THE WORD AND THE SWORD

THE USE OF THE BIBLE IN THE PACIFIST-JUST WAR DEBATE

______

Hermeneutics module
MTh Biblical Studies Programme

_____

International Baptist Theological Seminary

Prague, Czech Republic

______

Alexander Flek
Spring 2002
 2

1. Introduction
The question whether it is legitimate for a Christian to participate in the military

seems to remain as difficult as it is old. Although the Church has been tackling this topic for

most of the last twenty centuries, there seems to be as little agreement in this regard as ever.

But the question is still being asked, as every new generation of believers is being confronted

with it.

Our world is obviously a dangerous place. The evil abounds in various forms, and

sometimes the only conceivable solution to it seems to be a wise and controlled use of

violence by the government. Today, in our global era, many of the Western countries are

sending their troops to different parts of the world to implement their various political,

economical, or humanitarian interests. As these countries are often referred to as “Christian”,

their behaviour (whether they want it or not) represents before the rest of the world what the

meaning of the word “Christian” is. Therefore, the question how to understand the believer’s

responsibility in regard to military activity remains as crucial today as ever.

2. Ambiguity of the biblical witness

Naturally, the Christians look into the Bible for answers, but in this case, the answers

seem to remain somewhat elusive. Some biblical passages, especially those found in the

Hebrew Scriptures, seem to warrant the use of military means to achieve God’s purposes (e.g.

Ex. 17:13-16; Num. 31:3) or to defend and enhance the national existence of God’s people,

Israel (e.g. Josh. 11:18; 1Sam. 14:52; 19:8). Other passages, most often from the New

Testament, are cited to point out the loving, peaceful character of the Kingdom of God (e.g.

John 18:36; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 5:22), implying that the followers of Christ should be willing

rather to suffer than to inflict suffering (cf. Mat 5:38-39; 1Pet 2:19-21).

The contradiction seems to be obvious. Arthur F. Holmes, one of the leading

evangelical ethicists, suggests that this ambiguity makes it quite impossible to use the Bible as

a sufficient source when it comes to question of the legitimate use of violence: “The biblical
 3

materials by themselves are inconclusive. We therefore develop theological constructs. We

draw assistance from philosophical constructs” (Clouse, p. 132; italics added).

Others, like Daniel L. Buttry, believe that it is possible to find a meaningful answer

in the Bible itself, using a specific canonical approach: “…[R]ather than accepting the

violence of the Old Testament as an essential given and then trying to squeeze Jesus into that

framework, we must begin with an understanding of what Jesus was saying and work our way

into the rest of the Bible with a Christ-centred conceptual framework” (p. 8; italics added).

It seems that that the above-mentioned “constructs”, “frameworks” or different

hermeneutical approaches are the reasons why various authors arrive at different, often

contradictory, conclusions on our topic. To illustrate this better, let us now look at a typical

example of a debate between the adherents of two different schools of thought: the so called

“just war theory” and Christian pacifism.1

3. The “Just war” argument

In connection with the then current war in Vietnam, two articles appeared in

November 21, 1975 issue of Christianity Today. The first, titled “Can a Christian Go to

War?”, was written by George W. Knight III, a representative of the mainstream Protestant

thought. The second article, “Beating Swords Into Plowshares” was a work of Myron S.

Augsburger, a Mennonite well known for advocating Christian pacifist ideas. Each of the two

authors argues for a completely different position on the relationship of a Christian and war,

as we will see. Our main interest will concentrate on their selection of Bible references by

which they support their views, and especially on the way they use these Scriptures.

1
These terms are used in a somewhat inclusive sense here. Sometimes a difference is being made between
pacifism and nonresistance, for example. However, this difference is not always clear. In War: Four Christian
Views, Myron S. Augsburger, presented as a “pacifist”, remarks: “Although I have written the chapter in this
volume entitled ‘Christian Pacifism’, my own position is better expressed by the term nonresistance” (p. 58).
 4

3.1. “You shall not kill” vs. “When you go out to battle”

Knight develops his exposition by listing the most common Christian arguments

against war, refuting them one by one by referring to other places in the Scriptures. He starts

with the commandment, “You shall not kill” (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17), which he agrees to be

the “central point of departure” in this discussion (p. 4). 2 Mentioning that some regard this

command as a general prohibition of all killing, including that which is done in war, he lists

two Bible references to disavow such a position.

