For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.
"For the love of Christ constrains us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. Therefore, from now on, we regard no one from a worldly point of view" (2 Corinthians 5:14-16).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
I. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
A. God -- The Ruler of Earthly and Heavenly Kingdoms
B. Yahweh -- A God of War
II. GOD, ISRAEL, AND CARNAL WARFARE
III. THE CHRISTIAN'S CALL VS. THE DEMANDS OF THE STATE
A. Spiritualism Vs. Nationalism
B. The Demands of the Christian Call
IV. THE CHRISTIAN WARRIOR AND THE REAL ENEMY
V. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED
CONCLUSION
The scope of this work will examine this subject from the vantage point of God's sovereignty. I believe a better understanding of the rule and authority of God in the affairs of mankind will enable the child of God to balance the obligations due the state with the obvious requirements of discipleship.
The author is not a Pacifist. I do not take the position, as some, that war is inherently evil. A study of God's sovereignty will prove that "carnal" war has an important place in God's scheme of things. This thesis will focus on the Christian's role in the world and what his relationship to "carnal" warfare should be.
The question that will be posed repeatedly in this short work is this:
Does the child of God have the scriptural "right" to bear "carnal" arms in order to inflict injury and death upon another person for which Jesus also died at the bidding of any country?
Peripheral issues that this theme will raise in the mind of the reader are many. Some other questions that might be raised are represented by the following. Can a person be saved and still engage in "carnal" warfare? Can a person be saved and be in the military? If it is wrong to engage in "carnal" warfare, where can a person draw the line regarding military service?
The above questions are ancillary and will tend to obscure the central question if not kept in focus. In the first place, God must fellowship error of many kinds in His children. We are all one hundred percent reliant upon the grace of God. The blood of Jesus must cover our shortcomings or none will be saved. We are all guilty of behavior that does not glorify God at one time or another. In the second place, the goal of every Christian is to bring their life into conformity with the will of Yahweh -- as they understand it. However, I think we can garner enough truth from the sacred text to answer the central question: Is it RIGHT and scriptural for the Christian to pick up carnal weapons of war in order to inflict injury and death upon another individual for which Anointed Jesus also died in the defense of any country? If we are able to answer the central question, it should enable us to answer those questions that are peripheral.
(Exodus 19:3-5)
"Every good and perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning" (James 1:17). The point that James makes is well taken. God suffers no variations. He is not hot one day and cold the next! Unlike humanity, He never changes his opinion about matters from one day to the next or from one generation to another. Consequently, it would be silly to think that God was in control of nations and kingdoms in Biblical times but not in our own.
The scripture introducing this chapter is remarkable in its breadth. After judging the Egyptians and their gods, Yahweh gathered the children of Israel around the mountain of Horeb. He reminded them of several things. Foremost, that He had personally and by Himself judged their oppressors and emancipated them from Egyptian slavery. Thus the figure "on eagle's wings". They were in no way responsible for their freedom. They had not rebelled against and overpowered the Egyptians. On the contrary, they continued to grumble in unbelief even after God had led them out of Egypt and "parked" them in front of the Red Sea.
They had been enslaved by the premier power of the world at that time. God had raised the Egyptians to the pinnacle of human might. His purpose was to demonstrate HIS sovereignty over the world and to send a message to the surrounding kingdoms that Israel eventually supplanted. Exodus 9:13-16, says this about the all pervasive reach and scope of God's power:
Then the Lord said to Moses, Rise early in the morning and stand before Pharaoh, and tell him, 'Thus says Yahweh God of the Hebrews:
Let My people go, that they may serve Me, for at this time I will send all My plagues to your very heart, and on your servants and on your people, that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth, Now if I had stretched out My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, then you would have been cut off from the earth. But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.
God demonstrated His power upon the mighty Egyptians and their arrogant ruler NOT on an obscure, third rate power of the day. He intended that the world understand that the "game" was HIS and nations existed solely by His grace and for His pleasure and purpose.
Therefore, when God informed Israel that he had "borne them on eagle's wings" the figure was certainly relevant. The children of Israel were special only in that God had chosen them. They were not powerful in war. They were not righteous and godly. They were special only in the sense that God was going to use them to accomplish His design and purposes. This was a lesson that they would soon forget. This was a lesson that God would continually remind them through various judgments and through the preaching of the prophets. In the midst of their apostasy, Yahweh uses a graphic description in Ezekiel 16:2-7, to bring them back to reality.
Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, and say, "Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem: Your birth and your nativity are from the land of Canaan and your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. As for your nativity on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed in water to cleanse you; you were not rubbed with salt nor swathed in swaddling cloths. No eye pitied you, to do any of these things for you, to have compassion on you; but you were thrown out into the open field, when you yourself were loathed on the day you were born. And when I passed by you I saw you struggling in your own blood, I said to you in your blood, Live! Yes, I said to you in your blood, Live! I made you thrive like a plant in the field; and you grew, matured, and became very beautiful...."
The rest of the chapter comments on Israel's condition after their adoption and glorification by Yahweh. Typically, in the midst of this "national beauty" they had forgotten that they existed only by the providence of God. They had played the whore and transgressed the covenant from which their blessings flowed. God was now going to remove them from the land for the same abominations that he had purged the former inhabitants. Speaking in Leviticus 18:26-28, God had said this concerning the land,
You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments...(for all these abominations the men of the land have done who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
In comparing the statements that God made to Egypt and Israel, we can understand the full import of God's claim, "for all the earth is mine"! God was the supreme sovereign over all nations. The Psalmist put this claim another way, simply declaring for all to hear, "He is the governor of all the nations" (Psalm 22:28).
The practical application to modern day America can be made from these plain teachings concerning the sovereignty of God. America does not exist because of some inherent "goodness" of its people. Like Egypt of old, Israel, and the other nations of the Bible record, America exists by the grace of God. God planted her. God matured her. God blessed her and made her prosper. If God judged Israel and the other nations for sinful behavior, then God will judge America for the same.
Christian Americans have the tendency to look at world events and political questions from an American, humanistic perspective rather than from a spiritual and "God viewed" outlook. We have a tendency to peer through the prejudicial glasses of the "red, white, and blue" rather than through the Biblical microscope of God's writings. My father used to say that God was on our (America's) side. Others have said, "if it wasn't for America, the allies would have lost World War II." The author will not deny that God used America to defeat Axis powers and judge them accordingly. You will notice, however, that much judgment was accomplished upon the allies before the United States entered the war. Can we deny that God raised up Germany, Japan, and Italy as well as the other world powers? I will expand upon this later in this chapter. One thing is for certain, statements like my father's definitely "minimize" the rule of God in the affairs of nations and offer a perverted view of God's sovereignty.
The author denies the scriptural truthfulness of the above view. God is on the side of Christians and He's for the salvation of the world! All the nations belong to him! He loves America no more than any other country. God has always sent his blessings "on the evil and the good" (Matthew 5:45). We can all agree that America has been extraordinarily blessed without reaching the erroneous conclusion that our national goals have in some way been sanctioned by God.
If the Christian can grasp the universal nature of God's reign and merge this with the understanding of God's desire that "all men be saved", it should enable us to answer the central question of this thesis. Should the Christian bear "carnal" arms with the intent of inflicting injury and death upon another human being for which Jesus also died in the defense and at the bequest of any country -- even one's own?
In continuing the theme of God's sovereignty, we must also realize that God is not only the planter of nations but also the One who enthrones the "powers that be". He takes a much more personal part in national schemes and politics than most would ever imagine. Daniel states plainly that God is ruler over time and kings.
Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, For wisdom and might are His. And He changes the times and the seasons, He removes kings and raises up kings... This decision is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones, in order that the living my know that the Most High rules in the kingdoms of men, and gives it to whomever He will, and sets over it the lowest of men.
Notice that verse 21, says that God sets up kings and removes them. What an extraordinary claim. He had told Pharaoh that "for this very purpose I raised you up" (Exodus 9:16). We also have similar statements throughout the book of Judges that God raised up judges. Throughout the period of the kings in the Old Testament, God makes several claims to having raised up kings. Now in Daniel, a sweeping statement is made that all the "powers" are raised up by Him. In the New Testament, this theme of sovereignty is continued in Romans 13:1:
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God."
I've heard people say that God may raise up kings but we elect our presidents. This has been the common failure of human pride and reasoning from the beginning. This was Pharaoh's attitude. He said to Moses, "Who is Yahweh that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I do not know Yahweh, nor will I let Israel go" (Exodus 5:2)? Truthfully, Pharaoh had a much greater excuse to ask such a question than we. He spoke before all the miraculous signs God gave in answer to his arrogant question.
Nebuchadnezzar, the first and mightiest king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (circa 605-539 BC), thought the great ancient city of Babylon was built due to his personal attributes. Before God afflicted him with the rare disease of boanthropy, Nebuchadnezzar exclaimed,
"Is not this the great Babylon, that I have built for a royal dwelling by my mighty power and for the honor of my majesty" (Daniel 4:30)?
Nebuchadnezzar, even with all his arrogance, had a better excuse to doubt the sovereignty of God than we.
