Can there be such a thing as just war? Can war be justified? Can a warring nation be held innocent when it is violent? I believe that the notions of just war or a nation justifying its motives for war are possible only in the world of ideals. In theory, a nation can act violently with pure motives on behalf of the weak, the poor, the oppressed and against the corrupt, the abusive, the oppressors. In reality, no nation has entirely pure motives. A nation will always seek its own preservation and will, to some degree, do this to the detriment of other nations or peoples. If a nation could be morally perfect, then its wars could be just. No such perfect nation exists. War is always unjust to some degree or another by the standards of YHWH's righteousness.
This bears itself out well in the Old Testament. YHWH called Israel out to be His special people. He commanded Moses to lead Israel into the Promised Land and slaughter the inhabitants there. Joshua led a bloody march into Canaan and Israel took up residence. During that bloody march and immediately after that Israel was already falling away from YHWH's standards of holiness. Idolatry, intermarriage with Canaanites, fornication, refusing to tear down the high places, pillaging idols, and much more were all a part of Israel's short comings in the post Exodus period.
YHWH had told Moses that if Israel did not keep His commands, then they would be utterly destroyed. By the end of the period of kingly reign in Israel, YHWH was preparing to follow through on his promise to judge Israel for its wickedness. Observe in II Kings 21:9-16:
But they did not listen, and Manasseh seduced them to do evil more than the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the sons of Israel. Now the LORD spoke through His servants the prophets, saying, "Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations, having done wickedly more than all the Amorites did who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols; therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Behold, I am bringing such calamity on Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears will tingle. 'I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab, and I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 'I will abandon the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies, and they will become as plunder and spoil to all their enemies; because they have done evil in My sight, and have been provoking Me to anger since the day their fathers came from Egypt, even to this day.'" Moreover, Manasseh shed very much innocent blood until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; besides his sin with which he made Judah sin, in doing evil in the sight of the LORD.
Israel was in for destruction. God's chosen nation, the people He chose to dish out His vengeance on the Canaanites, was about to be on the receiving end of His wrath. Notice that Israel had been provoking YHWH's wrath since the day they left Egypt. Even when Israel was carrying out its war campaigns it was unrighteous and deserving of judgment. YHWH had motive to destroy them just as much as He had motive to destroy the Canaanites. While we can definitely say that during Israel's wars it was carrying out the will of YHWH, we cannot say that Israel was righteous in carrying out the will of YHWH. Israel was sinful and deserving of YHWH's wrath. It was only by the LORD's grace that she received promised land instead of desolation.
In Romans 13 Paul says that government is from God's authority and that it bears the sword for the purpose of avenging the one who practices evil. In context of Israel and YHWH we can interpret that rulers bear the sword not only to avenge individuals, but also nations. One might say that the reason China is nuclear equipped is so that YHWH can bear out His wrath on America's sinfulness. Likewise, one might say that the reason why India is nuclear equipped is so that YHWH can bear out His wrath on China's sinfulness. And so on. What cannot be said is that any attack by China on America (or India on China) is justifiable. Such attacks are carried out by sinful nations that have corrupt morals and corrupt motives. Only YHWH is perfect and only He is just in every way. The rest of us sin even in doing good (e.g.: defending the weak, the poor, the oppressed). To find just war we must fast forward to the culmination of all history when the One who is called Faithful and True rides in on a white horse and wages a war in righteousness.
In summary, Romans 13 describes God's sovereign use of rulers that war. However, Romans 13 does not support the idea of just human actors in war. A warring nation is never innocent when it is violent; such a nation is in the wrong and will be judged for shedding blood.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"A warring nation is never innocent when it is violent; such a nation is in the wrong and will be judged for shedding blood."
I noticed this statement and I just want to figure something out for myself...I realize that only in the world of ideals can one nation war against another with impunity. However, the way I read your post led me to think along the lines that the warring itself wasn't condemnable, but the alterior motives behind it. Will these nations be judged for their warring or for their selfish motives? Or is it impossible to separate the two?
Also, you mentioned that we all sin even in doing good. Assuming that pacifism is the moral alternative to war, doesn't it follow that pacifists will be judged as well for alterior motives in their pacifism?
Which is the right path at that point?
Thanks for your good questions and comments, Matt. They will help me work through some of the issues involved here. You asked if: 1) a nation will be judged for its selfish motives or its warring; 2) will a pacifist be judged for their ulterior motives, too.
The first question has a brief answer: both. The nation which wars is judged for wronging another nation (e.g.: inflicting physical and emotional violence, ruining food sources and food pathways, destroying business, etc).
The reason the nation is judged is not just because of the wronging it has done, but because it is morally flawed and in no position to righteously inflict vengeance. Only a thoroughly right (selflessly just) entity can exact righteous vengeance. Anyone else will be exacting evil vengeance or tainted justice. And so, the nation that justifies its warfare is judged for its belittling hypocrisy (e.g.: propagandizing its own 'benevolence', refusing to recognize and then restore what wronging it has inflicted, etc.).
The second question has a much longer answer. I'll devote a post to it.
I wonder, are there grounds for the "lesser of two evils" argument. I wish I had a relevant example, but I can only work in the realm of theory for now.
Would a government with selfish motives be justified in bringing down an oppressive dictator? While the motives are selfish (perhaps security or reduced oil prices), would the benefit to the oppressed outweigh the evil. Or, do you feel that each individual/country is responsible before God, and should only act in a way that is personally righteous?
Your comment is very close to the heart of what I am getting at, Brandon. I think the 'lesser of two evils' motto is a good one. The motto that I have been using is 'necessary evil.' I choose this way of speaking because it declares a strong sense of ownership in the evil. I as a person (or we as a nation) am choosing to do some evil deed because I find it necessary to accomplish some good end; it would be a greater evil for me to neglect accomplishing this good end than for me to engage in some evil means to accomplish said good end. With this "necessary evil" statement I accomplish two things: 1) I explicitly own up to my evil actions; 2) I put myself on the level playing field with all others who commit evil and recognize my brokenness before God.
Because we are flawed humans it is impossible to carry out justice without error. This fact does not give a nation (or person) carte blanche to destroy human lives in the name of justice without Divine repercussions.
Where the pacifist would differ, though, is in the whole necessity of evil. The pacifists answer to the question of 'necessary evil' or 'lesser of two evils' is that violence is never a valid means. Regardless of the end, violence cannot be justified. When people are in danger of oppression the pacifist resorts to such means as speech acts or passive resistance as a way of fulfilling his duty to protect the weak.
Post a Comment