Question:
I’m reading a very interesting book by Steve Weidenkopf on crusades at the moment. Maybe you can find the time to answer my question: does God allow to use force and to justify war? What are the differences between the Old and the New Testament on this subject?

Answer:
War was present and often initiated by God’s command in the Old Testament and was not prohibited by the New, so justified war exists. The scripture clearly states what justifies war and the use of force.

With regard to the Old Testament, exegesis of the commandment “You shall not kill” is key, since the war inevitably leads to taking the life of another man, and a biblical explanation of the conquest of Canaan by Israel, which was a justified war.

We know that putting another man to death was allowed in clearly defined circumstances. God has frequently commanded that a particular person or an evil nation be put to death. Mosaic Law prescribed the death penalty for some crimes and transgressions (e.g., Deuteronomy 13:7-12; one of the subjects of the previous letter) and allowed self-defence during the course of which the life of the offender could have been taken (Exodus 22:2). Consequently, the frequent translation “do not kill” is misleading, the commandment rather says “do not murder” (this rendering comes through the analysis of the context and all information available on the subject, since the ancient Hebrew verb רָצַח – ratzach –is not always used to describe a murder).

The critical factor qualifying a murder is intention. Old Testament distinguishes between killing the neighbour by accident and with premeditation (Exodus 21:12-14, Numbers 35:9-25), just as our law today differentiates between involuntary manslaughter and killing with malice aforethought. It is from such a willfull act on part of a person with an evil intent that the commandment provided protection, since murder takes away from a fellow man the gift of free will, which is the image of God (Genesis 9:6), and through that deprives of the possibility to come to Him or to continue to walk with Him and serve Him.

We can thus define murder as an intentional taking away of someone else’s life which occurs outside of a judgment defined by the Law (e.g., Deuteronomy 13:7-12), self-defense, character of which was precisely stipulated (e.g., Exodus 22:2) or a war commanded by God (Deuteronomy 20:17).

The conquest of Canaan by Israel was such a war. It is key to understand its nature and place in God’s plan, since the lack of this understanding, which is quite frequent, leads to wrong conclusions on God’s character and is for many a stumbling block and a reason to undermine the inspired character of the Old Testament.

New International Version Study Bible by Kenneth Barker provides a good introduction to the subject:

Many readers of Joshua (and other OT books) are deeply troubled by the role that warfare plays in Joshua’s account of God’s dealings with his people. Not a few relieve their ethical scruples by ascribing the author’s perspective to a pre-Christian (and sub-Christian) stage of moral development that the Christian, in the light of Christ’s teaching, must repudiate and transcend. Hence the main thread of the narrative line of Joshua is offensive to them.

It must be remembered, however, that the book of Joshua does not address itself to the abstract ethical question of war as a means for gaining human ends. It can only be understood in the context of the history of redemption unfolding in the Pentateuch, with its interplay of divine grace and judgment. Of that story it is the direct continuation.

Joshua is not an epic account of Israel’s heroic generation or the story of Israel’s conquest of Canaan with the aid of her national deity. It is rather the story of how God, to whom the whole world belongs, at one stage in the history of redemption reconquered a portion of the earth from the powers of this world that had claimed it for themselves, defending their claims by force of arms and reliance on their false gods. It tells how God commissioned his people to serve as his army under the leadership of his servant Joshua, to take Canaan in his name out of the hands of the idolatrous and dissolute Canaanites (whose measure of sin was now full; see Ge 15:16 and note). It further tells how he aided them in the enterprise and gave them conditional tenancy in his land in fulfillment of the ancient pledge he had made to Israel’s ancestors—Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Joshua is the story of the kingdom of God breaking into the world of nations at a time when national and political entities were viewed as the creation of the gods and living proofs of their power. Thus the Lord’s triumph over the Canaanites testified to the world that the God of Israel is the one true and living God, whose claim on the world is absolute. It was also a warning to the nations that the irresistible advance of the kingdom of God would ultimately disinherit all those who oppose it, giving place in the earth only to those who acknowledge and serve the Lord. At once an act of redemption and judgment, it gave notice of the outcome of history and anticipated the final destiny of humankind and the creation.

The battles for Canaan were therefore the Lord’s war, undertaken at a particular time in the program of redemption. God gave his people under Joshua no commission or license to conquer the world with the sword but a particular, limited mission. The conquered land itself would not become Israel’s national possession by right of conquest, but it belonged to the Lord. So the land had to be cleansed of all remnants of paganism. Its people and their wealth were not for Israel to seize as the spoils of war from which to enrich themselves (as Achan tried to do, Joshua 7) but were placed under God’s ban (were to be devoted to God to dispense with as he pleased). On that land Israel was to establish a commonwealth faithful to the righteous rule of God and thus be a witness (and a blessing) to the nations. If Israel became unfaithful and conformed to Canaanite culture and practice, it would in turn lose its place in the Lord’s land—as Israel almost did in the days of the judges, and as it eventually did in the exile.