First, Knight cites the statement of Gen. 9:6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man

shall his blood be shed”, which he understands as God’s “express command … to put a

murderer to death” (p. 4). Then he extrapolates his argument by referring to the Israelite war

code in Deut. 20. Knight argues that the “awesome responsibility of men extends not only to

capital punishment for the murderer but also to the waging of war and the slaying of enemies”

(p. 4). His conclusion is that since God instructed his people to wage war in the past, it is

“impossible to assert that the command ‘You shall not kill’ was intended to prohibit war” (p.

4).3

3.2. Turning the other cheek vs. Praising the soldiers

The next point against Christian soldiering is reference to Jesus Christ who, as

Knight notes, “urges us to turn the other cheek” (cf. Matt. 5:39). Admittedly, “[s]oldiers don’t

seem to turn the other cheek and don’t seem to love their neighbors, and so therefore, by

implication, we have Jesus’ authority against war and being a soldier” (p. 5).

2
Interestingly, this is also the last mention he makes of this commandment in his treatise.
3
After making this conclusion, Knight addresses the objection that since Israel was in a unique position of a
theocratic nation of God, no other group or nation today can apply the OT war texts to themselves. Although he
agrees to this fact, he holds that these Scriptures still reveal “the basic principle in consideration, that war itself is
not always ruled out as contrary to God’s will”, and therefore, “a nation or an individual may, like Israel, defend
itself or others, as Israel did” (p. 5). This way of reasoning, though, constitutes a logical fallacy.
 5

Against this powerful appeal to the explicit teaching of Jesus on non-violence,

Knight lists three instances when the New Testament makes positive, or at least neutral

comments about specific soldiers. Matt 8:10 is quoted with a remark that Jesus’ “highest

words of praise are found for a soldier… It is noteworthy that Jesus does not demand that the

centurion cease being a soldier” (p. 5). Next, Knight refers to Luke 3:14 where John the

Baptist, when asked by soldiers what they should do, “does not demand that they leave the

army” (p. 5). Finally, he notes that Cornelius, a Roman centurion, is said to be “God-fearing”

in Acts 10.

Because these soldiers were not commanded to leave their vocation, Knight

concludes that although Jesus speaks about turning the other cheek, he can still “…recognize

Christians as soldiers”.4 Knight then goes on to declare that although a Christian must be

ready to suffer, and even die rather than deny Christ, at the same time he must be ready to

“defend himself, others, and a nation against attack as a responsibility laid on him by faith in

Christ” (p. 5). To solve this apparent puzzle, Knight proceeds to discuss the difference

between Christian ethics for the individual and for the state.

3.3. Romans 12 vs. Romans 13

In Romans 12:17-21 and 13:1-7, two quite contrasting passages are juxtaposed. The

pacifists like to turn to Rom. 12, pointing out that believers are “not to avenge” themselves

but “rather do good” to their enemies. This, of course, disqualifies them from participation in

military or any other coercive power. Defenders of the just war theory, in their turn, prefer to

quote Rom. 13 where the state is described as God’s agent with authority to avenge the

innocent and punish the evildoer. Moreover, believers are required to submit to the state and

its institutions. This, of course, can involve the military service and active participation in

4
This is a typical “argument from silence”. What John or Jesus did not say cannot be used as a basis for
argumentation. Furthermore, the soldiers in the three passages quoted can in no way be regarded as “Christians”.
 6

war. As Knight asserts, “God gives to the state the power of the sword, the right to wage war

against evil” (p. 5).

Building his argument on the Romans 13 passage, Knight insists on the believer’s

obedience to the state. In his view, “Christians should not miss this clear teaching nor be

misled by the misuse of other passages” (p. 5). 5 At the same time, he admits that this is not

always simple, since “sometimes the state misuses its power … [and] uses the sword against

the good” (p. 6). In such case, Christians are called to follow the example of the apostles and

“obey God rather than men” (Acts 4:19; 5:29). Applying this principle, Knight suggests that

Christians in Russia should not have fought against Czechoslovakia, or for North Vietnam.

