Is There a Time to Kill?

  

05/30/18

  

Download/Print PDF

  

 

Timothy D Padgett

  
“When I think of a soldier fulfilling his office by punishing the wicked, killing the wicked, and creating so much misery, it seems an un-Christian work completely contrary to Christian love. But when I think how it protects the good and keeps and preserves wife and child, house and farm, property, and honor and peace, then I see how precious and godly this work is.” – Martin Luther I don't know where Luther said this, or the context, but I suspect this is the "hidden agenda":

“When I think of a soldier fulfilling his office by punishing the wicked, killing the wicked, and creating so much misery, it seems an un-Christian work completely contrary to Christian love. But when I think how it protects ME and keeps and preserves MY wife and child, MY house and farm, MY property, and MY honor and peace, then I see how precious and godly this work is.” – Martin Luther

"War" means killing the "other guy," raping his wife, killing his child, burning his home and farm, confiscating his property, desecrating his honor and destroying his peace.
Memorial Day is always a bit of an odd holiday. On the one hand, it’s just another day off. Maybe we’ll go to a parade or watch a war movie, but mostly we end up grilling burgers to celebrate the beginning of summer. On the other hand, it’s supposed to be a sacred day, even a morbid day, a day when we remember the honored dead, those who’ve made the ultimate sacrifice for God and country.  
This ambivalence is telling. What do we really think about war? Consistently, the military is the most admired national institution in the land, but how much do we think about what they do? We honor those who’ve died for us, but what about those who’ve killed for us? Do God and country pull us in two directions here? Yes.
In twenty centuries of Christian thought, few issues have caused more contention than this. Our own founder, Chuck Colson, commented on it many times, both by video and text. We think of Christianity as the religion of the Prince of Peace, yet the Bible is full of bloodshed from Genesis to Revelation. How do we connect the holy wars of the Old Testament with the “turn the other cheek” of the New? How do we reconcile the gentle Jesus of Palm Sunday, coming to Jerusalem on a colt, with warrior Jesus of Revelation, riding in with blood-spattered robes?  

Christ is the end of bloodshed. Start here. To understand "the holy wars of the Old Testament" start here.

Jesus was both man and God. He commands men to leave vengeance to God.
This is not an easy question to answer. At its “best,” like what you’d find in naval war or battles far into the desert, where there’s no one around but adult males, all in uniform and under arms, we’re still dealing with human beings using their wonderful gifts from their Creator to smash, burn, cut, or disintegrate one another. More often, however, battles are not removed from bystanders but are in the thick of things, involving the slaughter of non-combatants, rape, murder, and general mayhem. Few outside the gates of hell would look at the carnage of war and smile approvingly. True.
What’s a Christian to think? Over the years we’ve come up with several ways of looking at this, which, according to scholar Daniel Heimbach, generally fall into three categories: Pacifism, Holy War, and Just War. Even then, it gets confusing. Many erstwhile pacifists can slip into Just War thought when faced with the horrors of slavery or the terrors of Nazism. Many Just War folks become de facto pacifists when they raise the bar so high that no war ends up being just. And all of us can slip into the madness of Holy War when vengeance becomes paramount in our eyes.  
Broadly speaking, Pacifism is the idea that there is never a time to kill. Some pacifists will allow that the secular state may use violence, but they would insist that Christians are never to take part in such actions. Others will say that “Thou shalt not kill” and “Turn the other cheek” preclude any moral use of lethal force at all. As one bumper sticker put it, “When Jesus said, ‘Love your neighbor,’ I’m pretty sure he meant don’t kill them.”  
Now, Pacifism can claim the longest formal pedigree. As soon as Christians in the Early Church began writing about the issue, they condemned those Christians who were in the Roman army. For Church Fathers like Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius, the idea of a Christian soldier was a contradiction in terms. Of course, there’s a Catch-22 with this: for them to be able to critique such Christians for being in the army, this entails that there were Christians in the army who perhaps did not share their opinion. Some soldiers had been conscripted (enslaved) and then became Christians. Church Fathers seem pretty unanimous that no free Christian in his right mind would voluntarily enlist to kill for the demonic Roman Empire. Paul told slaves to take any opportunity to be free (1 Corinthians 7:21), but until that point, obey as if Christ (Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22), yet remembering that in a conflict of allegiance, we must obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29).

