Home » Academics » Lecture Hall

WWJD: Who Would Jesus Bomb? (Jesus and War)

Love, Bombs and War

The other day I saw a bumper sticker that asked, "Who would Jesus bomb?" implying that Jesus was a pacifist. And right after that I saw another bumper sticker that read, "When Jesus told us to love our enemies, He probably meant not to kill them."

These slogans are impossible to avoid, hard to ignore, and, on the surface, difficult to reject — especially the second one. At least emotionally, it seems pretty obvious that if you love someone you don't kill him!

But is it really that easy? After some reflection, I don't think so. In what follows, I will show that I believe it is unlikely that Jesus was a pacifist (at least in the way we use the term) and, moreover, there are clear conditions under which one should, indeed, kill another human being, even a fellow family member.

But more on that later. My basic thesis is that the historical Jesus would (and did) authorize the state — not the church or individual people acting as vigilantes — to fight any nation propagating de-humanizing evil and against which military action could be successful. In short, I think that Jesus believed in just war theory and not pacifism. He did not believe in peace alone; He believed in peace and justice, even if they must be achieved by warfare. And none of this violates the nature of love. Let me explain.

Pacifism and Just War Theory

Four views of war have predominated throughout church history, two pacifist and two just war in nature.

The two pacifist positions agree that a Christian should not participate as a combatant in war. Strong pacifism teaches that a Christian should not participate in war in any way, while weak pacifism allows for Christians to engage in non-combative service in warfare.

The two just war views agree that under carefully delineated conditions, a Christian should participate as a combatant in war on behalf of the state, but not on behalf of the church. The state, not the church or individual, has the God-given right to declare and execute a war. Strong just war theory teaches that Christians may participate as combatants in wars initiated by the state to defeat or minimize severe evil. Weak just war theory teaches that Christians may participate as combatants only in defensive wars initiated by the state as a form of self-defense in response to actual or reasonably anticipated aggression.

The fundamental question is whether Jesus' teachings reflected a pacifist or just war approach. Reminding ourselves that Jesus accepted Old Testament teaching, and that He authorized the apostles' teachings as proper interpretations of His own ideas, our question is whether Jesus was a pacifist or just war advocate.

What Does Scripture Say?

In my view, the overwhelming majority of theologians and biblical scholars throughout church history have correctly held that Jesus and Scripture advocated a just war view: just, equitable, compassionate limitations of evil are the Christian's starting point. But as a last resort, extreme violence and evil must be limited by the power of the state, whose authority it is to punish wrongdoing (Romans 13) and execute war.

I believe the state's use of force is a necessary aspect of our fallen world. Not to employ such force would be to fail to seek a just peace and to minimize evil. It is clear that biblical teaching (Romans 13:1-4, 1 Peter 2:13-14) shows that the state has a God-given right to use force to minimize evil and to achieve a just peace.

Further, the Old Testament says that "The Lord is a warrior" (Exodus 15:3, NIV). Interestingly, many people are unaware that the New Testament also calls Jesus a warrior. There has been and will be war in heaven (Revelation 19:11); Jesus wages war with the sword of His mouth (Revelation 2:16); Jesus will fight and win the future war to be waged against Him (Revelation 17:14; cf. Revelation 16:14); and Jesus will be the leader of His army against the forces of evil (Revelation 19:19).

For these and other reasons, the majority view is the just war position: Jesus held that the church and state had separate callings and spheres of authority, the latter (but not the former) had the right to engage in just war. His followers could and should participate in war as members of the state.

Jesus' teachings about forgiveness, loving your enemies and turning the other cheek were not meant as social ethics for the state but as private ethics for the individual. Moreover, they were guides to becoming a certain sort of person — kind and compassionate, ready to forgive; but they did not offset the need for justice and protecting the innocent with force as a last resort. After all, it is not "living by the sword" for genteel folk to kill an intruder who tries to murder their children. Jesus accepted the reality of hell and judgment, and He is depicted as a warrior when He returns again.

Can You Love Someone and Show Justice?

In short: Jesus would be against any state that is evil and trying to harm others, and He would be for just war to stop that harm. He was for peace, but not at any price, because He was also for justice and the eradication of evil. Jesus believed in just peace and not peace and forgiveness at any cost. How could He think otherwise? The very existence of hell shows that Jesus did not believe in compassion, forgiveness, love and peace to the exclusion of justice, righteousness and the banishment of evil. Just war theory captures both sides of the moral coin.

One thing remains. What about the bumper sticker "When Jesus told us to love our enemies, He probably meant not to kill them"? Two things can be said in response to the idea that it is always wrong to kill someone you love.

First, God's love is only one of His attributes, and His actions result from all the attributes that constitute His character. Thus, while God loves His own enemies, His righteousness and justice often lead Him to kill people intent on evil, to destroy people and nations when it is right to do so, and to banish His enemies to hell, all the while loving them. We can see examples of this all throughout the Bible. Similarly, we can love our enemies but believe that justice and righteousness require us to punish or otherwise thwart them, including killing them.

Second, sometimes the best means of expressing love is an intervention that stops others from causing harm. Such intervention does not require hatred toward those we thwart. We hold the mistaken notion that we have to hate or be angry with someone to exact justice and punishment on them. But nothing could be further from the truth in God's case, and even in our own.

Suppose an armed intruder breaks into a home and threatens to kill the five young children who live there. A father would honor God and do what is right if he killed the intruder to protect his children. The father's act does not require him to hate the intruder. Indeed, he may well act with no formed attitude about the victim at all. In fact, if he later learned of the intruder's sad childhood, he could rightly still believe he had done the right thing while having compassion on the deceased intruder.

Now suppose that all the circumstances are the same except that the intruder was a wayward teenage son who had left home a year earlier. I submit that the father could still kill the son to save his children even though he could have great compassion on his wayward son. In my opinion, the parallel between these cases and just war theory should be enough to show how overly simplistic the bumper sticker really is.

Not So Simple

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

Do you agree with Professor Moreland's conclusion about just war theory?

Join the discussion!

In summary, Jesus understood that this is a fallen world, that force is sometimes needed to achieve peace and justice and protect the innocent from evil. We live in an era of empty slogans and hollow rhetoric because our culture is frequently too impatient to think carefully about the issues that matter to us all. I think the bumper stickers described at the beginning of this article do nothing but propagate a simplistic view that fails to take all the relevant factors into consideration.