Question
What does the Bible say about war? Is it ever right for a Christian to fight?
Analysis
At a glance
| Strand | Texts |
|---|---|
| War commanded or permitted | Deuteronomy 20:16; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:21; 1 Samuel 15:3 |
| War constrained | Deuteronomy 20:10; Deuteronomy 20:19; 2 Kings 6:21; 2 Kings 6:22 |
| War lamented or limited | 1 Chronicles 22:8; 1 Chronicles 28:3; Psalms 120:7 |
| Peace as the goal | Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3; Isaiah 9:6 |
| Jesus on violence | Matthew 5:9; Matthew 5:39; Matthew 5:44; Matthew 26:52; John 18:36 |
| The state and the sword | Romans 13:3; Romans 13:4; 1 Peter 2:13; 1 Peter 2:14 |
| Soldiers not told to quit | Luke 3:14; Matthew 8:10; Acts 10:1; Acts 10:2 |
The conquest accounts, which the question usually has in mind
The commands in Deuteronomy 20:16; Deuteronomy 20:17 and the narratives in Joshua are the hardest material here, and there is no honest way to present them as mild. How they are read differs, and these readings are widely represented:
- A unique, bounded judgment. The texts present the conquest as judgment on specific nations for specific practices after a long delay (Genesis 15:16; Leviticus 18:24; Leviticus 18:25), tied to one land and one era, and not a template for anything since.
- Ancient Near Eastern war rhetoric. Total-destruction language was a conventional way of reporting decisive victory across the region, and the same book that says all were destroyed goes on to describe survivors in the same territory (Joshua 10:40; compare Judges 1:27–Judges 1:34), which suggests hyperbole rather than a body count.
- Reading it as a moral problem the text leaves standing. Some Christians and many critics decline both harmonizations and hold the difficulty open rather than resolving it.
These are not mutually exclusive, and many hold more than one.
The three main positions on Christians and war
| Position | Core claim | Chiefly held by |
|---|---|---|
| Just war | War is a grave evil that can, under strict conditions, be the lesser of evils. Traditional criteria: legitimate authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportionality, reasonable prospect of success, and protection of non-combatants. Roots in Augustine and Aquinas; leans on Romans 13:4 and the state's duty to restrain evil. | Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican and most evangelical traditions. |
| Pacifism | Jesus' teaching and example rule out lethal violence for his followers, whatever the state may do. Leans on Matthew 5:39; Matthew 5:44; Matthew 26:52; Romans 12:19. Notes that the early church before Constantine was widely, though not uniformly, reluctant about military service. | Anabaptists, Mennonites, Quakers, the Church of the Brethren, and individuals in every tradition. |
| Crusade or holy war | War waged as a positive religious cause. Held historically, and repudiated by the mainstream traditions today; recorded here because it is part of the history, not because it is a live position. | Historic; not mainstream now. |
What the positions share
More than the argument suggests:
- War is not good. No mainstream position treats war as anything other than a calamity, at best a tragic necessity.
- Non-combatants must be protected. Just-war criteria exist to restrict war, not to license it, and pacifists and just-war theorists agree on the restriction even while disagreeing on the license.
- Peace is the goal. Both read Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3 as the direction history is meant to run, and both take Matthew 5:9 as addressed to them.
- Personal vengeance is excluded. Whatever is said about states, retaliation as a personal ethic is ruled out (Romans 12:17; Romans 12:19; 1 Peter 3:9).
A distinction that resolves much of the confusion
Several New Testament passages address individual conduct (do not repay evil for evil, love your enemies), while Romans 13:3; Romans 13:4 addresses the governing authority's role in restraining wrongdoing. Just-war thinking treats these as different spheres; pacifism argues that a Christian cannot occupy a role whose duties contradict the individual command. That is the actual point of disagreement, and naming it is more useful than trading proof texts.