Knight’s overall conclusion is twofold. Firstly, “the Lord’s teaching on turning the

other cheek is not to be applied to the state” (p. 5), and secondly, “the Christian must fight for

his country in a just war and must refuse to fight in an unjust war” (p. 6). Regrettably, it is not

shown how to apply this principle. How can one know beforehand whether the war his

government is about to wage will be just or unjust? How can one know that his government’s

rhetoric is not a mere propaganda?

4. The pacifist argument

The article written by Myron S. Augsburger for the same issue of Christianity Today

represents a view which is quite opposite to that of Knight. Also his method is quite different.

Instead of citing one isolated verse of Scripture against another, he reveals the background of

the Christian pacifist thought, explaining its hermeneutical agenda. He opens his article with

the words of Jesus: “Put your sword back…” (Matt. 26:52) and of Isaiah: “They will beat

their swords into plowshares…”(Isa. 2:4), stating that these words “apply to us today… if we

take the way of Christ and his Spirit seriously” (p. 7). By this rather radical introduction, he

leaves no reader in doubt about his own stance on the topic of war.
5
Which passages he means, and how are they supposedly misused, Knight does not reveal.
 7

4.1. Just war? Not today!

Augsburger goes on to dismiss the just war theory with two significant observations.

Firstly, in the modern world, the Christian’s attitude to war can no longer be decided by his or

her national allegiance. As he points out, “…[w]e are now a global community in which we

face the question of what violence does to a total humanity” (p. 7). Secondly, the

technological development, leading to the “mechanized and nuclear warfare”, makes the

arguments of the historical just war theory inadequate and obsolete.6

4.2. Ethics for the radical minority

Quoting the words “as he is so are we in this world” (1John 4:17b), and “as the

Father has sent me, even so send I you” (John 20:21), Augsburger reminds his readers that

their first and foremost mission is to live in a Christ-like manner, “announcing the good news

of reconciliation to God, and through him to one another” (p. 7).

Augburger’s whole outlook is shaped by a keen awareness that Christians are called

to live in the present world as members of “another kingdom”. In the specific context of the

Christian’s attitude to war, he quotes the words of Jesus: “My kingdom is not of this world: if

my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight…” (John 18:36). Based on this,

Augsburger develops a notion that Jesus’ ethics is not for the society as a whole but rather for

the Christian minority surrounded by a hostile, secular world: “As Christians, we are not to

provide an ethic for society or the state; our job is to define clearly the ethic for the Christian,

the disciple of Jesus Christ” (p. 8).

This brings in the issue of the Church’s relationship to the state. Not surprisingly,

Augsburger argues for a strict division between the two, noting that this has become very

6
Since neither Knight nor Augsburger explicitly list the basic tenets of the classical just war theory (dating back
to St. Augustine), it might be useful to include a list of the just war criteria here. Richard B. Hays records them
in a following way: “There must be just cause… and right intent…. The war must be waged only by a legitimate
authority as a move of last resort, and there must be probability of success. Further, the means of waging war
must be proportionate to the ends, and the war must distinguish combatants from noncombatants” (p.344).
 8

difficult in America, which, in his words, operates “under the myth that we are a Christian

nation”. Christian loyalty, according to Augsburger, “transcends every other loyalty…,

transcends nationalism” (p. 8). In his view, the Christian should respect the government with

its power “to protect the innocent and punish the evil-doer”, but at the same time dissociate

from it to a substantial degree, asking “the government to be government and let the Church

be the Church” (p. 8).

When discussing Romans 13, Augsburger argues that this text, “properly read”,

supports the above stated view: “Since God ordains the powers he remains above the powers.”

Thus, the Christian should be free to obey God rather than men whenever the conflict of the

two loyalties arises. Augsburger even suggests that Romans 13 “calls us to be ‘subject to’

authorities, but it doesn’t use the term ‘obey’.” Regretfully, he does not explain how one can

do the first without doing the other.

Augsburger brings the issue of the relationship between Church and state still further

when he asks “What about a Christian’s participation in government?” He proposes that (a)

Christians may serve in the government but must not try to “Christianise” it, creating a state

church, and (b) Christians may serve in the government only at levels where they can function

without compromising their faith in Jesus (pp. 8-9).

