Scriptural basis of just war

Contrary to many critics of just war theory who criticize that just war theory uses the Old Testament over the New Testament, just war theorists use both the Old Testament as well as the New Testaments, probably with even stronger emphasis on the New Testament. Just war theory has two roots, the biblical basis and the natural law.

One of the most important passages that seem to support just war theory is Romans 13:1-7. In this passage, it is unarguable that civil authorities were given the right to use the sword since they have been ordained to restrain and punish evil doers.

221 Ibid., p. 15.

152

Another passage of importance in support of this theory is 1 Peter 2:13-14 where civil authorities are ordained to punish evil doers and to praise good doers. However, before discussing the interpretation of some of the New Testament passages in support of their theory, the general perception of just war theorists on the Old and New Testaments is analyzed.

Just war theorists hold to the view that the Old Testament records show that military conflict is regarded as a tragic fact of life. God is seen to use the military conflicts in the execution of justice as a result of which he used to strengthen his people during war or with war. There are some references in the Old Testament where Battles fought by God’s people were seen as His battles (1 Samuel 17:47). Holmes has this to say,

This biblical picture basically supports the just war theory. But not all Christians will agree with this picture for two reasons. First, because of disagreement over the relationship between Old and New Testaments. Generally, the Christian pacifist appeals to the New which in his view takes us beyond the precept and example of the Old to a law of love. The just war theorist, however, is apt to see the law of love in the Old as well as the New, so that the New fulfills, reinforces and interprets the Old rather than superseding it.

The law of love is a reaffirmation of the underlying spirit of the Old Testament Law, at one with the spirit of justice rather than in conflict with it. Love as well as justice requires action to protect the innocent and to repel and deter aggression.²²²

In the New Testament however, the question asked to John the Baptist by the soldiers and the answer given to them without condemning their profession was taken seriously by just war theorists in support of their position. In Luke 3:14,

“Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, ‘And what shall we do?’ so he said to them,

‘Do not intimidate any one or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages’”

(NKJV). If military service is rejected, John the Baptist would have told them, but he simply gave them what we may call their rules of engagement. The passage where Jesus seems to have been an aggressor or acted in an aggressive manner by making a whip of cord and chased the money changers in the Temple as recorded in John 2:15ff is taken seriously to mean there are times where the use of physical force

222 Arthur F. Holmes, The Just War, p. 124.

153

could be permissible. Where Jesus said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s in Matthew 22:21 is interpreted to mean the civil government are free to use the sword and a Christian citizen is free to carry arms at the order of the state. Reference is made to Luke 22:35-38 where Jesus told his disciples to buy swords, to which they presented to him two. This just war theorists among them Holmes interpret to mean Jesus is sanctioning war.

Having looked at several biblical passages in support and those that constituted difficulties to just war theorists, Holmes had this interesting summary,

On this basis the biblical picture is as follows: (1) The use of force in resisting and punishing violence is entrusted to governments. (2) Believers in both Old and New Testaments are involved in the governmental uses of force. (3) Such uses of force are to be drastically limited to what is necessary in securing peace and justice. (4) Vengeance is thereby ruled out, along with all aggression; love and mercy must temper justice.²²³

As to the development of the just war theory, the Graeco-Roman world has the notion that war consciousness does not become limited to the Christian faith.

Mention is made of Plato who did urge limits on war more especially among the Greeks. He was of the view that the legitimate purpose of war is the restoration of peace. Cicero was indeed the one who articulated the rules of war similar to the ones stated above as the laws guiding just war but with marked difference with the Christian version. One clearly marked difference is the definition of just cause.

According to Cicero, just cause means the defense of honour as well as peace and justice. He was of the view that it is legitimate to avenge dishonour to which Christians rejected.

The second root of just war worthy of mention is the natural law ethics. By natural law is the view that human beings have the capacity to know what is right and to do what they know. Holmes said, “Theorists like Aquinas and Locke held that we can logically deduce an ethic from what we know of the nature of man so as to reach universal agreement about what justice is and what must characterize a just war.”²²⁴

223 Holmes, pp. 123-124.

224 Ibid., p. 131.

154

The natural law ethics has been criticized on the basis that the rationality of human beings had brought many wars in human history than reducing wars.