Tag Archives: pacifism

The Bible & War: The Conquest

8 Replies

The Conquest of the Promised Land is, for many people, a troubling time in Israel’s history. I’ve talked before about God’s ordering the destruction of the peoples of Canaan; I won’t spend time on it now. What I want to focus on is the role of God in the Conquest.

He had promised the Israelites that He would drive out the peoples of this land, little by little. He told them that the battles would not depend on the strength of Israel’s army, but on the strength of Israel’s God.

So, what happened? Why were the Israelites unable to complete the Conquest? The Bible points to their unfaithfulness, beginning with the foolishness of the treaty with the Gibeonites. Later passages suggest that they failed to destroy the idols of the nations of Canaan, and that this failure was the biggest contributor to their failings.

In the end, we need to see that the Conquest was the fulfillment of a promise made to Abraham and repeated to his descendants. These battles were fought to secure the land of their inheritance. God was also using them to punish the people of Canaan. Israel was, in this specific instance, the tool of God for punishing the nations, just as were Assyria, Babylon, etc. in later times. This case is unique in that God used His people for this task, but I think that had to do with the Promise.

To some degree, many of the battles fought by Saul and David would have to be included in the Conquest, for they were securing land which had been promised to the Israelites. By my calculations, the Conquest ended with David’s wars, but I’m open to correction on that.

The Bible & War: What the Law of Moses says

11 Replies

Now we turn our attention to the Law. To a good Jew, of course, all of what we’ve been discussing so far is part of the Torah, what we call the Law. But I’m speaking specifically of the legal code found in Exodus through Deuteronomy.

A commenter the other day suggested that arguments for pacifism are based on “Thou shalt not kill” from the Ten Commandments. I’ve yet to read a pacifist who presented that as a main argument, nor have I seen it in the discussion on this blog. It doesn’t take much reading to realize that the very next chapter in Exodus lays out situations in which the death penalty is to be applied! No, those four words from the Ten Commandments lend little to the discussion.

A better insight into the Law’s views toward war are found in Deuteronomy 20. Some interesting things in that chapter:

  • Priests play a major role in the army’s activities
  • Broad exceptions are granted to those who choose not to fight
  • Differences are made between battles within the Promised Land and battles outside the Promised Land
  • Tactics avoid harming food-bearing trees

Admittedly, that third point rocked my world recently. I had a nice little theology about war, and Deuteronomy 20:10-15 doesn’t fit! I’m still looking to find balance. I had believed (and taught) that wars in the Old Testament fell into two categories: self-defense and conquest of the Promised Land. Lo and behold, these verses don’t fit either of those categories. While I can’t think of an example of this, of the Israelites fighting merely to conquer a distant city, the Law does allow for it. Sounds like a license for “imperialism.”

So do we just write it off to the sort of things that happened before God became a Christian? Or how do we understand these verses?

The Bible & War: General Abraham?

2 Replies

Bible & soldiersOK, I’m ready to start looking some at God’s people and war in the Bible. Genesis 14 seems like a good place to start, though someone may want to point out an earlier passage.

In Genesis 14, we see two groups of kings going to battle against one another. At this time, kings tended to rule over city states, rather than countries. In the ensuing fighting, Sodom is conquered and Abraham’s nephew lot is taken captive. So Abraham decides to rescue his nephew.

“When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, 318 of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.” (Genesis 14:14)

That’s an intriguing verse. While Matthew Henry suggests that these men may have been religiously trained, that is, Abraham only took those who had faith in God. However, this phrase, while unique to the Bible, has been seen in other writings to refer to “armed retainers,” according to the NIV Study Bible. I would tend to think that in this context it’s referring to some sort of combat training. Which is in itself remarkable. What use did Abraham have of a fighting force, besides this one incident we see here? It’s a small army, granted. But it’s an army.

It should be noted, however, that Abraham did not pledge his loyalty to any of these kings, not even the king of Sodom. He refused to accept anything in payment.

Another interesting part of this story is the tribute Abraham pays to Melchizedek, the king of Peace. There is no record that Melchizedek’s people took part in the fighting, yet Melchizedek came out to bless Abraham.

Here’s our first foray into the fighting world of ancient times. What shall we make of it?

Peace between pacifists and non-pacifists?

7 Replies

Admittedly, the comment section is going to run ahead of me. That’s natural. When you arrive at a blog discussing a certain topic, you express your views on that subject, not necessarily limiting yourself to what’s been presented. That’s helpful to me, but I won’t always engage in discussing the various points brought up.

I will remind us that this isn’t a simple topic. It’s not one that you can say: “Here’s the verse that settles it.” For every proof text, there’s an opposing text. Every invented scenario can be met with its equal on the other side. Because of that, I think we need to be extremely charitable toward one another.

One other introductory comment: I see the topic of Christians participating in the wars of this world and the topic of Christians using force in other settings to be related topics, but not necessarily the same topic. When I speak of pacifism, I’m speaking of the first, though I hope to eventually address both.

Is there room for difference of opinion on this matter? Some in their comments have said no. I’m not there. I compared it yesterday to some of Paul’s comments to the Corinthians, and that didn’t seem to sit well with some.

Let me try another example. Let’s take the concept of material goods. Some teach voluntary poverty as the most godly way. Others believe that God blesses his children with riches. Some believe that having more than we can use is sinful; others believe that only through increasing prosperity can we truly bless those around us.

I think there’s room for disagreement on that. I also think that I can point to several attitudes toward riches and material possessions that are sinful. And I can point out sinful, judgmental attitudes among Christians as they talk about other Christians. And I think that study of Scripture can point us to the best way of looking at earthly wealth.

I know, it’s not exactly the same. But I think that I can point to Christ’s way of living, the best and most godly way, yet still love those who can’t live up to that standard or who understand it differently.

Am I wrong?

Passion and pacifism

46 Replies

It’s interesting how angry some people can get when you start exploring pacifistic views. More than most topics, they seem to feel that their own views are being judged.

I was just reading through an exchange I had in an Internet discussion group with one of the popular writer/speakers in our brotherhood. He repeatedly said that he had “little use” for those who hold pacifistic views and that, while loving them, he could not respect them. He emphasized that not only did he not respect their opinion, he didn’t respect them. (Then every time he sees me he tells me how much he appreciates my work; I’m guessing he doesn’t even remember the exchange)

I don’t approach pacifism as a “holier than thou” issue. I’m not going to condemn those who choose to fight. I see it sort of like Paul in 1 Corinthians 7; he could point to what he thought was the best way to serve God, yet concede that not everyone could live it. Many godly men have chosen to fight out of a sense of service to God. I think they were mistaken, but I judge neither their motives nor their salvation. In fact, I don’t have a problem with respecting what they did… though I do have a problem with glorifying those actions.

Somehow, we’ve got to be able to talk about these issues without anger and without judgment. We need to be able to explore what the Bible says, beyond what our emotions say.

What do you think? Where does the emotion, especially the anger come from? Why is this topic so charged with feelings?