4.3. Evangelical premises

Without explicitly quoting the Scriptures, Augsburger sums up his argument with

four “evangelical premises”, or principles based on the biblical message which climaxes in

the person and teaching of Jesus Christ. He contents that the disciples of Christ should live a

life of “New Testament non-resistance” as an expression of their obedience to Christ’s claim

over their lives. The premises are as follows:

 9

(1) Participation in war implies taking life of persons for whom Christ died

and to whom we are send with the Gospel mission.

(2) Since the kingdom of God transcends national borders, Christians

participating in war could find themselves fighting against “persons who

worship and follow the same Lord”.7

(3) Jesus taught love for enemies in his sermons and by his example of

dying on the cross. Participation in war is contrary to this teaching.8

(4) Since all people were created in the image of God, killing is “a basic sin

against the God-given grace of life”

Augsburger’s overall conclusion is twofold. Firstly, Christians are called to change

the world by “the love of Christ and the good news of the Gospel”, not by force. Secondly,

our attitude to the present violence should be motivated by the “belief in the reality of the

kingdom of Christ and the resurrection”. Thus, perhaps Augsburger’s most challenging

statement sums up the whole article most tellingly: “we don’t have to live; we can die” (p. 9).

4.4. Unfolding revelation

After making his conclusion, Augsburger shortly engages the possible objection to

his view, i.e. reference to God’s use of wars in the Old Testament. He replies that although he

believes all Scripture to be fully inspired, yet he cannot see the Bible as “a flat book”, but as a

record of the “unfolding revelation of God’s will” climaxing in Jesus Christ. Thus, OT wars

cannot be used as argument against the explicit teaching of Christ. Furthermore, Augsburger

7
Father George Zabelka, chaplain of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb squadrons, describes a drastic example
of this problem, repenting of his previously complacent position: “Catholics dropped the A-bomb on top of the
largest and first Catholic city in Japan. One would have thought that I, as a Catholic priest, would have spoken
out against the atomic bombing of nuns…. One would have thought that I would have suggested that as a
minimal standard of Catholic morality, Catholics shouldn’t bomb Catholic children. I didn’t” (Hays, pp. 318-19).
8
Archbishop Desmond Tutu expresses the same point: “…we Christians probably ought to be pacifists, for Jesus
taught his followers how to die and not how to kill” (Hendrickx, p. x).
 10

points out, “God is no longer using a nation to achieve his purpose” but rather the Church of

Jesus Christ as a fellowship of reborn believers that transcends national barriers (p. 9).

5. The Kingdom key

The above outlined debate between Knight and Augsburger is representative of a

larger disagreement among the Christian thinkers. While the mainstream Protestant and

Catholic denominations generally hold to the just war doctrine developed by St. Augustine,

the minority of the so-called „Peace churches“ (such as Mennonites and Quakers) argues for

Christian pacifism or non-violence. As Arthur F. Holmes points out, this debate is rooted in a

fundamental difference between the two underlying theological outlooks: “Disagreement

about war ... is not just disagreement about the meaning of some biblical texts. It relates to

entire theologies and resultant views of Christian's place in society” (Clouse, pp.124-25).

It seems that the key divergence between the two views lies in their different

understanding of the kingdom of God and the nature of the believer’s identity. If the Kingdom

is already present in this world, as some gospel sayings suggest (cf. Matt. 12:28; Luke

17:20f.), then Jesus’ ethics of the Sermon on the Mount apply to us today, as “new creatures”

and members of the Kingdom of God.

If, however, we see the Kingdom predominantly as something coming in the future,

or as some kind of spiritual realm effectively detached from our “normal” experience, then we

will be inclined to base our identity in such aspects of the present life as our national, political

or economic realities. In such case, we will inevitably tend to see the Sermon and its

requirements as idealistic and impracticable in the “real”, i.e. fallen, sinful world. Reinhold

Niebuhr, one of the most prominent Christian thinkers of 20th century, father of the “Christian

realism” expressed this view very clearly: “The ethic of Jesus does not deal at all with the

immediate moral problem of every human life [...]. It does not establish a connection with the
 11

horizontal points of a political or social ethic [...]. It has only a vertical dimension between the

loving will of God and the will of man”(p.22).

Let us now see how these two underlying theological constructs influence the way

the just war thinkers and the pacifists read the Scriptures and use them in their debate.

5.1. The words of the sword (The militarist hermeneutics)

Naturally, supporters of the just war theory seek to justify their views by quoting the

Bible. Indeed, there are a number of biblical passages that are regularly used to support the

just war thinking. In an excellent overview of the various Christian positions supporting or

allowing participation in war, Willard M Swartley lists the following six “Scriptural”

arguments (pp. 97-101):

1. “God commanded to fight and kill” – many examples of Israel’s wars can be

listed.

2. “God honoured military leaders” – e.g. Abraham, Joshua, Gideon, David.

3. “NT sayings endorse war” – the three “soldier” references (Matt. 8:10; Luke

3:14; Acts 10).

4. “The apostolic writings teach subjection to authority” – Rom. 13.

5. “The Sermon on the Mount is not to be applied literally” (John 18:22f; Acts 23:3

– Jesus and Paul did not “turn the other cheek”).

6. “NT uses war symbolism” – Eph. 6:10-20; 2Tim 2:3f; Rev. 19:11-15

The pacifist answer to the first and second argument is that we need to take into

account the whole canon, the whole story of God’s dealing with humanity. Even the just war

defender Knight acknowledges that no nation today can take the role of biblical Israel with its

unique status of the “nation of God”.9 Today, according to the unified testimony of the NT,

the kingdom of God is no longer national. In Christ, there is no more “Jew or Greek” (Gal.
9
see footnote 3
 12

3:28), as God’s people come “from every nation and tribe” (Rev. 7:9). Moreover, this

kingdom is spiritual, “not of this world” (John 18:36). Therefore, its struggle is spiritual, not

carnal (Eph. 6:12), as are its weapons (2 Cor. 10:4). It is also worthy of consideration that

although God sometimes commanded Israel to wage war, at other times He did not bless their

military efforts and gave them over to their enemies (e.g. Num. 14:40-45, greater part of

Jeremiah).

When it comes to the third argument, it has already been mentioned that an argument

from silence cannot constitute a basis of a serious discussion. As Richard B. Hays observes,

“none of the positive stories about soldiers who became believers actually depicts them as

fighting or using force in God’s service” (p.340). It is evident that none of these passages

actually “endorse war”. Praising somebody’s faith is really not the same as praising his or her

occupation (Matt. 8:10).10 Telling soldiers that it is wrong to abuse people is really not the

same as saying that is all right to kill them in war (Luke 3:14). Using the same strategy of

argument from silence, we could also try to justify slavery (among other historical vices),

since Jesus never told any master to release his slaves, and Paul even tells slaves to be

obedient to their masters!11

When it comes to Rom. 13, it is true that Paul says in no uncertain terms that

Christians should be subject to authorities. However, other instances in the Scriptures clearly

show that even for the apostles this principle was no moral absolute. There are situations

when the followers of Christ, as citizens of His kingdom, have to choose loyalty to God over

loyalty to earthly governments (Acts 4:19; 5:29).

On the first glance, the reference to Jesus and Paul who, when beaten, protested

instead of “turning the other cheek” seems to be a serious argument against taking the Sermon

10
As Hays poignantly observes, these new believers’ “military background is no more commended by these
stories than are the occupations of other converts, such as tax-collectors and prostitutes” (p.340).
11
Swartley shows that in its time, this kind of argumentation used to be quite common among the Christian
advocates of slavery.
 13

on the Mount literally. However, looking at the context again, it becomes clear that this

argument is a pure demagogy. Our Saviour voluntarily offered not just his cheek, but his

whole body, his whole life to be stricken and broken for us (Luke 22:19; John 10:18).

Likewise the apostle Paul, following his Lord’s guidance and example, didn’t spare his life

but gave himself over to the authorities (Acts 20:22-24; 25:11). The early tradition testifies

that Paul, in fact, paid for his faith not just with a cheek, but a whole head. Numerous

historical records show us that the first Christians were ready to die rather than fight or even

kill in self-defence. We can conclude that the “other cheek” saying indeed wasn’t understood

literally by Jesus (and his early followers), but had a more generic meaning, representative of

all kinds of suffering we should be ready to undergo as we follow him.

Finally, the appeal to the use of “war symbolism”, i.e. technical military terms or

imagery in a few isolated New Testament instances seems to be a mere desperate attempt to

prove one’s point without a slightest regard to the meaning to the text. It is true that the

passage in Eph. 6:10-20 uses some military terms, but nothing can be plainer than the

assertion of v.12 that our fight is not against human beings but against the evil spiritual forces.

Thus, Paul tries to make as plain as possible that his use of military terms is purely figurative.

The same is true for the reference to 2Tim. 2, and especially for the passage in Revelation 19,

where the apocalyptic genre requires the use of very vivid imagery. There is an overwhelming

consensus among the biblical scholars that the language of such passages cannot be

interpreted literally.

Overall, the attempt of the just war advocates to support their views by the Bible

seems to be quite unsatisfactory. Most of the time, they quote isolated proof-texts without the

proper respect either to their meaning in the immediate context or to their relationship to the

unfolding story of redemption as recorded in the whole canon. As has been shown above, the

commonly quoted Scriptures cannot intelligently justify any Christian participation in war.
 14

This way of using the Scriptures as a mere pool of proof-texts for our ideological

arguments can create an impression that the Bible really has no consistent witness, that we

can make it say whatever we want it to say. Is there a preferable, more conclusive way of

using the Bible in the debate on war and violence? Herman Hendrickx makes the following

hermeneutical remark:

The question as to whether violence is to be altogether rejected, or can be

accepted in certain situations and under certain conditions by a Christian today,
does not solely depend on whether he can pinpoint one or a few texts in which
Jesus seems either to reject or to encourage and condone violence. … To decide
this issue the total biblical witness must be dealt with in a responsible manner
(p.84).

5.2. The sword of the Word (The pacifist hermeneutics)

It is interesting to see how strikingly different is the way Augsburger (as a

representative of the pacifist camp) uses the Bible in his discussion. Only a few explicit Bible

quotes appear in his article, and even these are not used to brace or prove his argument.

Rather, Augsburger shares his hermeneutical strategies with the readers, allowing them to see

how he understands the Biblical message as a whole.

Quite curiously, it could be said that Augsburger perhaps does a much better job on

the general hermeneutic plane than on the level of immediate exegesis of specific texts. His

Scriptural arguments are the following:

1. The use of weapons is wrong (Matt. 26:52; Isa. 2:4).

2. Christians, as members of God’s kingdom, should live differently then “this

world” (John 18:36; 20:21; 1John 4:17b).

3. God is superior to the powers he ordains (Romans 13).

Opening his article by simply quoting the first two Scriptures, Augsburger confines

his comments only to a very brief statement that these words “apply to us today… if we take
 15

the way of Christ and his Spirit seriously” (p. 7). This, however, is not as obvious as it might

look. Let us look at the immediate context of both of these passages. Isaiah’s vision (Isa. 2:1-

5) describes the apocalyptic end of days. According to v. 4, the nations will “beat their swords

into plowshares” only at the judgement day. If we believe that these words apply today, we

should also expect that wolfs and lambs happily coexist in the fields today, based on Isa. 11:6

and 65:25. Indeed, very few exegetes would share such an optimistic view of realised

eschatology.

Jesus’ saying “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will

perish by the sword” is often used by the pacifists to show that armies should not fight or that

they should be disarmed altogether. If we, however, take a closer look at the scene, we see

that this saying is not addressed to the soldiers who came to arrest Jesus, but to one of his

disciples, Peter (Matt. 26:51; John 18:10). Thus, we do not have here a general prohibition of

the use of violence or of coercive power, but a prohibition of the illegitimate use of violence

against the legal power. This interpretation completely agrees with Paul’s statement that the

earthly authorities are an ordinance of God and resisting them amounts to resisting God

himself (Rom 13:1-7). Jesus’ warning refers to the fact that no government will tolerate its

citizens rising a weapon against it. All such rebels must count on the most severe punishment.

We can conclude that Matt 26:52, in fact, is not an argument against just war theory but

against the Zealot-like revolutionary ideologies such as theology of liberation.12

If Augsburger’s first reference to Scriptures was somehow unlucky, his second

argument that Christians are called to Christ-like life reflecting their citizenship in the

heavenly kingdom is much better developed. As has been shown above, this “kingdom

outlook” is the basic element of most of the pacifist thought. It is not surprising that most of
12
Robert H. Stein suggests that the meaning of this verse is hyperbolic rather than literal. He lists ten different
criteria by which we can identify a hyperbolic statement (pp.125-34). Of these ten, four could be applied to our
passage: the statement conflicts with the OT, it is not in praxis literally fulfilled (– all warriors do not die young),
it employs a literary form prone to exaggeration (a proverb), and it uses universal language (the quantifier “all”).
However, Stein fails to see that this statement does not address the issue of military violence but one of armed
anti-government rebellion. In such context, Jesus’ statement can be understood quite literally.
 16

the pacifist voices come from the churches that are heirs to the tradition of the radical

reformation. Historically, these communities have always based their identity in being

Christ’s disciples, members of “the little flock” to whom the Father promised the Kingdom.

The “kingdoms” of this world often severely persecuted them, which led them to develop a

strong sense of a distinct community of the faithful in the midst of the secular or apostate

society. Therefore, their theological ethics usually concern only the company of the faithful

disciples.

A classic example of this reasoning is John H. Yoder’s comment on Matt. 5:1-2,

opening the Sermon on the Mount:

“When Moses met God on a mountain and received from Him the tables of the
law, this law was for all the children of Israel. When Jesus from another hill
proclaims again the statutes of His rule, it is to His disciples. This is not a set of
moral standards to be posed on everyone or on the unconvinced. It is not proposed
that persons using these standards can rule the unbelieving world accordingly, nor
that they will be prosperous and popular” (pp. 38-39).

Thus, in contrast to the just war theorists who seek to settle the world’s problems, the

main focus of the Christian pacifists is obedience to the radical requirements of discipleship.

These requirements, as laid out in the Sermon on the Mount, constitute “not a meditation on

how best to guide a society, but a description of how a person behaves whose life has been

transformed by meeting Jesus” (Yoder, p. 38).

It is often suggested that the Sermon on the Mount is not to be taken literally or that

the ethics described there represent an impossible ideal not attainable in this age. However, as

Richard Hays (p. 320-22) conclusively argues from the immediate and general context of the

book of Matthew, it is very difficult to explain away the literal force of these requirements.

After a careful examination of the topic of non-violence and enemy-love throughout the

whole gospel, Hays comes to a following conclusion: “Matthew offers a vision of a radical
 17

countercultural community […] free of anger, lust, falsehood, and violence. […]. Instead of

wielding the power of violence, the community of Jesus’ disciples is to be meek, merciful,

pure, devoted to peacemaking, and willing to suffer persecution… (Hays, p. 322).

Augsburger’s last explicit Scripture reference is to Romans 13, the usual locus of the

just war advocates. Here he makes a quite interesting point that since it is God who ordains

the powers, he remains above them. This, of course, is true, but whether this is what Paul had

in mind is highly questionable. The tenor of Rom 13:1-7 is quite uncompromising. Verses 1-2

seem to identify governmental authority with authority of God. Verses 3-6 not only allow but

even support the government’s coercive function in keeping order and justice. Augsburger’s

suggestion that “being subject to” does not have to mean “to obey” is simply not convincing.13

Perhaps the most valuable part of Augsburger’s article is his exposition of the

“evangelical premises”. These four propositions are not based on quoting one or few isolated

Scriptures. Rather, Augsburger examines the problem of war and Christian participation in it

by looking at biblical message as a whole through several hermeneutical “lenses”. The most

important of these lenses is Christological – Christ’s life and his cross constitute the

paradigmatic example of unconditional love. Another lens, which is anthropological, focuses

on the inherent holiness of all human life based on God’s creation of humanity “in His

image”. The soteriological lens highlights the need of all persons to hear the Gospel and the

duty of the believers to bring it to them. The last but all-important is the eschatological lens –

the Kingdom of God is already present in this world, transcending its national and other

borders.
13
It is interesting to note the striking similarity between Rom. 13:7 (“Render to all their dues: tribute to whom
tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour”) and Jesus’ famous maxim
recorded in Matt. 22:21//Mark 12:17//Luke 20:25 (“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God
the things that are God's”). One could argue that Paul is making a clear allusion to Jesus’ saying here, meaning
that we should render tribute and custom to Caesar, while fear and honour should be reserved for God. This
interpretation would allow seeing our loyalty to the earthly powers in relative, not absolute terms. The context of
Rom. 13:1-7 is also to be noted. The passage is immediately preceded and followed by sections stressing that
love towards neighbour, even to enemy, is the fulfilment of the Law (12:9-21; 13:8-10). In this context, it
becomes clear that Rom 13:1-7 cannot be used as an argument for Christian participation in war. Rather, two
distinct, parallel modes of existence are described here – one for the believers in Christ who serve God by loving
the neighbour, and the other for the secular authorities who serve God by punishing the evildoer.
 18

One of the most helpful disclosures Augsburger makes in his treatise is the

hermeneutical principle of “the unfolding revelation” within the Scriptures. This allows us to

point the above listed “lenses” in a proper direction, i.e. to see the person of Christ and his life

and death as the focal point of the whole biblical revelation. As the believing community

examines the Scripture from all of the above-listed perspectives, the conclusion in regards to

Christian participation in war becomes very clear:

“For that community, not the sword and power, but the cross and suffering determine

the meaning of history” (Cahill, 224).

6. Conclusion

As has been shown above, both sides of the pacifist-just war debate cite the Bible as

their most authoritative source of information. Their mode of doing that, however, differs

significantly.

George W Knight III argues in his article that a Christian can go to war when the war

is just. He offers several references to the Biblical texts in support of his view. However, his

treatment of these texts is rather utilitarian. Not respecting the immediate context of the

quoted verses, the intention of the author or the meaning of the Biblical revelation as a whole,

he uses the Scripture references as proof-texts to brace his argument. Perhaps the weakest

point of his hermeneutics is that he never acknowledges that his ideological point of departure

really is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but the philosophical construct of the just war theory.

Ever since St. Augustine, this construct has been a part of the political agenda of the church

wherever the church was in power.

As the New Testament never envisions the Church having the secular power in this

age, the just war proponents have to draw on natural law, political science and other

philosophical sources. Therefore the attempts to justify war by referring to the biblical witness
 19

are doomed to failure right from the beginning. The just war thinking does not grow out from

the Biblical message, so it can hardly be vindicated by it.

Myron S. Augsburger, arguing for the pacifist option explicitly quotes the Bible only

a few times. As has been shown above, his treatment of these texts occasionally shows poor

(or lacking) exegetical work. However, his strong point lies precisely where Knight is

inadequate. Instead of looking for proof-texts, Augsburger reveals his hermeneutical

principles. These are based on considering the biblical witness as a meaningful whole

climaxing in the person and passion of Jesus Christ. This methodology leads Augsburger to a

conclusion that following Christ and participation in war or any other form of violent

behaviour are incongruous.

Generally, while Augsburger’s treatment of biblical texts is far from flawless, his

hermeneutical strategy is superior to Knight’s. He should be commended for striving to

uncover the meaning and relevance of the biblical witness for us. Knight, in his turn, should

be criticised for using Bible rather then interpreting it.

WORKS CITED

Augsburger, Myron S. “Beating Swords Into Plowshares“ Christianity Today, 20, No 4 (Nov.

21, 1975), pp. 7-9.

 20

Buttry, Daniel L. Christian Peacemaking: From Heritage to Hope. Valley Forge: Judson

Press, 1994.

Cahill, Lisa Sowle. Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism and Just War Theory.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.

Clouse, Robert G., ed. War: Four Christian Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1981.

Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to

New Testament Ethics. New York: HarperCollins, 1996.

Hendrickx, Herman. A Time for Peace: Reflections on the Meaning of Peace and Violence in

the Bible. London: SPCK, 1986.

Holy Bible, New International Version. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1984, 1988.

Knight III, George W. “Can a Christian Go to War?” Christianity Today, 20, No 4 (Nov. 21,

1975), pp. 4-7.

Niebuhr, Reinhold. An Interpretation of Christian Ethics. New York: Seabury, 1935, 1979.

Stein, Robert H. A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules. Grand Rapids:

Baker, 1994.

Swartley ,Willard M. Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women: Case Issues in Biblical

Interpretation. Scottdale: Herald Press, 1981.

Yoder, John H. The Original Revolution: Essays on Christian Pacifism. Scottdale: Herald

Press, 1971, 1977.