Does any of this mean it was morally legitimate for Italians to be a world-conquering Empire?
If Pacifism is the anti-war school in the church, Holy War is its polar opposite. It is the idea that not only are there times when force is a moral necessity, but that war can in fact be a positive good. Some advocates went so far as to say that killing in the name of God offered to the warrior forgiveness for sins and even salvation. As a Christian concept, it is a bit of an oddity. While it could find some support in the wars of ancient Israel, it has rarely been held as the formal position of any church institution. In the AD 800s there were a few popes who suggested that dying in a war for the church granted forgiveness, and in 1095 Urban II inspired 100,000 Western Europeans to counterattack Turkish advances in the Middle East with the promise of heaven for those “taking the cross” and trying to retake Jerusalem. Understanding "Holy War"
However, it didn’t last. Whether it was an inheritance from Nordic ideas of Valhalla, a bit of borrowing from their Muslim opponents, or an indigenous creation, this idea was, happily, dismissed within a few decades. More common than this has been the state-sponsored Holy War among ostensibly Christian communities. To die in a just cause for King and Country is seen as a salvific act, earning entrance into heaven. Few of us would say we hold to this, but many of us live as though it is so.  
Just War Theory or Doctrine has been the dominant Christian belief about war since at least around AD 400. Of course, its adherents, like me, look back further than this for proof, seeing it as the testimony of the Bible, but Just War finds its historical origins in the years after Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire. Following the lead of Church Fathers like Ambrose and Augustine, Christians have held that peace is God’s intention for humanity but, under extreme circumstances, force can and must be used to preserve that peace. As Martin Luther said a thousand years later, “The small lack of peace called war or the sword must set a limit to this universal, worldwide lack of peace which would destroy everyone.” "Absence of poverty is God’s intention for humanity but, under extreme circumstances, force can and must be used to preserve that absence."

That's called "extortion." It's a sin.
The basic idea is that when the Shalom that God intends for humanity has been broken to an extreme degree, responsible authorities can and sometimes must respond with force, guided by a list of criteria which have to be met and followed before and during such conflicts. A good analogy might come from medicine, where responsible officials are called upon to do things, such as giving people toxins and cutting into living bodies, which would be thought wicked, except for the context of the extreme danger to the patient. In the same way, God has ordained that under extraordinary circumstances, the state has the power of the sword to enforce the peace, whether at the local level with crime or the international level with war. Who gets to be an "authority?" What legitimate powers does this "authority" have? All of this is remarkably complex and unclear, yet it's treated here as if it were clear and axiomatic.
Now, a lot of folks have a problem with this, asking how Christlike it is to kill. That’s a reasonable question, but Just War has a reasonable answer. Even more, it has a biblical answer. Rather than being a contradiction of Christ’s words to love our neighbor, a justified war is an extra-ordinary fulfillment of this love. In fact, not to act in the face of great injustice can be a great failure to love. By way of historical example, some might say that it would’ve been loving in 1943 not to kill “Hans” in the Wehrmacht. After all, he is a fellow image bearer of God! But where is the love for “Hannah” in the concentration camp behind him? Life is complicated and calls for complicated judgments. "Thou shalt not kill."
But Padgett says if you think Smith is about to kill Jones, you have the right to kill Smith.
If you had a phaser and could set it to "stun," do you have a moral obligation not to kill Smith? I'm sure Padgett, like every sensible person, would say yes, you have a moral obligation to not kill. What if the Red Cross could intervene and rescue Jones from Smith's intentions faster than Congress can approve a Declaration of War? Should Congress prevent the Red Cross from infringing on the government's monopoly of violence? But "rescuing" is not "war." Rescue is a "private sector" undertaking. Only the State claims the right to kill and destroy. But we've already established that there is a moral obligation to pursue a peaceful rescue rather than unnecessary killing. To say the State has the right to engage in "necessary" killing begs the question. Is it ever necessary to kill? Is it ever impossible to pursue another non-lethal course of action? Does the Bible directly answer that question?

Roosevelt was not motivated to rescue the Jews. He entered World War II to protect the Communists.
Think of the Bible’s own testimony where we see the same complicated message. God’s goal is peace, but human sin sometimes demands war. We read of God calling His Old Testament saints to take up arms, and we read of God calling the obviously corrupt Roman state His “minister.” This ambiguity is the pattern we see throughout God’s word. Throughout the Scriptures, the promise of God is peace and the fullness of His blessing always involves an end to war, but this fullness must await His return and is only partially known now. In the meantime, we endure wars and rumors of wars. God called "His Old Testament saints" to commit "genocide" against the nations in the Promised Land. There is no human being on planet earth today who can appeal to those accounts as a justification for "war" against any nation on earth.

God not only called "the obviously corrupt Roman state" His "minister," He called the savage army of the Medes His "sanctified ones." Evil "serves" God's purposes. That does not legitimize evil. We are not to "resist evil." That does not legitimize evil.

We must "endure" war, but that does not justify anyone in waging war.
Both Pacifism and Holy War fail because of their utopianism; they act as though the purity of the Eschaton is accessible in the here and now. They ignore the fact that we are in the “second act” of the human story, where progress has been made but the final consummation of the third act is not yet here. Just War accepts that peace is God’s plan for human society, and that human flourishing cannot occur without it. But, biblical peace is a fuller, richer thing than simply not fighting. I support "utopianism."
We are in the "eschaton." It began in the past. This "second act" metaphor is not in the Bible.

It should be very, very difficult to engage in killing and destruction. Padgett tries to make it too easy.
God has created the state as His minister to create the space, the order in which human flourishing may occur. In that final day when Christ returns and finishes making all things new, then will come a time when “we ain’t gonna learn war no more.” However, until that final stage of humanity arrives, we will still live in this second act, the time when we aren’t at the beginning of our story, but we haven’t reached our conclusion just yet, either. The Bible does not say -- ever -- that God created the State to foster human flourishing. What the Bible says -- repeatedly -- is that the State is evil, and is God's Judgment on wicked people.

God "Ordains" Evil

We may not have reached our "conclusion," but we live in an age when killing and destruction are sinful and avoidable.
There is a time to kill. There is a time when the Shalom of God is so violated by human sin that human institutions are called upon to restore the Shalom, when injustice is so pronounced that judgment is rendered through force of arms, when evil is reigning so victorious that standing aside and calling for peace, peace when there is no peace becomes evil itself. Even as we live in this second act where killing is a part of life, may we never stop praying that God would speed the day when war is no more. Who gets to create "human institutions" that are authorized to kill and destroy?

It is "hypocrisy" to pray that something you voted for doesn't happen.

Christian Pacifism's Achilles Heel: War and Christianity, Part One

  

08/30/19

  

Download/Print PDF

  

 

Timothy D Padgett

  
With the US going into its 18th year of war in Afghanistan and the growing possibilities of a greater conflict with Iran, Russia, China, or all three at once, the question of war confronts us more and more. Where once it was seen as a once-a-generation plague, today it is an ever-present reality. Now, more than ever, we need to gain a proper understanding of the relationship between our Christian faith and the new-normal of war. Scott Horton has called the unconstitutional war in Afghanistan "A Fool's Errand." As Padgett notes, war is a "plague." It is a curse. It is an abomination. The Bible commands us, "Thou shalt not kill." The Bible commands us to beat our "swords into plowshares" (Micah 4:3). Yes, that's a command.
If the church is going to be the church, then it must establish its positions based on God’s Word and not mere cultural preference. The question of war touches on justice, humanity, and love, meaning we simply cannot rest on our fallen dispositions to tell us where to go. Whatever logical or pragmatic reasons we may marshal in this debate account for nothing if the Bible does not speak in accord with our preferred positions. War doesn't just "touch" on these issues. War is injustice. War is inhumane. War is hate. Jesus commands us to love our enemies. This rules out war.
While we may agree on this in principle, securing a consensus on what the Scriptures teach in this matter is a bit more complicated. After all, both sides, Pacifism and Just War alike, appeal to God’s Word for support. How do we find common ground when all parties pull out their own proof-texts?  
It’d be nice if a hypothetical Book of Hezekiah or III Peter had a list when war was allowed, or perhaps a place it stated in no uncertain terms that it’s never allowed. Lacking such, we are left to figure from what is said in the Bible what God would say to His church. While this can seem quite intimidating, there is a potential short-cut along this path. No one human being can commit "war." Everyone agrees that every human being is forbidden to kill: "Thou shalt not kill." That's murder. But if a person gets all of his friends together and cheerleads them into killing his enemies, that's not "murder," that's "war." The guy who wanted to kill can stay at home and the killing is done by his friends, whom he calls "soldiers," or "the Armed Forces." Instead of being a "murderer," he is a "leader," a "commander in chief," a "statesman," or a "wartime President."
Pacifism is necessarily absolutist. That is, one cannot be a partial-Pacifist. Any exception to a total prohibition on warfare moves the conversation from Pacifism vs. Just War to an in-house debate within the Just War camp. We can have all sorts of discussions whether this war or that military action is justified, but Pacifism, as such, becomes a dead-letter if there is ever a time to kill. Simply put, if there are any times when the use of lethal force is appropriate, then Pacifism falls by a simple process of elimination. True enough.
Putting aside the Old Testament for a moment, since many Pacifists object that wars of ancient Israel do not apply to contemporary ethics, are there any places where the New Testament does not condemn war? That is, are there places where the role of soldiers or a government’s use of lethal force is not treated as sinful? When the New Testament says "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Matthew 19:18), is it condemning war? No. Does that mean war is morally legitimate? No. Of course not.
When the New Testament says "Children, obey your parents" (Ephesians 6:1-3), is it condemning war? No. Does that mean war is morally legitimate? No. Of course not.
In Luke 3, we see a series of people coming to John the Baptist to ask how they can properly repent. In response, some are told to practice generosity, while tax collectors are commanded to stop taking more than they’re supposed to. Another word for "tax collectors" at this time in Roman history is "tax farmers." The Roman government auctioned off the right to collect taxes to the highest bidder. The buyer had the obligation to bring a certain amount to the government. They could keep for themselves whatever amount they collected above this. The collectors forecasted that they could collect more than the government wanted, plus the amount they paid for the franchise, plus costs, and the rest would be profit. Many, like Zaccheaus (Luke 19) became very wealthy, but they were despised by taxpayers. They were loathed and hated.

Would you want to be loathed and hated if you were not allowed to collect more than the government wanted? Would you even take the job?
  And let us not forget the broader historical context.

Imagine that in 2020, as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic, the Italian government was facing crises, as the Italian economy was in the tank. The Italian government conceives of a plan to use the Italian military to invade Israel and enslave Israelites to build a Lamborghini factory to build expensive Italian sports cars to prop up the Italian economy. Would anyone approve of the Italian invasion and conquest of Israel? Not even the United Nations, which almost robotically votes against Israel, would approve of the Italian invasion of Italy. But Italy invaded Israel 63 years before Jesus was born. It was wrong, sinful, illegal, unjust, and contrary to what we think of today as "International Law."

And everyone in Israel knew it.

Italy wasn't a "public servant." It was a conqueror and enslaver. Italy wanted to turn Israel into a cash cow, plain and simple. So Italy invaded Israel and put Israel under tribute.

You may have seen photos of humanitarian soldiers carrying infants or children away from danger. Perhaps the New Roman Times carried photos of Roman centurions in Jesus' day doing good deeds. Conquering governments always try to cultivate the myth of being a "public servant" of some kind. But Israel already had a government, thank you, and didn't invite the Romans. The Romans were lawless, greedy, unjust invaders of Israel. And the most important function Romans soldier carried out was backing the tax farmers with threats of violence. "Pay up or pay the price."
  The unjust nature of the Roman invasion of Israel was complicated by the fact that a Roman who wanted to leave the Roman Legion was subject to the death penalty.
Soldiers also come to ask his counsel. If the Pacifist position is correct, then this would be a perfect place for God to speak into their lives to turn them from their entirely wicked profession. Yet, John only tells them to stop using their power to oppress people and to be content with their pay. I supposed there could be some reading between the lines to see this as a condemnation, but this would hardly make for a solid rebuke of their chosen profession. So for Padgett to speak of the soldiers' predicament as "their chosen profession" is not a complete picture. Some soldiers were conscripted (enslaved). Is slavery "just?" Nobody believes that, but the Bible says for slaves to serve their masters as if they were serving Christ Himself. Does that legitimize slavery? I don't think so.

So when John the Baptist tells soldiers not "to oppress people," or as the KJV puts it, "Do no violence," what does that mean? It is a logical fallacy to draw conclusions from the fact ("argument from silence") that Luke does not record John giving a history lesson and reminding the soldiers that their invasion 93 years ago was unjust. Does that mean the invasion was just? Nobody -- I repeat, nobody -- believes that.

How does an enslaved soldier become a Christian?

That's an interesting question, and we need to think about what John the Baptist is saying, but it is completely illegitimate to conclude from he said (and what he did not say) that invading a country and putting it under tribute is "just."
  This should be obvious, but there is such mythology surrounding war that we often don't think straight. Who wants to admit that they were wrong to vote for a political candidate who promises to keep gas prices down by invading an oil-rich nation?
Later, in Acts 10, we find the dramatic first inclusion of Westerners into the church with the conversion a Roman soldier named Cornelius, along with his family and friends. This man was already follower of God, but in this passage the Apostle Peter brings him the message of Christ. Once again, this would have been an ideal moment for this warrior to hear that the arrival of Christ had so transformed the situation that, while soldiers were a part of the Old Covenant before Jesus, there was now no longer any place for them. Yet, Peter says none of this. Again, it may not have been Luke's purpose as an author to say anything about the morality of one nation invading another in order to confiscate the vanquished nation's wealth. His purpose seems to have been to announce the sending of the Gospel to non-Israelites. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that because Luke did not include any words that Peter might have said to the soldier about the morality of war, that war is therefore justified.
Later, in the epistles we find both Peter and Paul addressing the place of the state in human society. In contrast to the Pacifist position, not only do the Apostles not condemn the government for using lethal force, they call such a state the minister of God. It is true that the State "serves" God's purposes, and may be called God's "servant." Assyria "served" God's purposes in invading, raping, and pillaging Israel, but God destroyed Assyria for doing exactly what God "ordained" Assyria to do. Romans 13 commands Christians to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:14 - 13:7), even the most evil entity on the planet, the Roman State. Nobody in his right mind voluntarily joins "the [demonic] powers that be."
In I Peter 3 we are told that as Christians we are to be subject to the state as it is sent by God to punish evil. Peter offers no side-bar to tell us “except when they use force.” Likewise, in Romans 13 Paul specifically states that part of the government’s role in being God’s minister is that it “bears the sword.” You don’t use swords to gently chide someone. Swords kill. If Pacifism is the biblical position, then this passage makes precious little sense. I'm assuming this is actually 1 Peter 2.
We are to submit to evil. An entity does not become less evil just because Jesus ("Sermon on the Mount"), Paul (Romans 13), or Peter (here) orders us to "be subject" to it. Jesus says "Resist not EVIL." Wycliffe translated 1 Peter 2:18 thusly:  "Servants, be ye subject in all dread to lords, not only to good and to mild, but also to tyrants." Swords kill. Governments kill. Christians submit. That's because Christians are pacifists.

The passages make perfect sense. Governments are evil.  War is evil. Christians do not resist evil with more evil.
This isn’t an exhaustive study, and negative arguments aren’t always the most compelling, relying, as they do, on what is not said. But, if John, Peter, and Paul could interact with soldiers and other sword-bearing officers of the state, as they did in these passages, without categorically calling them to repent of war, then we must then ask how Christian Christian-Pacifism really is. "The most compelling?" The argument is fallacious. Invalid.

Jesus "interacted with" prostitutes. Do we ever read Jesus denouncing "the world's oldest profession?" Then how can we conclude that the second-oldest profession -- military conqueror -- is any more legitimate than prostitution?
If Pacifism is biblical, then why, among the many times that biblical writers spoke to soldiers or the state’s use of lethal force did no one tell them to stop? If war is sinful at all times, and there is no place for it in Christ’s kingdom, then why did none of the inspired writers feel it necessary to tell anyone about it? "If prostitution is unbiblical, then why, among the many times that biblical writers spoke to prostitutes or the man’s use of women did no one tell them to stop? If prostitution is sinful at all times, and there is no place for it in Christ’s kingdom, then why did none of the inspired writers feel it necessary to tell anyone about it?"

Everyone in Jesus' day knew that prostitution was unbiblical.
Everyone knew that the soldiers were lawless invaders.
Everyone knew that war is unjust.
Why don't we?
War is dreadful. There is no question about that. But just as the Fall of Adam has brought in disease, and God has raised up doctors to keep it from running amuck, so has the Fall brought in chaos to human society and God has likewise raised up the state as His minister to prevent our more tragic impulses from running the tables. To stand for justice in the face of wickedness by taking up the sword is not contrary to loving my neighbor but its fulfillment. Soldiers do not cure disease.
Soldiers CAUSE the disease of war.
The State is the result of "our more tragic impulses."
Jesus asked, "Who is neighbor?" Answer the Samaritan ENEMY. You don't love your neighbor by invading, subjugating, plundering, or killing your neighbor.

Tragic that someone has to explain this.
Next time, we’ll look at the place of war in the Old Testament and its implications for us today.  
Timothy D. Padgett, PhD, is the Managing Editor of BreakPoint and the author of Swords and Plowshares: American Evangelicals on War, 1937-1973  

Leashing the Dogs of War: War and Christianity, Part Two

  

09/20/19

  

Download/Print PDF

  

 

Timothy D Padgett

  
War is a reality. It’s a bloody reality, a hateful, disgusting, repellent reality, but a reality nonetheless. Prostitution is a "reality."
While there is a time to kill, this allowance is not open-ended. Human nature being what it is, once the dogs of war are unleashed, our sinful nature makes itself known all too readily in dignity-desecrating attacks on our enemy. As tempting as this is in the heat of battle, the Christian worldview and God’s Word deny us this option.  
While the previous part of this series dealt with what the New Testament did not say about the morality of war, this time we’ll look at what the Old Testament did say. When we study its accounts, far from being ghoulish and gleeful about war, God’s Word offers a restraining hand to our flawed tendencies to kill without question.  
Let’s admit it. Reading the Old Testament on war is troubling. It sounds as though God excuses or even commands murder, and it’s not always easy to sense the connection between the Wars of the Lord with the Lord who is the Lamb. Even for those who believe there are answers to be found, questions endure.  
While we will return to them later, we can, for the moment, set aside some of the most troubling examples. Moses’ and Joshua’s wars were divine commands explicitly for that time and place, and we have no business extrapolating these to our contemporary conflicts. Others, like the wars of the Judges and later kings, have illustrative power, but, here too, we must be cautious as they are more descriptions of what did happen than prescriptions for what should happen. Israel was commanded to exterminate the depraved inhabitants of the Promised Land, but Israel failed to carry out this mandate, and was troubled by these people throughout Israel's history. Nothing in that history justifies any "war" today.
Deuteronomy 20, on the other hand, has the closest thing to moral guidelines for war in the Bible. Contrary to our expectation, God is not granting permission for our impulses to run free but insisting that we bind up our sin in this most tempting venue of war. Deuteronomy 20: A Pacifist Approach
Now, if you’ve read the passage, this may seem a strange thing to suggest. After all, it says, “And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword.” Later, it declares that women and children can be taken as plunder. How can this be anything but barbarity? Taken out of context, that’s exactly what it sounds like. But, in reality these verses command the very opposite to what we think.  
In this historical moment, warfare was endemic. Small communities endured life as prey for larger powers who gloried in their destruction while raiders prowled the outskirts of settled villages taking slaves at will. There was no Geneva Convention for POWs and no expectation for captured civilians but death in the most horrible ways imaginable. For the strong, war was a way of life. For the weak, it meant only death. Jesus brought in the "Eschaton" 2000 years ago. It's a new world.
The contrast with the biblical message could not be more profound. What we see there is a series of checks on the customs of the day.  
In place of warriors living for the fight, God pushed the Israelites to seek every opportunity to live in peace. He offered a list of conscientious objections for Israelite troops and insisted that an offer of peace precede any actual combat. This was more than a chance for the fearful to step aside or for Israel to avoid the costs of war. This was a reminder that Shalom was the goal. No peace was offered to the races of the Promised Land.
Even if the enemy had committed a grave evil, the Israelites were to seek with their fellow man the peace that their sin had broken. The good things of life – marriage, home, work – these were the site of God’s blessings. These were found in peace, not the thrill of the fight. War had its tragic place in life, but it was never to be its totality.  
Now, if their enemies refused peace, battle followed swiftly. After a presumed victory, all adult males were killed and the women and children taken as “plunder.” This is hard. From our cultural perspective, it sounds like God is saying to kill ordinary folks, butchers, bakers, and candlestick-makers, and to do to other civilians what we know too well was, and is, done to women and children in the wake of war.  
However, again we need to look beyond our contemporary Western society and consider how this sounded to its original audience. In a tribal society, adult males are combatants. You can see this in the Bible during censuses where they’re counting how many men are “able to go to war.” In the case of a city that had not surrendered, we’re talking about active enemy forces, not noncombatants.  
Similarly, to our ears, the “plunder” of women and children sounds like an invitation to pillage to their evil hearts’ content. However, considering sexual assault and manstealing were capital offenses in ancient Israel, this means the opposite of what we think. This isn’t designating women and children as fair-game; it’s saying they’re off limits, militarily speaking. The men, as a genuine threat, could be killed, but women and children, as noncombatants, were not legitimate targets.  
We see something similar when Moses talks about trees at the end. What seems like a random arboreal conversation emphasizes the limits of war. Moses tells the Israelites that they are free to use local lumber to build weapons, but not the fruit trees. He is both disavowing any “total war“ and emphasizing that, for the people of God, military actions must be limited to those things which constituted an ongoing threat, never an open-ended excuse for violence.  
The Bible recognizes the fallenness of man: Human sin will lead to war, but the sinful impulses of even the best of us must be bound by principles, lest our passions seduce us to mirror our foes. When the clouds of war gather, those guided by God’s Word must make every effort to avoid the fight if possible. But, if and when it comes, war must never be seen as a goal or good in itself. We must never let our cause, even a just one, lead us to a place where we see in our enemy anything less than an equal – an image bearer of God yet tainted by sin.  
  It is a humanistic "patriotism" that drives people to support war. All the arguments on this page lead to its condemnation. Most writers are reluctant to follow the logic of the Bible because it is politically and patriotically incorrect.
Timothy D. Padgett, PhD, is the Managing Editor of BreakPoint and the author of Swords and Plowshares: American Evangelicals on War, 1937-1973