What does the Bible say about war?

War is the natural consequence of sin being in the world, and men and nations coveting the possessions of others. James 4:1-3. The principal wars recorded in scripture are, however, different: they are those of Israel in taking possession of Canaan for Jehovah as the Lord's host, and in maintaining their position in His land, for which they had divine instruction. Their warfare is typical of the conflict of Christians against principalities, powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this world and against spiritual wickedness in the heavenlies. Eph. 6:12. There are also the wars against Israel, when God used other nations to punish them. But God always maintained His rights in His own people and in His own land.

When Jehovah destroyed the army of Pharaoh in the Red Sea, He was called 'a man of war,' and this and other victories were recorded in "the book of the wars of Jehovah." Ex. 15:3; Num. 21:14. David could say of God, "He teacheth my hands to war." 2 Sam. 22:35; Ps. 18:34.

1878 158 That war is wholly opposed to the christian spirit, as well as to all the precepts of our Lord, no soul subject to scripture will deny; and so far the Society of Friends is quite right in calling attention to it. Among Christians it is absolutely unjustifiable. But we have in this Appeal assertions that, to say the least, confuse the mind, and for which the humblest Christian may ask, Have we for these the authority of scripture? To my mind, the Appeal (well-intentioned as it is) lacks God's word in its most important statements, as, e.g., the two first, on which it is based. To warrant them, the Friends can produce no scriptural proof. But to assert that scripture teaches so-and-so, when it teaches otherwise, wherever it treats of the matter in question, is serious and mischievous.

How wonderful to think of the Lord as a Man of war! Think of His fighting against people! Some find it very hard to take in the idea — to understand how a benevolent Being could act in such a character. But the difficulty arises mainly from not distinguishing between the different dispensations. It was just as consistent with the character of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to fight against His enemies, as it is with the character of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to forgive them. And inasmuch as it is the revealed character of God that furnishes the model on which His people are to be found — the standard by which they are to act, it was quite as consistent for Israel to cut their enemies in pieces, as it is for us to love them, pray for them, and do them good.

If this very simple principle were borne in mind, it would remove a quantity of misunderstanding, and save a vast amount of unintelligent discussion. No doubt it is thoroughly wrong for the church of God to go to war. No one can read the New Testament, with a mind free from bias, and not see this. We are positively commanded to love our enemies, to do good to them that hate us, and to pray for them that despitefully use us. "Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword." And again, in another gospel, "Then said Jesus to Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father has given me, shall I not drink it?" Again, our Lord says to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight" — it would be perfectly consistent for them so to do — … "But now is my kingdom not from hence" — and therefore it would be wholly out of character utterly inconsistent, thoroughly wrong for them to fight.

Ah this is so plain that we need only say, "How readest thou?" Our blessed Lord did not fight; He meekly and patiently submitted to all manner of abuse and ill-treatment, and in so doing He left us an example that we should follow His steps. If we only honestly ask ourselves the question, "What would Jesus do?" it would close all discussion on this point as well as on a thousand other points besides. There is really no use in reasoning, no need of it. If the words and ways of our blessed Lord, and the distinct teaching of His Spirit, by His holy apostles, be not sufficient for our guidance, all discussion is utterly vain.

We were discussing these things with a friend before the outbreak of the war. He endeavoured to maintain that it was possible for a country like Great Britain to adopt a policy in regard to other nations that would be in entire accord with Christian principles and precepts. We said in reply, “You will admit that the Christian is exhorted to ‘resist not evil,' and, ‘if thine enemy smite thee on the one cheek turn the other also.' Suppose, then, by way of illustration, that Germany deliberately, and without warning, struck the blow at Britain that she has been preparing for years. If she invaded South Africa , for instance, would you say, ‘Take India also, we shall not resist'”? Or if she sunk a battleship would you say, “You may sink another, we shall only return good for evil, and love for hatred”? “Certainly not,” he answered, “I should be for striking back swiftly and hard.” And his own answer proved to him that his view of things had been entirely wrong. The United States is professedly Christian. Yet when the Maine was sunk by a Spanish mine off Havanah in 1898, “Remember the Maine ” became the cry that roused the whole country to war with Spain .