WE have Biblical history to examine at our convenience. Still we are plagued with unbelief and national pride! Where is our faith? We are without excuse!
"For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Romans 15:4).
Why do we have trouble believing that God raised up an obscure country lawyer (Abraham Lincoln) to the highest office in the land? Why do we doubt that God raised a nameless housewife (Corazon Aquino) to be president of the Philippines? When did God abdicate the throne of heaven and put world powers into human hands?
This subject has immense implications when dealing with the question of "carnal" warfare. If God raises up ALL the "powers that be", the Christian is forced to "intellectually" divorce himself from his nationalism and consider the universal picture. We must, upon our conversion, consider this extended world we're called to influence. "Our citizenship is in heaven" (Philippians 3:20). Our "field" is the nations. Our affections are to be Christ's affections (Philippians 2:5). Christ's enemies are to become our foes. More on this subject later.
The above scripture is one of the most profound statements in the Bible concerning "carnal" warfare. In almost every generation, and in almost every civilized society, people have dwelt in the midst of enemies. Belligerents who wanted what others possessed. Nations that coveted some portion of the life style and property of their neighbors. Because of this, nations have thought it necessary to maintain armies for their defense or offense depending upon their national aims.
One of the most remarkable truths and yet the most difficult to believe is that our God is also the ultimate controller of armies and battles. David, in the above scripture makes the simple statement that the battle's outcome is not determined on the size and the quality of arms but by Yahweh God! We can opine that America's presence in World War II was essential to victory but the scriptures do not bear this out.
"The horse is prepared for the day of battle, but deliverance is of the Lord" (Proverbs 21:31). If the prophet had lived in the twentieth century he might have substituted "tank" or "F-15" for horse, but it would not have changed the import. Aren't we the height of arrogance to think that humans are the cause of military victory?
In the Old Testament, it is revealed to us that the nations are God's weapons to wield as He works His purposes. This plain truth may upset us, but as the old preacher said, "This is the Lord's universe and we live in it by His pleasure." It's comforting to know that God almighty agrees with this statement. Daniel 4:35 states,
"He does His will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, What have you done?"
The Psalmist also straight forwardly claims,
"Yahweh is a man of war, Yahweh is His name" (Exodus 15:3). Like mankind, who make and utilize instruments of war, God uses all His creation to accomplish His "war" aims. The weather, famine, pestilence, plagues, and ultimately the "sword" of countries. God's aim, though dealing out judgment upon the wicked, is also invariable linked with redemption. "...For when your judgments are upon the earth, The inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness" (Isaiah 26:9). In Isaiah 10:5ff, the use of a nation as a tool for war is illustrated:
Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger and the staff in whose hand is My indignation. I will send him against an ungodly nation, and against the people of My wrath I will give him charge, To seize the spoil, to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the street. Yet he does not mean so, nor does his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off not a few nations.
Check out the description. The Assyrian nation was going to be used for destroying a nation targeted by God. We find that this is Jerusalem (verse 12). The Assyrian nation is referred to God's "rod", His "staff", His "street trodder". What makes this such a remarkable description, however, is that the Assyrians never had an inkling that they were serving God in this matter. They were just trying to fulfill their own national war aims. And, like Nebuchadnezzar who came after them and Pharaoh who had preceded them, the Assyrians assumed they had reached this pinnacle of power independent of God. Listen to their boast as they crow about their many exploits:
"By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I am prudent; Also I have removed the boundaries of the people, and have robbed their treasuries; So I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man. My hand has found like a nest the riches of the people, and as one gathers eggs that are left, I have gathered all the earth; And there was no one who moved his wing, nor opened his mouth with even a peep" (Isaiah 10:13-14).
The Assyrians were "overcome" with national pride. They were strong. They were wise. They never, ever considered that God was behind their rise to power. However, he not only calls them His "spanking stick" to punish Jerusalem, He tells them that He was the one that raised them to power. Listen to these words: Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying, 'Thus says the Lord God of Israel, Because you have prayed to Me against Sennacherib king of Assyria...The virgin, the daughter of Zion, Has despised you, laughed you to scorn; ... Whom have you reproached and blasphemed?... Against the Holy One of Israel. By your servants you have reproached the Lord, and said, By the multitude of my chariots I have come up to the height of the mountains. Did you not hear long ago How I made it, From ancient times that I formed it? Now I have brought it to pass that you should be for crushing fortified cities into heaps of ruins" (Isaiah 37:22-26).
Listen to how Yahweh puts them down! "You thought you were tough." "You thought you possessed power because of your great army." But long ago I ORDAINED IT. What a statement!