War is a terrible curse that the human race brings on itself as it seeks to possess the earth by its own unrighteous ways. But it pales before the curse that awaits all those who do not heed God’s testimony to himself or his warnings—those who oppose the rule of God and reject his offer of grace. The God of the second Joshua (Jesus) is the God of the first Joshua also. Although now for a time he reaches out to the whole world with the gospel (and commissions his people urgently to carry his offer of peace to all nations), the sword of his judgment waits in the wings—and his second Joshua will wield it (Rev 19:11–16; see notes there).

Conquest of Canaan was thus not motivated by material or political reasons, as it’s the case with other human conflicts, through the standard of which those who don’t believe or don’t understand the scriptures make their assessment of it or to which they compare it. It was a holy war commanded by God which was an integral part of His plan of salvation.

God has judged totally corrupt Canaanites through Israel and He has made this judgment in His perfect righteousness. Not only through His patience these nations had more than enough time for repentance which never came (quite contrary, they were sinking more and more into depravity), but also breaking the command given to Israel to purge them would slightly extend the life of degenerate people who were by their own choice heading towards condemnation while at the same time causing a loss of salvation for those who were not condemned, since that would be the end result of imitating Canaanite practices such as idolatry, child sacrifice or sodomy and through it straying away from God – something He has warned His people about on numerous occasions, a warning that the majority of them failed to heed.

This judgment was at the same time the redemption of the land for the chosen nation who also possessed it conditionally. As we know, these conditions were broken by Israel and the consequence of unfaithfulness was first the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel, and later also the southern – Judah. In the first case Assyria was the invader and similarly as God has punished the Canaanites through Israel, so later Assyria became the instrument of His wrath towards Israel. So understanding the nature of events is only possible if we perceive them as elements of God’s plan. Finally, the conquest testified to the truth – that only the God of Israel is the true God.

Before we look at the New Testament verses on this subject, it should be stated that the entire body of scripture is perfectly coherent. The path to salvation in the Old and the New Testament is the same – it’s the path of faith in God and in His offer of salvation based on the redemption of sin through His Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ, redemption prophesied in times of the Old Testament and completed in the times of the New. Any contradictions between the teaching of the Old and the New Testament are only apparent and disappear as one attains to a better understanding of God’s word.

The coming of Christ and His payment for all sin on the cross is the most important event in the history of humanity. The Old Testament was heading towards it and describing it in prophecies. In the New Testament the fulfillment of these prophecies is described – a completed work of God which, unlike the Old Testament believers, we can clearly see in the person of our Lord.

1 Peter 1:10-12 (NASB)
10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look.

Matthew 13:17 (NASB)
17 For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

As Professor Luginbill writes:
The actual revelation of Jesus in the flesh was something so unique and wonderful, and His actual death in the darkness for all the sins of mankind something so ineffable, that no amount of prior symbolism could ever fully do justice to the reality.

There are differences between the Testaments – differences, not contradictions. God has taught the truth in different ways at different times. Theologians call this dispensations.

Hebrews 1:1-4 (NASB)
1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

A good example of a dispensation is the time when Mosaic Law was in force. The Law was given for several reasons. One of the most important ones was to teach everyone who was trying to fulfill it that we are all sinners and it is impossible to adhere to all its precepts, through which Israelites should have understood that salvation is unattainable by works, but comes only through faith in the redemption of sin. And the Law also contained in itself the symbol of this redemption completed by Christ on the cross – animal sacrifices which showed that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and that our sin is paid for by someone else’s death. Christ came, fulfilled the Law, delivered us from it (Galatians 3:13) and we are no longer under it (Romans 6:14, 7:3, Galatians 3:23-25). There was a time when the Law was in force and it had its purpose to fulfill. This purpose has been fulfilled and it has ceased to abide. This, however, doesn’t mean that we are dealing with a contradiction between the Old Testament and New Testament teaching – rather God in His infinite wisdom (Psalm 147:5, Romans 11:33) decided to lead to the truth about His salvation in a certain way before the coming of Christ and after He has come.

The Old Testament was thus given to the chosen nation and was leading to the redemption of sin which was prophesied throughout its books. The New was given to all believers after the work of redemption has been completed on the cross. These two differences are key in interpreting what is written in both Testaments.

When it comes to the New Testament, we should start by saying that the war is nowhere prohibited in it. Our Lord tells the apostles to equip themselves in swords since the time of His ministry, during which all their needs were provided for, safety included (sometimes also through miraculous means – Matthew 17:24-27) was coming to an end and a period was approaching when they would have to take care of their safety themselves and at a time when dangers, particularly in travel, were much more frequent than today and the sword was to be a tool for self-defense.

Luke 22:35-36 (NASB)
35 And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

Here also we are dealing with different dispensations, since Jesus earlier tells the disciples to rely only on what they receive (Luke 10:8), but this situation changed after His ministry was completed – apostles had to take care of their needs and take with them both a bag and a sword.

Similarly John the Baptist, asked by soldiers what they should do, doesn’t tell them to abandon their service, but not to extort anyone and be happy with their wages:

Luke 3:14 (NASB)
14 Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, “And what about us, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.”

In the thirteenth chapter of Romans when describing the need to abide the authority of the state, Paul writes:

Romans 13:3-4 (NASB)
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

The state hence doesn’t “bear the sword for nothing” and discipline, even severe, coming as a result of breaking the Law is nowhere prohibited in the Bible, about which Peter writes also:

1 Peter 2:13-14 (NASB)
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

A verse which is often wrongly used to defend pacifism is Matthew 5:39:

Matthew 5:39 (NASB)
39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

These words are spoken in the context of claiming or renouncing one’s rights under the Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:21-48), according to which everyone who has wronged his neighbour should be repaid to the same degree. Jesus introduces a higher standard for believers, according to which we should give up the retaliation. Firstly, the passage speaks of accepting an offence and not a significant physical harm or a deadly blow, which would amount to a suicide. Secondly, we ought to differentiate between abandoning the law of retaliation and self-defence, which Jesus not only does not prohibit, but about which He tells the apostles to take care after His departure, as earlier discussed (Luke 22:35-36). It is worth adding that adopting this unbiblical pacifism would not only mean that a Christian could be killed by any murderer willing to put him to death, but, if such a view was accepted by a society, that criminals could without any resistance take full control over it.

Apart from its individual application, self-defence also has a very important national aspect. The division into nations, initiated by God Himself by scattering the builders of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), is an important safety mechanism against the propagation of evil. Without it, every evil scheme could rapidly spread across the whole humanity, but territorial and linguistic borders have since the time of Babel provided a barrier. Defending these borders was thus key in maintaining the national divisions, and these divisions are an element of God’s plan which has historically deprived Satan of an opportunity to corrupt and destroy all humanity in one attempt. As we are approaching the end times it is easier to appreciate the role that these currently diminishing divisions played. We live in a time when the communication methods, particularly the Internet, allow for a rapid exchange of information and national divisions no longer form any barrier. And although, as with all the inventions, all these advanced methods of communication have numerous helpful uses, corruption, perversion and all depraved moral standards spread far quicker than all the good things and, most importantly, than the truth.

And it is exactly when the approaching time of the end is finally there that we will see our Lord Jesus Christ coming back in glory. And just as He came for the first time to redeem the sins of humanity, during His second advent He will defeat all His enemies in the battle of Armageddon with the sword coming out of His mouth (Revelation 19:11-21). This final encounter with evil will of course be completely justified and it is Jesus Himself who will destroy the Antichrist with his army.

As for the Crusades, they are an event which doesn’t qualify as a holy war justified by God, as it was the case with the conquest of Canaan and as it will be the case when Christ comes the second time. It is also not an act of God’s righteous judgment or self-defence. Crusades are example of an undertaking which has got nothing to do with a true act of faith and genuine Christianity, even if the appearances could seem to say otherwise. It is a spectacular and embarrasing failure of the church, already back then corrupt and entangled in worldly politics.

The genesis of the Crusades is a complex subject, but it will be helpful to outline the key causes, especially the most important one. Above all, the church at the time of the Crusades had almost nothing to do with the scriptural truth. By “church” I refer here to the institution. Biblical meaning of this word is the community of believers and it is sad that the two already back then had very little in common. The whole undertaking is so far removed from what the bible says, that it is easily seen how low it ranked on the list of church authorities already at that time and what the state of the clergy must have been, who have made a significant contribution to the Crusades. Before we thus move to any other factor, we should start with the most important one – the truth. Because it is the truth laid out in the word of God that should always be the top priority for the church and all other reasons for the failure that the Crusades were stems exactly from this one.

As for the causes stemming from this main one, Walker in his „History of the Christian Church” (1985) names several. The religiousness of that time found expression in monastic movements (another non-biblical development), life in which was considered spiritually superior. Taking part in a crusade was considered an imitation of such a mode of life, whereby the crusader was replicating monk’s commitment. Another form of piety were the pilgrimages (also a non-biblical initiative) and the holy land was their frequent object. The conquest first of Asia Minor and then Jerusalem itself by Seljuk Turks made pilgrimages impossible and these were undertaken not only as an act of devotion, but were also imposed as part of the penance of confessed sinners (which are also nowhere to be found in the scripture).