If a nation acted upon Christian principles it could not strike back when stricken; it would possess neither battleships nor sword to strike back with, and it does not require a very keen intellect to discern what the result of such a policy would be in the world as it is. It is possible for the individual Christian to willingly and joyfully carry out these precepts, but for a nation it is impossible, for, as we have said, Christianity is an individual and not a national matter. In the present state of the world force is necessary for the maintenance of authority and of the measure of righteousness which is maintained, whether internationally or nationally. The policeman, magistrate, army and navy are indispensable, and these are permitted of God, and so far have His sanction, for the punishment of evildoers, and for His people's sake. But these would not be necessary if the kingdoms of this world were the Lord's kingdoms.

When arraigned before Pilate the Lord said, “IF MY KINGDOM WERE OF THIS WORLD, THEN WOULD MY SERVANTS FIGHT” (John 18:36). And that statement from the lips of Eternal Truth should be sufficient to show how great is the gulf that lies between the kingdoms of this world and His kingdom who was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and who forbade the valiant Peter to draw the sword on His behalf. To the kingdoms of this world war is an unhappy necessity. They have been founded mainly by blood; they maintain their place in the sun, and hold what they possess mainly by the power of the sword; and they will go down to an ignominious and terrible destruction together in one last, frenzied struggle for the mastery of the world, and thus shall it be that room shall be made for the kingdom of the Lord, which kingdom shall be established according to inflexible righteousness, and so shall universal peace prevail. Thus it is written in the sure word of prophecy, and for this the Christian waits.

Where did that “HELL” that everyone who has been at the front in Flanders says he has seen spring from? It did not spring up out of the ground, neither did it fall down out of heaven. Where, then, had it its origin? It had its origin in the corrupt, selfish, covetous heart of man. James says, “From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain” (4:1-2). This is the secret of all contention, such as is going on in this war, and in the heart of man this “Hell” has most surely originated, and on some head, or heads, will the hand of God fall with terrific force some day. But that day has net come yet, and that is one reason why He has not shown His hand in connection with it, on one side or on the other.

But suppose, instead of doing good, and having praise of the ruler, a man does evil, what then? "Be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain." Assuredly, if the ruler is not to use the sword, he does bear it in vain. He might as well, or better, not bear it at all; for an idle threat is a proof of feebleness, and a brutum fulmen brings a ruler, of all men, into contempt. St. Paul, however, anticipates no such dereliction of duty on the part of the magistrate, but warns the ill-disposed that he is God's servant, "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." The passage is clear as noonday. It demonstrates that the authority of the sword delegated to Noah and his sons, as representatives of government, is no more repealed or neutralised by the grace of the Christian revelation, than it had been by the righteousness of the Mosaic code. It proves that the Christian is bound to respect that sword by whatever hands it may be wielded. Even if the magistrate were an infidel, if he degraded his office by regarding the popular will, not God, as the source of his authority, the Christian is not the less bound to own God's authority in him, and to honour him as God's minister in worldly things, in "the things of Caesar." It is mere delusion, therefore, to suppose that Christianity deprives a government of the authority to punish evil-doers with the sword. St. Paul, as we have seen, fully recognises that power, and describes the ruler as one authorised by God to avenge evil. To speak of mercy, amendment, etc., as the sole or chief aim when law is violated and a man is convicted of murder, for instance, is to evince the utmost confusion of thought. For while grace is the central idea in God's scheme for saving sinners by the cross, justice is and must be the foundation of all earthly government, Jewish or Gentile. Doubtless, in the gospel God can and does justify — not pardon only, but justify — the chief of sinners freely, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. But thence to infer that a world's ruler ought to deal on the same principle towards criminals, is, in my opinion, to despise both revelation and reason.