Sometimes, Americans are no different. "Look what we have done," we say. "Look at this great country that we have built." Wouldn't God tell us the same thing that He told the Assyrians? Wouldn't God tell us the same thing He later told Nebuchadnezzar? Wouldn't God say the same thing that He told Pharaoh? Wouldn't God say to us, "long ago I ordained it."
Well, God did just that! He told us by telling them! This Bible that we read and quote was never given to Pharaoh. It was never revealed to the Assyrians! It was written for OUR learning (Romans 15:4). The same God still rules!! The same God still uses all the weapons at his disposal. If not, why not? WHEN DID GOD step FROM HIS THRONE AND TURN WORLD AFFAIRS OVER TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
When it came to war, God even used a less "godly" nation to destroy one more "godly". This was Habakkuk's complaint. Listen to this grievous "moaning."
Are You not from everlasting, O Lord my God, my Holy One? We shall not die. O Lord, you have appointed them for judgment; O Rock, you have marked them for correction. You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness. Why do you look on those who deal treacherously, and hold your tongue when the wicked devours one more righteous than he" (Habakkuk 1:12:13)?
Habakkuk recognized that the Babylonians were more wicked that the Jews. Even though Israel deserved judgment, the "Chaldeans" deserved it more.
Could not the same thing have been said about Hitler? Could this not have been said about Lenin? Could this not have been said about any number of countries that have risen and fallen since Biblical revelation ended? If not, why not? God eventually judged and destroyed Babylon for their wickedness. Not, however, before they served his purposes. God eventually destroyed Hitler's Germany but Not, I reiterate, before Hitler served His purposes. Regardless of human opinion, God's ways are always righteous. "Let God be true and every man a liar" (Romans 3:3).
The knowledge that God uses war to bring about His purposes should open the Christian's eyes to new dimensions. The real enemy may be something completely different in God's eyes than the nation's eyes in which we "sojourn". The child of God should make sure that it is right in God's sight to bear "carnal" arms at the request of any country in order to inflict injury and death upon another human being for which Anointed Jesus also died.
In arguing the scriptural validity of a Christian's right to bear "carnal" arms, many have pointed to the Old Testament example of Jewish warfare to justify the Christian's right to participate in the same. No one who is a student of the Bible would argue that the Israelites did not engage in "carnal" warfare. However, is this a true parallel for the Christian? To be a legitimate comparison, valid applications must be seen between their situation and ours.
The first thing we learn when looking at their warfare is that they engaged in it by revelation and by Divine direction. God said, "go to war!" "Drive them out!" "Tear down their idols!" "Dwell in their land"! There was no question about God's will in the matter. He commanded them to destroy the inhabitants of the land.
Secondly, God revealed the reason that they were to drive out the inhabitants. Continuing the introductory discourse of Numbers 33, He said,
"But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall be that those whom you let remain shall be irritants in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land where you dwell" (verse 55).
From a Christian perspective, we can understand the beauty of that logic. We can see readily that the world would certainly be much more appealing if we removed the ungodly infidel. The unbeliever can certainly be "harassing" and a "thorn in the side". However, there was a deeper reason revealed for God's desire to remove them. Further commentary reveals the real rationale behind Yahweh's concern:
When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you... you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them... You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. Nor shall you make marriages with them... For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the Lord will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly (Deuteronomy 7:1-4).
As we can see, the real purpose for removing them was "religiously" motivated. God was concerned for their spiritual welfare. He knew that if His people intermingled with the heathen they would eventually apostatize. Here is the revealed reason for this charge to make war! "Remove them or they will cause you to depart from following ME"!
The third factor that needs to be considered in this revealed warfare is the land. God was going to give them a section of land to reside in. This was the "promised land". Therefore, their revealed warfare was directed toward this land area. War was to be directed toward the inhabitants of that land. And it was focused on the sinful behavior of these denizens. God had put off their destruction for 400 years. He gave them every chance to "fill up their cup of iniquity". He informed Abraham that his descendants (the Israelites) would sojourn in a strange land and be afflicted for 400 years. Afterward He would judge that nation (Egypt) and bring them into the land of Canaan. God explained the unwelcome wait by stating simply,
"But in the fourth generation they will return here (Canaan), for the iniquity of the Amorites (Canaanites) is not yet complete" (Genesis 15:16).
Finally, there is one more factor to consider in this revealed warfare before attempting comparisons with contemporary Christianity. Simply put, not all the Israelites were allowed to engage in "carnal" warfare. The Levites and priests were not numbered for war. God explains the reason for this.
