violence under all circumstances; they are to be faulted for poor exegesis. However, there are some who care little what the Bible really says, but desire to use it in support of their stubborn presuppositions regarding such issues.
But most pacifists, especially the secular type, are not so because of misunderstanding Scripture, since they do not even read it; rather, they have accepted an ideological principle that has never been scrutinized, but nevertheless has been imposed upon them. They are like those whose objection against religion is, "I refuse to let anyone tell me what to believe; I would like to think for myself" when this very principle of independent thinking has been taught them by their parents and teachers. In effect, they are simply refusing to hear from God, but remain open to all sorts of influence from their culture.
The instruction in the secular classroom often amounts to, "Do not let anyone, especially those speaking on the basis of religion or tradition, tell you what to think; think for yourselves. And in this hour of lecture, I will be telling you how and what you must think when you are thinking for yourselves." Students should try openly opposing evolution, homosexuality, and abortion in the classroom, and see just how independent most instructors allow their thinking to be. Rather than putting on a pretense of neutrality and boasting a spirit of "free-thinking," the Christian maintains that submitting to authority in the intellectual realm is unavoidable; the question is to whose authority will one submit. We will either submit our thoughts to God, or as our first parents had done, become ensnared to the deceptions of Satan while thinking that we are attaining autonomy.
The unthinking pacifism considered here is most evident on college campuses, where students who know next to nothing concerning international politics and the details concerning specific clashes between nations, would rally in large crowds to protest against wars. Knowing as little as they do, and while protesting against violence, they nevertheless often end up favoring one nation when both parties involved are using physical force. And the one they take sides against is not always the one who started the conflict – often it is only because it is winning.
This type of pacifism, as with most of the other opinions of college students, is to be disregarded intellectually, even if it is impossible for politicians to ignore. Occasionally, a few college students may give relatively good arguments for their views, whether on pacifism or another subject. But these are rare, and even if we were to listen to them, it would only be possible if they are willing to distinguish themselves from the mob. Since this is no place for a theology of the mob, we will conclude with the following summary.
The Old Testament positively affirms that some wars are justified, and the New Testament does not revoke this position. As to which wars are justified, we must judge on the basis of biblical precepts. It is not against divine moral principles for a Christian to be a soldier or policeman, and to perform justified killings in the line of duty.
The Westminster Confession says:
It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions. (Chapter 25, Section 2)13
Likewise, Calvin writes:
But kings and people must sometimes take up arms to execute such public vengeance. On this basis we may judge wars lawful which are so undertaken. For if power has been given them to preserve the tranquillity of their dominion, to restrain the seditious stirrings of restless men, to help those forcibly oppressed, to punish evil deeds – can they use it more opportunely than to check the fury of one who disturbs both the repose of private individuals and the common tranquillity of all, who raises seditious tumults, and by whom violent oppressions and vile misdeeds are perpetrated?…Indeed, if they rightly punish those robbers whose harmful acts have affected only a few, will they allow a whole country to be afflicted and devastated by robberies with impunity? For it makes no difference whether it be a king or the lowest of the common folk who invades a foreign country in which he has no right, and harries it as an enemy. All such must, equally, be considered as robbers and punished accordingly. Therefore, both natural equity and the nature of the office dictate that princes must be armed not only to restrain the misdeeds of private individuals by judicial punishment, but also to defend by war the dominions entrusted to their safekeeping, if at any time they are under enemy attack. And the Holy Spirit declares such wars to be lawful by many testimonies of Scripture." (Book 4, Chapter 20, Section 11)14
Christ's command to love does not forbid the believer from using physical force, or even weapons, for the purpose of defending themselves and their families; nevertheless, it should be understood that excessive force is excluded by the same commandment. Here we refer to the moral liberty of the Christian; the legal freedom to practice self-defense is often regulated and restricted by the laws of the land.
Although pacifism is both unrealistic and unbiblical, we may sympathize with those who have come to this view due to the traumatic effects of war on their families and relationships; yet, we must maintain that Scripture affirms some wars as having divine sanction, and are thus justified.
Endnotes: