Jordan,JB-Pacifism in the OT

8/3/2019 Jordan,JB-Pacifism in the OT

1/19

P A C I FI S M A N D T H E O L D T E S T A M E N T A Survey of Four Recent Books

James B. Jordan

H ISTORICALLY, the Reformed and evangelical churches,

not to mention the Roman Catholic and Eastern Ortho-

dox, have held that the Anabaptist tradition is in error in

ho ld ing to pac if ism . Brit ish and Am erican Bap t is t s , be ing

modified Presbyterians rather than root-and-branchtis ts , have concurred w ith tha t opinion. Recently , however ,

Anabapt i s t theology has enjoyed a t remendous upswing in

popularity. Among Reformed Baptists there has been a con-

siderable movement away from a Spurgeonic modified

byterianism toward more of a wholesale adoption of

tist theology, which has resulted in not a little tension between

the two camps. (Roughly speaking, and the situation is quite

fluid, we are speaking of a difference between the Banner of

Truth Baptists , and the Baptist Reformation Review

At the same time, Mennonite theologians have begun to

be regarded as within the boundaries of acceptable Christi-

a n it y Toda y a n d An a ba p t is t t h eology h a s

had continuing and strident advocacy by left-wing

cal, the best known of which is Ronald Sider. All of this has

meant that Anabaptist views of war, capital punishment, and

resistance to tyranny have become live issues once again in

C hr i s t e ndom .

G e ne r a l l y s pe a k i ng , A na ba p t i s t t he o l og i e s ha ve ha d a

tough time incorporating any kind of positive view of the OldTestament, because of its holy wars and its mandatory capital

punishment. In recent years, however, the development of the

discipline known as Biblical Theology, w hich se ek s to un-

derstand the Bible in a more historical, less logicistic fashion,

has been called upon to serve the Anabaptist cause. Recent

w riters ha ve argued no t tha t New Covena nt p acif is m is

radically opposed to Old Covenant militarism, but that the

75


2/19

76 CHRISTIANITY AND CIVILIZATION

change from militarism to pacifism in the Covenant rep-

resents a predictable and inevitable development in redemp-

t i v e h i s t o r y . T h u s , t h e y a r g u e , t h e O l d C o v e n a n t i t s e l f

te a ch e s u s p acifis m . a re con fron te d w ith a n A na b ap tis t

a r g u m e n t w h i c h s e e k s t o a d v o c a t e a n O l d T e s t a m e n t pacifism, on the basis of Biblical Theological insights.

The purpos e of the four review s includ ed in this es s ay is to

explore thes e ne w lines of argum entation, as s et forth by four

respected authors. If indeed Biblical Theology is pointing us

in a pa cifis tic direction, then w e m us t tak e it mos t serious ly .

Peter C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament.

Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1978. 125 pp. $3.95.

Craigies b ook is n ot a s tud y of Old Tes tam ent w ar tactics,nor is i t a systematic study of the Old Testament laws regard-

ing w arfare. Rather, w hat Craigie ad dress es is the problem of

how a God of love could eve r have b ecome involved in th e

horrors of w arfare. Craigie, w ho served in the Roya l Air

Force, an d w ho is now Profes s or of Religious Stu d ies at the

Universi ty of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada, is concerned

about the contras t be tw een the lov ing Chris t o f the New

Testam ent and the w arring YHWH of the Old Tes tam ent.

His torically th e Chris tian Church has de alt w ith this s up-

posed problem by pointing to the fact that there is plenty ofw rath in th e New Testam ent, by pointing to the eternal fires

of hell as taught by Jesus Himself , and by pointing to the en-

mity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the

serpent an enmity placed in the heart by God Himself

3: 15). The h orrors an d p ain of w arfare, the orthodox a rgu-

men t goes , come now here c lose t he horrors and pa in of

e ternal f ire . S in fu l m an des erves he ll; thus , w hen he ex-

periences w ar, he is only getting w hat he des erves.

This is not Craigies approach, nor does he even allude to

this line of argument. In the first paragraph of this book, hew rites tha t the frequent u s e of the w ord w ar is dis turbing in

a book w hich is as s ociated s o intima tely w ith the Prince of

Pea ce. (p. 9 ). He w rites tha t it is d istu rbing or at leas t it

shouldbe for the Chris tian to read the ruthles s law s of w ar in

Deuteronomy 20:10-18, or to meditate upon the bloodthirsty

execution of w ar in the book s of Jos hua and the J ud ges (p.

10). I t is hard, he states, to reconci le the Old Testament


3/19

PACIFISM AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 77

des crip t ion o f God as Wa rrior w ith the New Testa m ent

description of God as loving and self-giving (p. 11).

Craigie accepts the notion that orthodox Christians tend

to be m ore violent a nd w arlik e tha n m ore he terod ox groups

(p. a nd h e b elie ve s th at th e u s e of th e Old Te sta m en t b y

orthodox Christians has influenced them in this direction (pp.

overlook s the intens e Pharis eeis m w hich often

accompanies pacifistic groups, and does not note the verbal

abus e an d violence w hich ha s so often been their hallm ark.

Craigies real problem is w ith God, h ow ever. Can God be

both loving and w arlike ? The im m ediate ans w er w ould s eem

to be: No! (p. 35). Craigie asserts his premise on p. 42:

a lways evil. Craigie attempts to resolve the dilemma created

by his approach to Scripture by saying that Gods involvement

in Israels w ars s im ply sh ow s His iden tification w ith His s inful

people. It s how s Gods a ctivity , not His m oral being (p.

As a result , w e m ay s eek God, even in our sin (p. 43). This

sounds nice, but does i t a lso mean that we may seek God in

the act of murder, or of adultery? Since God, in Craigies

view , emp loys sinful w ar to further His p urpos es , does He

also em ploy a du ltery ? Scripture now here ind icates s uch a

thing. Moreover, if w ar is alw ay s w rong, w hy does God order

w arfare? For God is not only involved in w ar, He also com-

m and s it! Further, w e m us t as k if God identifies Him s elf w ith

s in w hen He iden t if ies Hims elf w ith s inne rs . Sure ly the

m ultitude of law s in both Testam ents , as w ell as the carefully

s potles s life of the Lord J es us Chris t sh ow that God n eed not

iden tify w ith s in in order to reach d ow n to the s inn er!

Perha ps w e s hould s ay , w ith orthodox Chris tianity, that

w ar is lik e d ivorce, slavery, an d d is inh eritance: it is a res pons e

to the evil of sinful man. These institutions are necessary in a

w orld of sin, or at leas t occas ionally n eces s ary; but the institu-

tions can be ab us ed a s w ell as properly em ployed according to

Scriptural law . Is w ar alw ay s evil?

Having as se rted tha t w as is alw ay s m orally evil, Craigie

then h as trouble w ith the holy w ars of the Old Tes tam ent,

particularly the extermination of the Canaanites. Can the

ruthless requirement for the extermination of the enemy

men, women, and chi ldren in any way be regarded as holy?

I think that it can not! (p. 49). Again, Craigies argument

boils d ow n to an ex pres s ion of prejud ice. As a m atter of fact,

w ar in the Old Tes tam ent w as precis ely holy . Wh en a city


4/19


w a s burned to the ground und er the ban 21:3 , Jos h.

6:16-24, Ju d. 1 : 17), the fire w as tak en from the altar and the

city w as cons ide red a w hole bu rnt sa crifice (Deut. 13: 16f.).

The fire on the altar, again, wa s n ever lit by h um an h and s ,

but w as fire from hea ven , kep t burning continua lly but ini-

t i a l l y poured ou t by God Himse l f ( c f . Gen . 22 :7 , Lev .

II I Kings Holy w ar, then , w as

the execution of Gods ow n fiery jud gmen t agains t thos e w ho

refused to have Christ as their sacrificial Substitute. The fires

and judgments of holy war simply issued the enemies of God

into the fires of hell.

Craigies explana tion of w hy God involved H im s elf in th e

evil of Is raels w ars is that w ar is a practical necess ity for s ur-

v iva l a (p . 66). He goes on to note tha t the form

w hich the Kingdom of God a s su m ed in Old Tes tam ent tim es

w as tha t of a (p. 70). Thus , the s tate is a form of

hum an organization through w hich God w orke d in the tim es

of ancient Is rael, and w ar w as a form of hum an activity in-

s epa rably link ed to the existen ce of the s tate (p. 74 ). Since

s inful w arfare is th e ines capab le concomitant of every na tion

s tate, at leas t God d irected it agains t es pecially w icked people,

the Can aa nites, w ho d es erved it (p. 74 ). In criticis m of this,

the fa ct is tha t w hile it is probab ly correct to s ay tha t w ar in-

evitably is neces s ary to secure the civil orde r of a fa llen w orld,

it is not presen ted evil in S cripture. The Divinely inspired

Ps alter glories in w ar and the d es truction of the w icked (e.g.

Ps . 5 8: 10; 1 39: 19 -22; It is the pres en ta tion of S crip-

ture, as opposed to Craigies theories, that the Canaanites

w ere Gods enem ies , and God u s ed the good tool of holy w ar

to slay them.

It is also deba table w hether the Kingdom of God a ss um ed

th e of a na tion s ta te , or w h e th er it w a s m e re ly tied t o a n d

a part icular nat ion state during i ts t ime of im-

maturity. If the former be the case, the theocracy must be

seen as a peculiar form of the Church; but if the latter, then the

civil government of ancient Israel is simply a description of

w ha t ju s t s ta te shou ld be like (cf . Heb . 2 :2 ), w ith some ad -

ditional peculiarities due to the Churchs tie thereto.

Wh y w ould God se t up s uch a s tate-church in the firs t

place? Craigie argues tha t it w as s o tha t the Church w ould

learn the futility of relying on the sinful arm of the fresh. The

de feat of the Israelite na tion s tate fun ctions as a pa rab le of


5/19


w arning: political ins titutions m ay be es s en tial to the e xist-

ence of hum an society, but they cannot be equated w ith the

Kingd om of God (p. 81 ). From this s ad history w e learn that

the Church is not a state and thus can never be promoted by

w ar (p. 82 ). Doubtless this is a legitim ate m oral les s on, but itis nonetheless morally problematic. The Church is not propa-

gated by adultery either; should God have created an adul-

terous Chu rch so tha t its fa ilure w ould s tand as an object

les s on? If w ar is evil, then the s tate is itself alw ay s evil, jus t as

adultery is evil.

This being the case, i t would seem that an Anabaptistic

retreat from citizenship is the only proper course of action.

argues that the Christian is inevitably a citizen of both

Church and s tate, and is thu s caught in a d ilemm a betw een

good a nd evil. This is b ecau s e the fun da m enta l principles ofthe Kingdom are love and non-violence (p. 108), a ques-

tionable assertion in the light of the doctrine of hell. We shall

return to Craigies attem pt to resolve this problem below .

The las t chap ter of his book is entitled Som e Conclu-

s ions . First, Craigie a ttem pts to dea l w ith th e problem of

God and w ar. Ess entially he tries to diss olve the problem in

m y s tery (a popu lar tact w ith d ialectical theologian s an d th ose

influenced by them ). The firs t point w hich it is im portan t to

s tres s in this context is the n ature of hum an language w hen it

is applied to God (p. 94). Our limited language points to the fact that God participates in human history (p. 95), but His

pa rticipa tion in w a rfa re n ot to h is moral but to his

will an d activity (p. 96 ). The B ible, how ever, prese nts holy

w ar as a reflex of Gods righteousn es s .

S e con d ly , d ea ls w ith the problem of

t ion. Why w as all this bloods hed recorde d for us to read , and

for the orthodox churches to misinterpret? Craigie is unable

to dea l w ith the historicity of the n arratives (though h e d oes

not deny them, nor does he deny Gods revelation through

them). All he is able to do is turn Old Testament history intoa pa rable, so tha t although h is v iew of the facts is e van gelical,

his theology is parabolic and dialectical. To use an analogy,

the Old Tes tamen t s t rea tmen t o f war may be seen a s a

parable, but the w hole parable m us t be read if the mes s age is

to em erge (p. 97 ). This pa rable s how s tw o things : firs t,

that violence is of the es s ence of sinful ma ns natu re, w ar

b e in g on e m a n ife s ta t ion a n d s e con d , th a t a n y


6/19


political form of Gods Kingdom must fail because of its tie to

s infu l s tate w arfare. The parab le thu s points to a need for a

Chris t s aves us by to violence (bu t

omits to note that the ascended, enthroned Christ poured out

violence on Jerusalem in 70 A. D., and continues to destroy His adversaries all through history, according to the Book of

Reve lat ion, w rit ten by the lov e J oh n ).

m is interprets both the Old a nd the New Testam ents , pitt ing

them against one another, and then can only resolve his

made problems by invoking a parabolic

The third problem is the problem is the problem of Chris-

tian e thics , as it grow s ou t of the s infu l w arfare record ed in the

Bible. Craigie d is tingu is he s betw een an ord er of neces s ity

(p. 109) and an order of goodness. The state is necessary, and

necess arily su s tained by evil w arfare. Thus , evil is necess aryand inescapable. The Christian cannot escape being entangled

in th is ord er of ne cess ity . This is a parad ox, w hich

does not kn ow how to res olve, y et I affirm both w ithin m y

the ological pers pective (p. 1 1 O). Craigies the ology, how eve r,

is not merely dialectical; because the order of necessit y is evil,

theology at this point is N ow t h e s e

rem arks m ay s eem to have all the ha llm arks of a w oolly posi-

tion, neither one thing nor the other. In a sense that is true.

Nevertheless, I think it maybe inevitable. It is, I believe, one

of the im plications of being the w orld, but not (p . 11 O).affirm s tha t to function respon s ibly in tha t sta te in-

volves, directly or indirectly, participation in violence. I can-

not escape that; I must share not only responsibility, but also

guilt, w ithout attem pting to jus tify it (p. 1 11 ).

unfortunate, mystical piety is only a sad mish-

mash of neo-orthodox y and Manichaeanism. The Christian

doctrine of w ar is su rely an offens e, but is only an extens ion of

the d octrine of eterna l jud gmen t, w hich is also an offens e.

Ca n believe in the d octrine of h ell, given his pre-

jud ices? Wh at a bout the d octrine of Gods w rath and the d oc-trine of propitiation? All of these fall to the ground before

a l l - lov ing God. Chris t i s Pr ince o f Peace , t rue

enough ; but n ot for all m en , only for His ow n s he ep.

One i s reminded o f an o f t recounted s tory concern ing

Spurgeon. A woman once approached the preacher and asked

h im h ow h e cou ld believe th at God a ctu ally h ated In

w ords to this effect, Spu rgeon replied : Mada m , it gives m e


7/19

PACIFIS M THE OLD TES TAMENT 81

no pause for thought that God should hate Esau, or me, or

any other man; what astounds me is that God should love

J acob. And s o it is . lik e S purgeon s as s aila nt, s eem s

in this b ook to have n o conception of the h olines s and w rath of

God, and no conception of the depravity and just deserts of

man. We should marvel that God loves any of us, and should

be astounded that there is any let up in His holy warfare.

Ja cob C. Enz , Th e Christian an d

Roots of in the Old Testam ent.

PA: Herald Press, 1972.95 pp. $1.95.

The back cover of this short book states that the objective

of the author is not to formulate a biblical doctrine of pacifism

but to reexa m ine th e biblical concepts to s ee jus t w ha t is

there. In his preface, Dr. Enz says, If pacifism is not found

in the very fabric of biblical thought, no amount of

tex ting w ill be conv incing. Thus , the in ten t o f these s ix

chapters, original ly lectures del ivered at Bethel College in

Kansas, is to provide a Bibl ical-Theological argument for

pacifis m . At the time of pub lication, Dr. Enz w as a Profess or

o f O ld T e s t a m e n t a n d H e b r e w a t M e n n o n i t e B ib l ic a l

Seminary , Elkhart , Ind iana .

There is virtually nothing in this book to attract the or-

thodox Chris tian think er. First of all, a low view of Scripture pervades Enzs discussion. The Bible is seen as contradictory:

W he n it [love ] na rrow s d ow n to a n ationa lis tic m otiva tion a s

in Psa lm 2 , the New Testament , in addi t ion to Ruth and

Jonah, corrects (p. 15). accounts of creat ion in

Genesis . . . (p. 42). Hence in the earliest material in the

Penta teuch . . . (p . 45). W ha t could be m ore and

nationalistic t h a n t h e t w o b e s t k n o w n M e s s i a n i c

Psa lm s . . . (p. 70)? [Emp has is ad ded to a ll quotations.]

Each of thes e as s ertions is gratuitous , betray s a low view of

the normativity of Gods holy Word, and indicates influence from liberal higher-critical methodologies.

Se cond , the view of the a tonem ent s et forth in this book is

not Christ ian but gnost ic . On p. 39 w e f ind, Christ nai led

1. On gnostic-anabaptist thinking, see James B. Jordan, The Moral

Majority: An Anabaptist Critique, in T he of the Am erican Baptist

Culture. and Civilization 1 (Tyler, TX: GDS Press, 1982).


8/19

8 2 AND CIVILIZATION

Him s elf to the hu m an race on His cross till the last w ho w an ts

i t may accept . He demands, but He also descends to the

lowes t level of hum an need to w alk upw ard w ith those w ho re-

s pond . The re is no notion of the propitiation of God s w rath

here, or of any kind of legal transaction on the cross. Every-

thing points to the id ea of a gnos tic sa vior reaching dow n th e

s cale of being to draw up s ouls caught in the s lim e. But

perha ps w e are being too harsh , read ing too m uch into this

one sentence.

Dr. Enz, however, leaves no doubt as to where he stands.

A plethora of ancient heresies find expression on pp. 62-65.

For instance, In addition to the incarnation of God in His

people and in Christ there is yet a sin-neutralized incarnation

of God in everyone. And , w e d es troy others w e a re

de s troying not only God, bu t also se lf since in God our ow nse lf cann ot be s eparated from the s elf w e de s troy in others .

This is pantheism, or panentheism. Christs incarnation is the

same as everyone elses. We are all little pieces of God. We are

gods ourselves. Enzs argument against taking life is identical

to that of the Hindu: all life is God, so to take any life is to at-

tack God.

Again, We live in a w orld of right an d w rong tha t ha s its

ow n built -in jud gm ent . No, God is the judge. There is no

s uch thing as natural law . This is again panth eis m , or if Enz

wants to say God created these laws, deism. Again, Enzs God not only imputes the gui l t o f s in to

Christ and punishes it in Him, He actually makes Christ a

s inn er: Here is the God of the s econd m ile, for it m ean s the

toleration of (not committed, of course, but taken upon

Hims elf); tha t w hich He h as foreve rset Himself against is

intoHis own natu re. There is more: I am convinced that

there is a basic evident continuity of both incarnation a n d

substitution from Jesus to us. Here is a w illingne s s to take or

share in the consequences of the wrong act of another even if

we have had no part w hats oever in the w rong act; this is inorder to he lp restore integrity in an d fel low s hip w ith the

w rongdoer. The effectiveness of accepting or sharing those

consequences can only be s ure as we share the ofChriston

t h e on e h a n d a n d ou rs e lv e s w it h t h e

w rongdoer on t he other. [All em ph as is ad de d, except for the

w ord and. ] The w ork of Chris t, in this s chem e, is not unique ,

but only exemplary. We are all gods, and we can each atone


9/19

PACIFISM AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

(whatever that means in this system) for one other. Christ is a

gnost ic savior who has come down into the world to infuse

toleration of evil, and a power to avoid evil, into the world.

Thu s, th ird, E nzs t heology ha s n o cat egory of Divine

justice. His God is not even a creator, eternally separate from

His creation. The essence of the gospel is a love which woos

p eop le ba ck t o God th r ou gh t oler a tion (p p. Th e

tian gospel is that God hates and punishes sin and sinners,

even ca l l ing on men to implement His work ( through the

sword). Salvation comes from the vicarious death of the unique

God-man un der t he fur y of Gods wra th . All men m ust die for

s in , but the e lec t die in Chri s t , and thus a re resurrec ted.

Judgment, then, is the foundation of resurrection, and of the

experience of love.

Enz closes his book with what must be taken as a wholly

Satanic attack on God: Because he has his own war to wage,

the breaks completely with the ear th ly st ra tegy of

physical combat . If the Christ ian is to be t rue to the Lord

Jesus Christ , he must make a full break with the ancient u l-

tim ate apostasy.His weaponr y is not t he belligerent ofultima-

tum issuing in the thrust of the sword that divides, destroys,

and perpetuates the very evil he is seeking to eliminate. His

weaponry is rather the persuasive word of the gospel issuing

in compassionate concern for l iberat ion, reconci l iat ion, and

celebration of the approaching Christ-ordained age of peace(p . 88) . [Emphas i s added . ] The God of Sc r ip ture , Who

punishes evil, is obviously the author of the ancient and ulti-

mate apostasy. Christ, who came to divide households

10 ), is per pet ua ting evil. The Gos pel Accor d ing t o E nz

i s bu t t he s i r e n s ong o f S a t a n , t ha t G od ough t t o l ove

e v e r y b o d y a n d excuse sin . fact , God ought to come down

and taste a little sin for Himself (which Enz says Christ did).

The God of Enz is the Satan of Scripture.

Oh, yes: the Old Testament and pacifism. Well, Enz actu-

ally deals very little with the Old Testament. His sole argu-ment seems to be that since God miraculously delivered Israel

on important occasions, this militates against the notion that

Israel should ever have taken up the sword to defend itself

(pp. Enz thinks that his gnostic God was trying gradu-

ally to lead people away from violence toward tolerance, by

showing them that He could deliver them and so they should

not t ry t o a rm themselves t o so. Well, it is true t ha t the


10/19

8 4 CHRISTIANITY AND CIVILIZATION

Bible tells us not to trust to h u ma n arms, and to t rust in the

L or d , bu t t he r e i s no t h i ng i n S c r i p t u r e t o i nd i c a t e t ha t

trusting in the Lord cannot involve, as an act of faith, training

for defe nsive w a r fa r e . a r e t o t r u st God for food a nd

m e n t , bu t w e a r e a l s o t o l d t ha t a good m a n l e a ve s a ninheri tance to his grandchi ldren (Prov. 13:22). There is no

reason to pit these things against each other. Moreover, if Enz

i s r i gh t , t hen the recorded commands of God to execute

capi ta l punishment , a n d t o wa r a ga in s t a n d t h e

Canaanites, are errors, and the Bible is not trustworthy.

As a work of Chr i s t i an t heo logy , t h i s book i s t o t a l l y

heretical. As a work of Biblical Theology, it is shabby. The

Mennonite churches have tried to set their faces against the

gnost ic aspects of their bu t it is a live and well in th is

book.

Vernard War and Peace, from Genesis to Revelation.

Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1981. 216pp. $8.95.

Th i s book is an u p d a t e d a n d r e v i s e d vers ion of the

au th ors K in g J esu s Man u al of A rms t he A rmless (Abingdon

Pres s , 1973). is a minister in the Church of the Brethren,

and professor of Religion at the University of La Verne, in

California.