There was also no shortage of secular reasons. The West was encouraged by successful contests with the Muslims and many saw a possibility to dispossess Islam. The opportunity to experience an adventure, hopes for plunder and territorial acquisitions or just religious hatred provided strong impulses for many to take part.

The way the crusades started tells much of their character. East emperor Alexius I (1081-1118), seeing the divisions and quarrels among the Seljuk leaders decided to take the initiative and asked the pope Urban II for help. Urban announced the Crusade during the council at Clermont in November 1095. As Walker writes “The enterprise had magnified in his conception from that of limited aid to the hard-press Alexius to a general rescue of the holy places from Muslim hands. He called on Christendom to take part in the work, promising a complete remission of sins to those who would make the arduous journey” (p.284). The people gathered outside of Clermont greeted the announcement of the crusade with the shout „God wills it!”. Urban made this proclamation as if he possessed the divine authority necessary to do so and the people responded as if they knew that God wills. Both were terribly, terribly wrong. The campaign gathered momentum quickly.

The key role was thus played by political motives, both for secular authorities and the church. The east was not coping with the Seljuk Turks and papacy desired to strengthen its authority and regain Jerusalem. And although the latter may seem as a lofty objective, it is hard to find any biblical motive for it. The Crusades are a good example of a wrong logic whereby instead of walking the path of God’s word, yielding his will to God’s, a man does the exact opposite – his own, often selfish and sinful intentions presents as God’s work, clothing them in the mantel of sanctity.

In the spiritual aspect key is the detachment of the whole undertaking from the biblical truth. Even if in the eyes of people certain objectives may have seem good, they were certainly not so in God’s eyes. It is important to understand here that motives not in accordance with God’s will are not only those which will seem so in the assessment of any man with a reasonably healthy conscience, such as pride, greed or just simple hatred towards another man. Often motivation which in our eyes is noble may have nothing to do with God’s will and into this category fall the motives of all those, who took part in the crusades out of impulses which pass as “good”. The ideal of a knight who with a cross on his chest goes on a far journey to reconquer the holy land out of the hand of the enemy seems beautiful, but it is a mistaken, worldly image of Christianity. We are here on earth to grow in the truth of the word of God and when we have attained to a sufficient level of spiritual maturity, to help others grow. It requires disciplined and systematic study of the word of God and applying the truth that we know and understand, so that it directs us. All in order that we may better imitate our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a difficult task and the real battle of a believer, a battle taking place on the spiritual plane, which often goes unnoticed by the world. Crusades were the exact opposite – a spectacular pursuit of human glory.

Walker summarises (p.290):

“Viewed by the light of their original purpose, the Crusades were failures. They made no permanent conquests of the Holy Land. They did to retard the advance of Islam. Far from aiding the Eastern Empire, they hastened its disintegration. They also revealed the continuing inability of Latin Christians to understand Greek Christians, and they hardened the schism between them. They fostered a harsh intolerance between Muslims and Christians, where before there had been a measure of mutual respect. They were marked, and marred, but a recrudescence of anti-Semitism. Though initiated in a spirit of high devotion and distinguished by innumerable acts of courage, their conduct was disgraced throughout by quarrels, divided motives, and low standards of personal conduct.”

“The chief beneficiary of the Crusades was the medieval papacy, whose authority and prestige were greatly enhanced by these expeditions. The popes stood forth as defenders of Christendom, proponents of a united Christendom and organizers of the military resources of the West. The Crusades also marked an important stage in the theory and practice of indulgences and in the elaboration of the church’s canon law. Not least, the prosecution of holy was against infidel Muslims helped to legitimate the idea of the Crusade as an appropriate response to western schismatics, heretics, and political opponents of the papacy. The military strategy pursued in the East could also be applied to the internal problems of the western church.”

Matthew 7:16-21 (NASB)
16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

Justified war exists and the scripture defines when we can justify war. The teachings of the Old and New Testament on this subject don’t contradict themselves. Crusades were not a justified war. They came as a result of human motivations and even those which may have appeared in accordance with true faith had nothing to do with it. Zeal not in accordance with knowledge (Romans 10:2) can be dangerous and have tragic consequences.

Ecclesiastes 3:1 (NASB)
3 There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven—

Ecclesiastes 3:8 (NASB)
A time for war and a time for peace.

by Bartek Sylwestrzak

See also:
http://ichthys.com/3B-Hamartio.htm#9.%20The%20Ten%20Commandments
http://ichthys.com/mail-Canaanites.htm
http://www.ichthys.com/mail-Freedom-Responsibility.htm#biblical%20view%20of%20war%20preemption%20and%20self-defense
http://ichthys.com/mail-Christian-Love.htm
http://ichthys.com/mail-Old-Testament-Interpretation.htm
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/lord-god-peace-or-war
https://carm.org/should-christian-go-war
https://carm.org/bible-says-not-kill-yet-many-christians-support-death-penalty