Some, I am aware, find a difficulty because of Matt. 5:38, etc., and similar texts. This is due to a failure in seizing the bearing of these scriptures; for no believer would even insinuate that one part of God's word contradicts another. Now we have seen Rom. 13 to teach distinctly that the ruler is to be owned as bearing not the sword in vain; as an avenger to execute wrath on him that doeth evil; in short, as God's minister in earthly things, no less than Paul and Apollos were God's ministers in heavenly things. This chapter formally sets the Christian in the place of subjection to the powers that be, asserts the authority which God has vested in them, and finally makes it a matter not of wrath merely, but of conscience to the believer. Matt. 5 is in quite another direction, but perfectly consistent with the former teaching. Here the Lord instructs His disciples in their individual path, not their relation to governors, and puts their calling to walk in grace, active or passive, in contrast with the Jews, who were called to act in the righteousness of the law. It is absurd to apply such a passage to a government or a worldly tribunal. If it did so apply, it would prove that magistrates ought to caress and reward every culprit, instead of punishing any.

So far as to Israel, simply looked at as from within: a sterner duty awaited them as to the land into which Jehovah was about to bring them. They were completely to destroy out of it the Canaanite inhabitants, showing them no mercy, making no covenant or alliance with them. Over and over again the cause of this has been explained. They were a people whose iniquity was now full, as in Abraham's time it yet was not. (Gen. 15.) The land itself was spuing them out for their abominations, and Israel was in this respect but the executioner of divine judgment, not of their own passion or lust of acquisition. Instead of destroying them, as He might, by plague or famine, He chose Israel to perform this office, and thus gave His people themselves the most solemn lesson that could be given them, in the holiness of His own nature, and in what sin is before Him. They themselves would incur similar awful judgments if they followed them in their sin, of which their loathsome gods of lust and murder were the full outcome and expression. There must be no dalliance with this evil, no league of any kind with those infected with it. Axe and fire must deal with all its symbols, and Israel must be wholly devoted to Him who had set His love upon them in all their insignificance, and in that love, and faithful to His promise to their fathers, had now redeemed them to Himself. Thus they knew God, this true and faithful God, — faithful in holy judgment as in loving mercy.

To proceed with Psalm 46. In the concluding section delivered Israel says, "Come, behold the works of the Lord, what desolations He has made in the earth. He makes wars to cease to the end of the earth: He breaks the bow, and cuts the spear in sunder; He burns the chariot in the fire" (v. 8-9). War is not yet at an end, the sorrowful events of the present time being witness. But when the last great crisis has come and gone, with all its unparalleled horrors and bloodshed, men will delight in instruments of destruction no more. Under the beneficent reign of the great King "they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" (Isa. 2:4). Happy time for this poor distracted scene!

Our Lord Jesus Christ has left us an example that we should follow His steps. Can we trace His footsteps into a field of battle? We are called to walk even as He walked. Is it walking like Him to go to war? True, we fail in many things, but if we are asked if it be right for a Christian to go to war, we can only answer the question by a reference to Christ. How did He act? What did He teach? Did He ever take the sword? Did He come to destroy men's lives? Did He not say, “He that takes the sword shall perish by the sword?” And again, “I say to you, that ye resist not evil.” How do such words agree with going to war? But some will say, “What would become of us if all were to adopt such principles?” We reply, If all were to adopt those heavenly principles, there would be no more war and hence we should not need to fight. But it is not our business to reason as to the results of obedience; we have only to obey the Word of our blessed Master and walk in His steps. If we do so, we shall most assuredly not be found going to war.

(Vv. 1-3). The Apostle has spoken of disorder and strife amongst the professing people of God. Now he asks, “From whence come wars and fightings among you?” He traces the wars amongst the people of God to the lusts of the heart finding expression in the members of the body. To gratify lust the flesh is prepared to kill and fight. In a literal sense this is true of the world and its wars. In a moral sense, if we are bent on carrying out our own wills, the flesh will ruthlessly belittle and override everyone that hinders the fulfilment of our desires.

If our desires are legitimate, there is no need to fight amongst ourselves to obtain them; we can ask of God. It is true, however, that we may not obtain an answer to our prayers, because we may ask with the wrong motive of gratifying some lust.