We are confronted with a problem in the very introduc-

t ion , p . 11, where descr ibes violence a s i nclud ing any

activity that violates the dignity and God-image of persons,

w heth er phy s ically , verbally , ps y chologically , s ocial ly , eco-

nomical ly , sp ir i tua l ly , or in any way w h a t s o e v e r. C . S .

Lew is , in his classic essay on capital punishment, has pointed

out that treating people as sick and refusing to punish them

for crimes is dehumanizing in essence, while capital punish-

ment (a form of violence, to be sure) treats the criminal as a

real man who has made a real decision.

This ushers us into a basic problem that runs throughout

the book: there is no appreciation, it seems, for the legal foun-

dations of the covenant between God and man. The laws of

2. See the introduction by John S. Oyer of Goshen, Indiana, in WernerO. Mysticism and the S outh German -A Movement

1525-1531 S tudies in and 19 PA:

Herald Press, 1977), and the review of this book elsewhere in this

symposium.


11/19


Exodus-Deuteronomy are ignored, though they have much to

say to the issue of pacifism. The atonement is seen as expia-

tion (p. 1 18 ), ne ver as propitiation of the w rath of God. In-

d eed , tells us th at m a n is not God s en em y (p. 31). T h u s ,

a fundamental lack of theological orthodoxy once again colorseverything said about the movement of redemptive history.

Violence is not def ined and circumscribed by God-given

la w , b ut b y w h at s e em s to u s to b e righ t. righ tly p oin ts

out , repeated ly , tha t many crusaders for paci f i sm are as

violent as those they oppose, b ut h e n ever allow s the B ibles

ow n law s to define the proper us e of force.

In chapter 1, points out that m an w as created to tak e

d om inion, an d this im plies fighting or w res tling w ith the

creation. When Eve w as brought to Ada m , howe ver, it w as

not for fighting but for companionship. Then came the Fall. In h istoric orthod ox Christian ity th e follow ing propos itions

are taken as Biblical and true: 1. God and man are now

enem ies , and Gods w rath is agains t all m en (Rem . 1-3), and

His hatred against those outside Christ (Psalm 5). 2. God

poured out His w rath u pon Chris t, ins tead of on His covena nt

people. Those covenant p eople a re n ow enlis ted a s His do-

m inion a gents, a nd enthroned over those w ho w ill not con-

vert . 3 . God has privi leged righteous men to execute His

judgments on the earth, to a limited extent. The limits are

pres cribed in His law : certain capital crim es , certain occa-s ions of w arfare. 4. Evangelism is by persua s ion, never by the

sw ord. 5. Nationalis m is idolatry , and m ost w ars are unjust,

though not all.

Now , beca us e of th eologica l p os ition , w e ca nn ot ex-

pect him to tak e this ground , but w e d o have a right to expect

him to argue aga ins t it. He does not, how ever. God d oes n ot

fight agains t ma n; m an is n ot the en em y , he w rites (p. 31 ).

The enemy is man, bu t man i s not the enemy (p . 3 1 ). If

w e und erstand ma n as m ank ind, w e m ight agree in part

w ith b ut h e w ill n ot p erm it th a t v ie w . Ma n for h imm e an s all m e n. d oe s n ot w a n t to b e cou nted as a u nive r-

salist , as he makes clear toward the end of the book, but he

does w ant to leave tha t open a s a poss ibility.

The next step in the discussion is the city of Cain.

s ay s th at Ca in s ba s ic m otiva tion w a s a s ea rch for (p.

32 , and p . 147 ) . Th i s , however , i s aga in a f undamen ta l

theological error. The basic motivat ion for fal len man is


12/19


ha tred for God. Cains w alled city w as built first of all to ma k e

a nam e for hims elf against God (Gen. 4: 17; 11 as an act of

de fian ce. Cains p roblem w as m oral, not me taph y s ical, first

and foremost. Modern theology says that mans basic motive

is fear of non-being, of chaos, so that his basic drive is tos ecurity. This is bas ed on the being/ non-being du alis m of all

pagan thought.3 In Chris tian ity , how ever, ma ns problems are

ethical. There is no such thing as non-being, since after death

men continue to exist. Mans basic fear is not non-being, but

judgment. Man only tries to hide from this, and cover it up,

by pretending that he really fears non-being.

Now d oe s s ay , righ tly , th at w a r is n ot firs t of a ll a

political problem , but a th eological one. B ecau s e, how eve r,

his view of God is as k ew (w rathless ), his u nd erstand ing of the

na ture of the th eological problem is a ls o as k ew .Wh at other conclus ion can w e com e to w hen w e read in

chapter 2, Josh ua and com pan y had a true perception re-

garding w ar and p eace but m is applied it (and it takes the

remainder of the Bible and Jesus to get that matter straight-

ened out) (p. 40)? Further, goodness knows, we f ind

plen ty of early H ebrew a ctions th at as being very in -

cons is tent w ith w hat Ya hw ehs w ar actually is all about; and

the rem aind er of the Bible w ill w ork at correcting th ose incon-

sistencies. Nevertheless, all the evidence suggests that these

people w ere doing the best knew how in getting theirlives ha llow ed in a ccorda nce w ith Y ah w ehs w ill (p. 52 ). I

ha ve em pha s ize d s trik e us becau s e I think it is revea ling.

how ever, em phas ized the phrase the very bes t they

k new how . This is fa ls e on tw o counts . Firs t, God repeated ly

judged Israel, even in Joshuas t ime (a t Ai), for do ing the

best they knew. Second, what they did do right was in accor-

da nce w ith Gods revealed law , w hich required violence in

h oly w a r. is s a y in g th at J os h ua an d com p an y w e re righ t

in s iding w ith God, b ut w rong in k illing other pe ople. God,

however, condemned Saul and Ahab for not killing people (IS am . 1 5; I Kin gs 2 0), a nd m ad e a coven an t of (y es ,

w ith Phineas becaus e he s ome people 25).

B u t f o r I t s imp ly i s imposs ib l e to reconc i l e t h e

3. See Arthur O. Lovejoy, T h e of Being ( C a m b r i d g e :

Harvard, 1936); and Rushdoony, T he and the Many (Fairfax,

Press, 1978),


13/19


s a v a g e , ci ty-level ing Yahweh of Joshua with the God and

Father of Jesus. Where even with their best intentions (bet-

ter than ours) did these old Hebrews get off the track? (p.

58). Answer, they did not realize that man is not the enemy

(p. 59).

At this point the theological point should be clear:

has an unorthodox view of God and of salvat ion. If we are

looking for an evangelical Biblical theology of pacifism, we shall

not find it here any more than we found it in Enz.

Quickly, then, some other observations on the book: First,

orthodox Christians must object to the low view of Scripture

tha t runs throughout the book, most prominent ly in

adoption of the worn out nonsense of two Isaiahs. Second,

in te rpr e t s Isa iah 30, 31 as tea ching th a t Is ra e ls mi l ita r y

preparedness was sinful, whereas the text itself identifies the

sin as an alliance with Egypt (p. Third, a logical flaw (p.

71): There is no su ch thing as because there are no

peoples w ho them s elves are jus t enough to fight them . No,

because (1) Gods grace is sufficient to overcome this problem,

and (2) a just (i.e. defens ive) w ar is m eas ured n ot by the

of the defenders but by the actions of the aggressors.

Fourth, once Is rael had de term ined that s he w as going to

f igh t , God de termined tha t , whether he approved of such

fighting or not, he w as going to us e it to pres erve Israel, give

her a homeland , and lead her in the w ay tow ard the peaceablekingdom (p. 78). False, for Israel initially refused to fight

(Numbers 14), after God had commanded them to. has his

facts backw ards, becaus e he patent ly does not tak e the Bible

seriously as Gods inerrant Word.

if the suffering-servant ethic is not meant to apply

in s ocial situations , then the gos pel gives n ot sligh test hin t as

to w ha t ethic is to apply; there is no other ethic in th e New

Testam ent (p. 153 ). Why jus t the New Testam ent? Did n ot

Jes us com e to conf i rm an d en force a l l the law (Mat thew

5: 17-19)? Moreover, Remans 12 and 13 clearly separate per-sonal from social (civil) ethics in this area.

4

In con clu s ion , tw o th in gs : On e, d oes m a k e s om e

good points in this book , w ell w orth considering, s uch a s his

4. On Matthew 5 and Remans 12 & 13, see Greg L. Bahnsen,

in Christian Ethics (Ph il lipsburg, Cra ig Press , 1977). Even if Bahnsen is

on ly gen er ally cor rect , is in er ror .


14/19


conten t ion tha t m en w ho f igh t agains t ev i l, ra the r tha n

fighting for the good (God), become evil in the process. Here

is the danger in a political faith, and Christianity is not a

p olitica l fa ith , th ou gh (a s w ou ld a gre e) it ha s p olitica l

ra m ifica tion s . In m y op in ion , h ow e v er, fa ilu re to u s e

an orthodox theo logica l pers pect ive , an d h is b ad v iew o f

Scripture, gut his book of any real value.

Tw o, at this point w e m ight tak e up a n argum ent that

ru ns th rou gh b ook , a nd th os e of oth ers as w e ll. It is

this: since God fought for Is rael, Is rael w as m orally obligated

to do nothing in i ts own defens e. This argum ent is the s am e as

s ay ing tha t s ince God w ill tak e care of the poor, the poor m us t

do nothing for them s elves , and w e are obligated to do nothing

for them . In s hort, it does not w as h. God fought for Abram ,

but since Abram was a man of means, Abram had to f ight ,

too 1 4). W he n Da vid fou gh t, God s a rm y fou gh t righ t

above h im , but he w as s till orde red, by God, to fight (2 S am .

Milla rd C. Lind , a Warrior:

The of Ancient Israel.

Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1980. 232pp. $9.95.

Mi l la rd L ind i s p ro f e ssor o f Old Tes tamen t a t t he

Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries, Elkhart, Indiana,

a nd a m in is ter in th e Men non ite Ch urch . poin t is th at

in the Old Tes tam ent God a lw ay s fought for Is rael in a m an ner

w hich em phas ized the discontinui ty betw een His act ions a nd

those of His people. Either God did all the fighting (as at the

Exodus), or He did the foundational, definitive fighting and

His people only engaged in mop-up activities (as at Megiddo,

Jud ges 4 , 5), or He arran ged m atters s o that in battles w here

hum an a ction seem s to have b een param ount , it w as clear that

w ithout His activity the b attle could not be w on.

5. Another example of this argument is in John H. The Politics

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), p. 199: Christians are told (Rem.

12: 19) never to exercise vengeance but to leave it to God and to wrath.

Then th e au th orities ar e recognized (13 as execut ing th e par ticular func-

tion which the Christian was to leave to God. . . This makes it clear that

th e function exercised by govern men t is n ot th e function to be exercised by

Christians. This peculiar interpretation is contradicted by the entirety of

Scripture.


15/19

PACIFISM AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

There is n o problem w ith this, obvious ly , except that Lind

overstates his case on the first page of his text (numbered p.

23 ): This conviction w as s o em ph atic that Israels fighting,

w hile at t im es a s equel to the act of Yahw eh, w as regarded as

in effective; fa ith m ea nt th at Is ra el rely u pon Ya hw e hs

mi r a c l e f o r h e r d e f e n s e , r a t h e r t h a n u p o n s o l d i e r s a n d

weapons . This imp lies an opposition betw een Gods a ctivities

and those of men, w hich d oes not squa re w ith the Biblical

p re s en ta tion of th e re la tion s h ip be tw e e n th e God s

actions are the foundation of human action, not a negation of

i t . The notion that Gods actions and those of men cannot be

dependently paral lel assumes that God and man exist on the

same continuum. Thus, to the extent that God predest inates,

man is a mere puppet , and to the extent that man acts, God

d oes n ot act. On the contrary, how eve r; the d octrine of crea -

tion teaches u s tha t God a ll th ings , and acts in

th ings , ye t the ac t ions o f men are genuine f ree moral

choices, and indeed only have meaning against the back-

ground of Gods sovereignty.

Now , in the cas e of holy w ar, this simply m eans that the

victory is alw ay s ultim ately as cribed to God, w hether any

human actions take place or not. As pointed out above, David

w as to follow Gods arm y into ba ttle, fighting on the groun d

w hile God fought in the treetops (2 S am . 5 :23 f. ). The actions

are parallel, yet m an is w holly de pend ent on God for theo u t c o me .

A s econd problem enters in here, w hich Lind does not

discus s a t all. Tha t is , tha t there is a distinction betw een w ha t

w e m ight call holy w ar an d jus t w ar, the form er being

and absolute in character (liquidating the Canaanites,

des troy ing the Egypt ians) , the la t ter be ing de fens ive and

lim ited in cha racter (as the law s of Deuteronomy 20 : 10 -20 ).

6. An example of theological messiness is on p. 38, If one truly believes

in th e promise of gra ce th at God will give th e land, th en one ha s no need totake the way of works by fighting for it. The logic of Pauls doctrine of

grace ca l l ing for a response of fa i th ra ther than works is here

prefigured. . On the contrary, grace calls for both faith and faithful

work s; it only negates faithless works of th e law, done in pr ide. Moreover, if

God was giving the land in the sense Lind means, why did He tell Israel to

fight also? J esus sa id, giving us insight into th is, th e gospel of th e kingdom

of God is preached, and every one is forcing his way into it (Luke 16: 16).

Chr ists saving a ctions on our beha lf do not negat e our n eed to str ive.


16/19


The stress in the Exodus, that God did everything and that

man w as w holly pass ive , s tands a s a type of t he e te rna l

rede m ption w rought w hen God p oured out His holy w ar

w rath agains t Jes us Chris t, and a gains t all His e nem ies in he ll

forever. The s tres s in later w ars, w hich Lind m is s es , is on the

outw ork ing of the im plications of God s initial victory. A ll the

later w ars, those of Josh ua and David particularly , are mopp-

ing up actions in w hich m an is privileged by grace to have a

ha nd . That it is a p rivilege to enga ge in Gods w ars is clearly

seen in t he Psa lm s , perhaps now here be t te r than in Ps .

w here the s aints s ing for joy on their bed s w hile they

contem plate w arring a gains t Gods enem ies , or Ps . 58 :10,

The righteous w ill rejoice w he n he s ees the ve ngea nce; he

w ill w as h h is feet in the blood of the w icked . Those w ho can-

not say Am en to s uch s entim ents hav e not yet learned to

think Gods thoughts after Him.

As the New Testament makes clear, the coming of the

Gospel is the coming of Gods justice-judgment to the earth.

This has both positive and negative aspects. The same Christ

w ho prayed for His elect on the cross , also pray ed for the

d es truction of His enem ies (Ps . The s am e Chris t

w ho carried the cross for His people, w arned th e w omen of

Jerus alem of the w rath He s hortly w as to bring upon th e city

(Luk e 1). The s am e Jes us w ho s en t the Holy Spirit a t

Pentecost to save the church, s ent His w rath a t Holocau s t tod es troy 40 y ears la ter (Matthew 24 ). Thos e w ho

question this do so on the basis of a faulty premise: that the

Gospel is first and foremost a declaration of forgiveness to all

men. This is not the case; first and foremost the Gospel is a

declara t ion o f a theodicy , tha t God i s jus t , and has im-

plemen ted His just ice w hile (am azingly jus t ifying His peo-

ple (Rem an s 1-4). When w e s ee that the Gospel age is the age

of jud gme nt, of the Day of the Lord, w e h ave no problem re-

joicing in His jud gm en ts , or in se eing it a privilege to be

called to execute the m . [So, the qu es tion is this, courteousread er: w ould y ou rejoice to be a ppointed pub lic han gm an ?]

As a general canon, we may say that holy war of exter-

minat ion does not exist in t he New since li-

quidation of Egypt is fulfilled at the cross, in 70A. D., and in

t h e f i r e s o f h e l l , a n d s i n c e H i s e x t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e

Canaani tes has no corresponding spec ia l order in the New

Testament (i. e., you wil l total ly wipe out such and such


17/19


tribes ). In the Gos pel, holy w ar is the eva ngel, de s troying

sinful men by applying to them the death and resurrection of

Christ in preaching and in sacraments. On the other hand,

w ar continue s to be relevan t. We s ha ll return to tha t at

the end o f th i s essay .

Returning to Lind, there are good points made in this

s tudy concerning the relation betw een the d eliverer an d the

king: that since the Lord is the Deliverer, He is the king.

Aga in , Lin d te n d s to th is , s o tha t he is uns ure

w he ther the Biblical w riters ap prove of Davids s ub ord ina te

k ings hip or not. All the s am e, the contrasts Lind draw s be-

tw een the orien ta l paga n concept ion o f k ings h ip and the

Biblical one are frequently useful.

Lind points out that w hen Israel ad opted the w ay s of the

pagan k ings , the Lord w ent to w ar agains t Is rael. Ind eed , oneof the m ost ins ight ful suggest ions Lind m ak es is that there w as

a problem betw een Davids p ersonal arm y , a pro fes s ional

corps w hich grew up d uring Davids y ears u nd er Sa ul, and

the Israelite militia. Lind suggests that Davids sin of number-

ing the people consisted in an attempt to reduce the voluntary

militia of Israel into a part of his permanent army corps (p.

The y oung k ing David w ho play ed the pa rt of Gods

fool and slave by dancing before the Ark, and who earned the

contempt of Sauls daughter (possessed as she was by the

oriental pagan view of kingship), has now becom e an orientaltyrant to a great extent himself .

Unfortuna te ly w e cann ot recom m end th is book , a ll the

same. Linds method of approaching the Bible is that of radical

reda ction criticis m . Unles s the read er is pretty fa m iliar w ith th e

spurious fantasies of Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad, he

had best leave this book alone. Radical criticism such as Lind

em ploys ena bles the au thor to pick an d choos e w hich pa rts of

the Bible to hearken to, according to an evolutionary scheme.

The Bible ceases to be the Word of God, and becomes a set of

interw oven theologies of men . As a res ult, the text is frequen tlynot examined seriously. There are not enough good insights

s cattered th rough this book to ma k e its pu rchas e w orthw hile.

In conclus ion, w e s hould lik e to ma k e a n um ber of points .

First, i t does not seem as if anyone has taken the Old


18/19


m ent s eriously and w ork ed out a pa cifis tic w orld-view from it .

If Biblical Theology is to lead us to pacifism, it must do a bet-

ter job. Invariably a less than orthodox theology is brought in

to undergird the pacifist position, and this has been the case

from the e arly church (w ith i ts w holesa le borrow ing from

Greek ph ilos ophy , m os t notably in un til tod ay .

Second, God is a God of w rath, an d th e bles s ings of the

Gospel are the blessings of the the implementation of His

jus tice, an d jus tice mean s the pu nishm ent of the w icked . The

great ps alm of peace, Ps alm 12 2, argues that it w as the se tting

up of God s throne of jus tice w hich led to pea ce (v. 5 ). In

s hort, capital pun is hm ent and jus t w ar are ess ential founda -

tions of peace.

T h i r d , a f a l s e a n t i t h e s i s r u n s t h r o u g h mu c h o f t h i s

w riting, an a ntithes is b etw een violen ce and non-violence. Inthe Bible, this is never the antithesis. The righteous take the

k ingdom by violence, w e a re exp res sly told (Luke 16: 16). The

an tithes is is betw een obed ience to Gods law an d d is obe-

dience. The unregenerate and disobedient tend to be violent

in the w icked s ens e, becaus e of their ha tred of God a nd of His

im age in other me n. The righteous, h ow ever, are called by

Gods law to exercis e a holy violen ce aga ins t certain of

t he w icked , t hereby m an i fe s t i ng Gods w ra th . In e s sen ce ,

and desp i t e a l l qua l i f i ca t ions , t he an t i t hes i s v io l ence /

non-violence reduces the Gospel from theological to politicalterms.

Fourth, w hile the B ible forbids s treet fighting, and an y

tak ing of the law into ones ow n h an ds (Ex. 21:18-25 ), it does

allow for self defens e in s ituations w here the officers of law

cannot be called on for help (Ex. 22:2, If a thief is caught

w hile break ing in, and is s truck s o that he d ies , there w ill be

no bloodgu iltine s s on h is accoun t.). S ince th e e ntire p remis e

of the Sermon on the Mount is that Jesus came not to change

bu t to fulfill (en force) the law , an d s ince m uch of the

Se rm on cons is ts of turning the people aw ay from Pharis aicalaccretions and back to Moses,

7nothing in the sermon on the

Mount can properly be read as opposing this principle of

judicious self defense. The principle of jus t w ar is but a n

extension of this.

7. In this respect, Jesus was doing what all the prophets had done, and

was bringing the prophetic tradition to its culmination.


19/19


Fifth, the ex term ina tion of the Cana anites w as a s pecial

action, carefully delineated by God, and not repeated. It can-

not be repeated today, for God has given us no list of nations

to destroy.

Sixth, the law of God s pecifies that w ar is to be only defen -

sive. The king might maintain no standing army, no horses

17 : 16 ). Is rael w ould go to w ar only w hen attacked

(e .g., 3 8 : A t s u ch a tim e , te rm s of p ea ce w e re to b e

offered , but if thes e w ere not accepted, all the m en w ere to be

k illed , but the w ome n a nd children incorporated into Is rael

20: 10-20). Thus, the most that can be gleaned from

the Old Testament is that Christian nation states may only

f ight defensive w ars, and s urely s uch w ars are jus t w ars.

Seven th, w e m ay quest ion w hether some m odif ication in

jus t w ar strategy is implied by the coming of the New Cove-

n an t. Th e v an qu is h ed na tion in th e Te s ta m en t w a s in -

corporated into Israel, e i t her by ens lavemen t o r by t he

elimination of the men and the simple incorporation of the

w om en an d ch ild ren 20 : 10 -20 ). In the Gos pel age,

how ever, the integrity of each an d ev ery lan guage an d p eople

s e e m s e m p h a s i z e d b y t h e m u l t i p l i c a t i o n o f t o n g u e s a t

Pentecost (Acts 2) an d by the as s urances of w orldw ide conver-

s ion (Rev, 21 Thus , I s hou ld lik e to propos e tha t in

a Chris tian jus t w ar there w ould b e no aggran dizem ent of the

defending nation at the expense of the aggressor. Reparations

m ight be ex acted in the form of w ar debt, bu t not coloniza -

tion, nor the elimination of the entire male citizenry. Certain

guarantees might be exacted, such as free trade (not

im peria l, m ercan tilis tic trad e) and s a fe pas s age

f o r C h r i s t i a n m i s s i o n a r i e s , b u t n o mo r e . T h i s i s a l s o

predicated on the Chris tian view tha t na tional boun da ries

s hould be d raw n a long ethnic and lingua l lines , not along

lines of conquest.

Finally , evangelis m w as not condu cted b y conques t in the

Old Tes tam ent, for the Cana an ites w ere not evangelized butex t e rm ina ted , and no o ther na t ions w ere conquered s ave

w hen the y a ttacked firs t . Evan gelis m , the s pread of the faith

and of the church, is by proclamation, in both Testaments.

Documents

Jordan,JB-Pacifism in the OT