In Numbers, chapter 1, God instructed Moses to number all those that were able to go to war (verse 30). However, he states in verses 47-50, the reason that the Levites were not counted:
But the Levites were not numbered among them by their fathers' tribe; for the Lord had spoken to Moses, saying: Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, nor take a census of them among the children of Israel; but you shall appoint them Levites over the tabernacle of the Testimony."
In the above verses, God explains that the Levites were not to be numbered for war because they were going to be involved with "sacrificial" things. They were going to be involved in "religious" activities. They were to minister about the "tent of meeting". This whole tribe of Levi was "sanctified" for "priestly functions". God gives the additional reason for the Levites not having an inheritance in Num. 18:20ff. They were to receive no land!
Then the Lord said to Aaron: You shall have no inheritance in their land, nor shall you have any portion among them; I am your portion and your inheritance among the children of Israel. Behold I have given the children of Levi all the tithes in Israel as an inheritance in return for the work which they perform... It shall be a statute forever, throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance... For the tithes I have given to the Levites as an inheritance; therefore I have said to them, among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.
Let's examine each of these revealed reasons for Israel's warfare and see if we can draw comparisons to the Christian calling. First of all, Israel went to war by direct revelation. Has any Christian ever received a direct revelation to bear "carnal" arms in order to inflict injury and death upon another human being for which Christ also died? I have no knowledge of such a revelation in or out of scripture. I do recall Jesus making this statement, however.
"If my kingdom was of this world, then my servants would fight. But My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36).
Examining the second reason for Israel's revealed warfare, we find it was to remove sin and the sinner from the land. Is this the reason why the United States goes to war? I realize, that being a somewhat "Christian" country, Americans would like to assume that our "carnal" warfare is righteous and holy. But is it, really? Why did we fight the war of independence? Why the war of 1812? Why the Spanish-American war? Why the war with Mexico? Why the first and second world wars? Why the war in Viet Nam? Why the war in the Persian Gulf?
If we search America's designs for fighting, you will discover that these "national causes" were not "spiritually" motivated. The War of Independence was fought to keep from being taxed without representation. We warred with Spain and Mexico with even less defensible reasons. European Americans went to war against the American aborigine because they coveted their land.
Lets be realistic. America, like every other nation, goes to war to advance their national goals. God may use them to serve His mysterious purposes, but like the Assyrians of old, their war aims are entirely self motivated. If Americans were really motivated -- according to God's revelation to Israel -- they would make war upon San Francisco, New York, and even some of the "hot beds" of sin right here in Gainesville, Florida. There is simply NO parallel to be found.
I've heard some say that the Christian must decide whether the cause for which he is fighting is moral or immoral. This sounds good, but it is without scriptural foundation as well as entirely impractical. Can you imagine the commanding officer gathering his men together and asking how many were in agreement that the national war aims were moral.
This is not a soldier's business. The soldier's concern is to obey orders. As a matter of fact, the American soldier takes such and oath when enlisting. He swears that he will protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. He promises to obey the commands of the President of the United States. He promises to obey the orders of the commanders that are over him. He would not be allowed to serve if he added to the induction oath "only if I deem the cause is a moral one!"
This argument is introduced only because of the inherent conflict caused by the prospect of a Christian killing another human being for which Christ died. The argument is spurious and skirts the real issue. There is no parallel to the revealed reason that Israel went to war.
The third reason God revealed Israel's war effort was to "take and occupy the land". The land was promised to Abraham and his children through Isaac. Its boundaries were carefully revealed and laid out by God Himself. It was the place that God would choose to put His name.
What land has the Christian been promised? The Christian has been promised no land! In the New Testament, several references are made about the fact that we are strangers and sojourners on the earth. Actually, we haven't even been promised a city much less a country!
"Therefore let us go forth to Him (Jesus), outside the camp, bearing His reproach. For here we have no continuing city but we seek the one to come" (Hebrews 13:13-14).
The one to come was described as the "heavenly Jerusalem".
Peter, after teaching that Christians are a Royal Priesthood and a Holy nation states,
"Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul" (1 Peter 2:11).
He had already admonished the church that "...if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your sojourning here in fear" (1 Peter 1:17). A pilgrim is a person without a country!
What was the reason for this teaching? Both Peter and the Hebrew writer make it clear that these first century brethren were being persecuted for their faith. They were suffering the loss of possessions and many of them were being thrown into prison (Hebrews 10:33-34). They needed encouragement to understand that the Christian's hope is not found on earth. This is the main reason the apostle Paul reminded the church in Philippi, "... our citizenship is in heaven" (Philippians 3:20).
We should understand this fact. Many Christians sing the song, This World is Not My Home. So another parallel breaks down. No promise of land to the Christian. No real comparison to be made to Israel's warfare exists in the land promise.
The fourth point previously made bears special emphasis. Even though the nation of Israel was directed by God to go to war, the priests and Levites were excluded. They were eliminated for two reasons. One, they were chosen and set apart to minister about the sanctuary. Two, they were barred from war because they were to receive no land in Israel. God was to be their "land". He was to be their "portion".
Here is a true parallel and CAN be applied to the Christian today. Christians have received no inheritance in the land. They are all priests and kings in the kingdom of God (1 Peter 2:9). The Christian's purpose also includes spiritual sacrifices (Romans 12:1). Christ is our portion. Christ is our "land". Christ is our inheritance". "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Philippians 3:20).
Continuing this thought in Colossians 3:1-4, Paul writes,
If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory."
Like the Levites who were representative of the "firstborn" in Israel (Numbers 3:45), Christians are called "firstborn ones" in Hebrews 12:22-23.
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn (ones)..."
God said long ago, "All the firstborn are mine" (Numbers 3:13). Since it would have been too confusing to take the firstborn of each tribe to minister in "religious" things, God made the tribe of Levi "representative" of them. Here, I reiterate, is a legitimate parallel! And the Levites were not numbered for war!
As you can see by now, there are no rightful parallels between Jews and Christians when is comes to "carnal" warfare found in the first three points. The only true comparison that can be made lies in the exclusion of the Levites for war. They represented the "firstborn ones" in Israel. Christians are God's "firstborn ones". Levi's function was "religious" and "priestly". The Christian functions are "Priestly" and "religious". This real parallel must be dealt with by the proponents of carnal warfare.
Christians are all priests and "religion" is our business. As the Levites, they received no inheritance in the land. Disciples are called pilgrims and sojourners on the earth. Like the Levites, God is their inheritance. Doesn't this true parallel give us a good reason to at least doubt the Christian's right to pick up "carnal" arms in order to inflict injury and death upon another individual for whom Jesus died in obedience to any nation?
That this kingdom was not going to be left to other people is a commentary on its Divine government. God was not going to leave the rule of this kingdom to others but rule it Himself. It was a kingdom that would not be confined by land barriers. This necessitates that it be a "spiritual" kingdom. It was the kingdom that was cut out "without hands" (verse 45). This referred to its Divine establishment. It was going to exist within the confines of other nations and expand. Thus the allusion to "breaking in pieces and consuming". It implies a militant attitude and disposition. The militant stance of this "spiritual" kingdom stresses the need to consider the potential conflicts between the goals of the "carnal" state and the spiritual aims of the Kingdom of God. When considering "carnal" warfare, the aims of the "called out" (church) must be carefully weighed against the State's "call to arms" to see if these two "war aims" can be reconciled.
For example, on the one hand, we have the command by God to be "subject to the higher powers" (Romans 13:1), and on the other we have the statement, "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). If these two scriptures teach nothing else, they do point to the fact that there will be times that "God's will" must conflict with human governments. The apostles were required to discern between their obligations as citizens of the state and their "dues" as denizens of the kingdom of God. The kingdom always won out! Examples could be multiplied but are unnecessary. There may be occasions when all Christians will have to decide to serve God rather than human authorities.
One of the arguments promoting the Christian's obligation to serve, fight, kill, and die for the state, if necessary, lies in the fact that military service is sometimes required by the law of the land. However, in view of Acts 5:29, just the acknowledgment that it is the law, doesn't automatically make it right and scriptural for the disciple's participation. A pertinent question must be asked such as: "Which takes precedence upon the demands of the Christian, the will of God or the will of the state?" All Christians will say the will of God. However, making application is more difficult and requires focus, discernment, and sacrifice.
When one looks at things from a "national" perspective one must view the aims and goals of the state as of "paramount" importance. On the other hand, when a person looks at the world through a "kingdom" perspective, he must consider the aims and goals of the called of God as of "paramount" importance. The word paramount means supreme, first, above all other things. Different aims cannot both be "paramount".
Jesus taught this point in many ways.
"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon" (Matthew 6:24).
He put it another way in Matthew 6:33. "Seek first the kingdom and His righteousness." The latter verse makes it plain where the "paramount" importance must rest. It resides in the kingdom of God. The aims, goals, and agenda of the kingdom must come first -- For the Christian.
We certainly can't expect the non-Christian servant of the state to willingly advance the aims and goals of the kingdom of Christ. We wouldn't attempt to force the unbeliever to teach Biblical writings. Nor can we allow the demands of the state TO take precedent over the obligations due the Kingdom of God.
As Christians we are instructed to advance the good of the state, not only by our good behavior but by our prayers. This cannot be argued. We have God's Word on it (1 Timothy 2:1-3). But even the purpose for these commands are kingdom directed, viz "(God) desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4).
The rub occurs when the aims of the state transgress the purpose of the kingdom of God. Remember, the kingdom of God exists within the confines of all the nations, not just the one we happen to be sojourning in. Jesus said, "... For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst" (Luke 17:21). Can you understand this perspective?
The reason the kingdom is so "encompassed" is because such confinement is central to its mission -- the salvation of the nations. God desires the salvation of "communists" as He desires the salvation of "capitalists". It is absolutely necessary for the Christian to see the world through God's eyes if we are to grasp our universal existence. We must make God's salvation aims our salvation aims.
No greater example can be proffered -- illustrating this fundamental difference between national goals and the kingdom of God -- than the issue of "carnal" warfare. This difference is elementary. This difference is central. This difference cannot be ignored simply by pointing to the Christian's obligation to obey the law.
The kingdom of God exists the haven of salvation. The purpose of "carnal" warfare is to advance the aims and purposes of the state by the use of force. The destruction of human "souls" IS necessary. These two purposes cannot be reconciled within the intentions of Christian service. One cannot influenced toward salvation and destroy a "soul" at the same time. One must leave off leave the one in order to accomplish the other. One aim or the other must be sacrificed!
We have already learned that Almighty God is the God of war and battles. He is in control of who wins and loses. He uses "carnal" warfare to accomplish His purposes and goals. He uses War to judge the ungodly and the wicked. We 've already seen that one of the biggest reasons for the use of carnal warfare is to bring people to salvation (Isaiah 26:9). We also know by revelation that the nations who war on other nations are not motivated by God's goals and aims but their own. Read again Isaiah 10:5ff and digest this fact.
Therefore, we cannot know what God's war aims are for all countries -- America included. We have no revelation to show us the way. If the Christian knew, for example, that God wanted the United States to defeat "Timbuktu" militarily, then we could possible argue that Christians NEED to be involved. We have no such revelation!
It is revealed, however, what the Christian's purpose is -- to be the salt and light of the world for God's glory! (Matthew 5:13-14). Now which would you say takes precedent? The demand of the state that says, "shoot and kill the enemy" or the demands of the Kingdom -- "Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15).
I once informed a communist Chinese student from Beijing that I would gladly renounce my American citizenship to promote God's glory as savior. She was flabbergasted that I would make such a claim. She never did believe me. She couldn't see past the national goals of the People's Republic of China. She never knew the value of that one life. Since she was an unbeliever, we can excuse her ignorance.
How about you Christian reader? Would you renounce your United States citizenship for to act as the "salt" and "light" of God's glory? Can you possibly answer that question in the negative? The aim of the Kingdom demands that sacrifice if necessary! The blood of Jesus calls out from the cross that we would do it! If we agree that the aims of the Kingdom deserve the willing sacrifice of our life, relationships, property, and citizenship, how can we reconcile the use of "carnal" arms in order to inflict injury and death upon another individual for whom Christ also died for the political aims and goals of any country?
Christians have a problem with the "war" issue because they either fail to understand the true nature of Christian discipleship or, knowing it, have not yielded to its challenges. The above scripture records Jesus' demands for those who would follow Him. Nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of "following". Personal relationships, property, and even one's life must be sacrificed to the "call".
The "call" necessarily encompasses the aims, goals, value system, and all essentials that compose the Kingdom of Christ. Jesus' goals must become our goals. Jesus' aims must become our aims. Jesus' value system must become our value system. Jesus' loves must become our loves. Jesus' Father must become our Father. Jesus' family must become our family.
Would Jesus, if he were alive today, bear "carnal" arms? If not, why not? We know he wouldn't because He said His mission was not to destroy life but save it. Jesus' character is now demonstrated by those that are called out to him.
Every Christian is a priest of God (1 Peter 2:9). Every Christian is a saint. Every Christian is called to be a soldier of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 6:10ff). Every Christian is to share in the Christian purpose, "...to show forth the praises of Him who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9).
My argument is summed up thus. Christians are called to be priests of the King. Christians are to be ready to "make a defense" to all who ask. This "call" of the Kingdom takes precedent over the individual desires of the disciple as well as the state. Whereas the unbelieving servant of the state is not "sinning" when he obeys orders to engage in "carnal" warfare, the Christians calling IS in conflict with the state's demand.
The unbeliever has never been a disciple. His goals are still fleshly and are by nature entwined with that of the state. On the "carnal" battlefield, the state demands that one kill the national enemy. The Christian call is to "love your enemies" so that God's loving and redeeming qualities can be recognized by the unbeliever. This is a difference that cannot be reconciled. The Christian has NEVER been given permission to set aside the "work" of the kingdom, even temporarily, to satisfy the goals of the state. This contradiction must be satisfactorily dealt with or abolished once and for all!
In Matthew 6:33, Jesus said the Christian must make the kingdom the priority in his life. There are many trades that would impede one from making war on Satan's kingdom. However, many assume that a Christian can choose any business whatsoever with impunity. The proven nature of the conflict is such that every Christian must seek its advancement over their own worldly ambitions. Even the unbeliever must make decisions constantly about which activities further his interests and which do not. In times of war, however, the servant of the state must put his personal interests "on hold" for the good of the war effort. Many assume, however, that the Christian is free to advance his personal interests and goals without regard to the spiritual war effort. So many Christians are seeking the "church of their choice" rather than the church instituted by the Savior. We all embrace Jesus as Savior. What we find difficult adopting is Jesus as Lord.
In Paul's instruction to Timothy, the apostle strikes at the heart of the matter. He even uses the "military" as the antitype of the Christian call. He writes, "You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ" (2 Timothy 2:3). Soldiering is a sacrificial calling. When a man goes into the service he must leave home and property behind. He must dress a certain way. He must accept a new set of rules and priorities. He is told when to arise, when to eat, when to bathe, and when to go to bed. He is told where to live. He is told who the enemy is. He is not free to choose ANY essential details of his life.
The apostle compares this life style to Timothy's Christian service. He says further,
"No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life (the NIV says civilian affairs), that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier" (2 Timothy 2"4).
Civilian affairs and military affairs have different aims. A soldier cannot possibly pursue a civilian career and a military objective at the same time. Especially in times of war. Everything must be directed toward the war effort. Christians have been called to a war that never ceases. Why do we think that we can become involved with every worldly scheme we deem personally profitable without regard to Christian warfare? If the bearing of "carnal" arms cannot be considered "affairs of this life" then what could possibly be considered such? If relinquishing the "spiritual" war for the conflict of the state could not be considered "civilian affairs" by the apostle, what could?
The Kingdom of God transcends in importance all things. This includes nations and physical boundaries, languages and castes. It is universal in its scope and application. Its citizens are the "called out" of all nations. Its purpose is the highest and most noble of all. Its foundation was laid "before the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4). Its Leader desires the salvation of all peoples. It is the "pearl of great price", the "treasure hidden in a field". The price of admittance is one's denouncement of his entire life, essence, and property. Its mission is to make "spiritual warfare" upon the "god of this world".
In the light of the above truth, could a disciple and "warrior" of Jesus Christ find it right to discard -- even for a little while -- his Christian armor and kingdom goals, to don the "carnal" arms of the state in order to inflict injury and death upon another human being for which Christ also died?
The strongest case against participation in "carnal" warfare is the knowledge that the disciple is already engaged in a "spiritual" war. Not only is this warfare named, the real enemies are identified as the "rulers of darkness". Notice that "communists" are not the enemy. Notice that the enemies named above are not "political" enemies. The enemies named above attack the spirit and not the flesh.
Paul identifies the Jews of his day specifically as this type of enemy. "Concerning the gospel they are enemies for you sake..." (Romans 11:28). Why was Judaism an enemy? Because it preached against Jesus as the Messiah! It persecuted the church, imprisoned many, and killed some. If there was ever a good reason for the Christian to pick up "carnal" arms this would have been it. But they didn't!
There were thousands of Christians at this time. Enough to have made up a substantial armed force if that had been their "calling". But that was not the nature of their warfare! Remember, Jesus had identified the difference while speaking to Pilate. "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom was of this world then my servants would fight" (John 18:36). Were these Christians pacifists? God forbid! They WERE making war upon Judaism. However, their offensive weapons were the "sword of the Spirit" (the "Word of God") and "the good news of peace." (Ephesians 6:14-16). This was the reason for them being warred "carnally" against.
The Jews could not win the spiritual battle of the mind. Their only recourse was to eliminate the physical presence of their enemies. If Christians had been pursuing their own interests and had not been advancing the kingdom forcefully, they would have suffered nothing from the Jews.
Our warfare has been identified as "spiritual". The weapons of good news wielded by the envoys were designed by God to destroy the "spiritual" enemy. Paul describes them distinctly in 2 Cor. 10:4-5:
The weapons of combat possessed by us are not physical, but are powerful enough Godward to demolish fortresses! They destroy speculations and every high thing that raises itself up against the knowledge of God, bringing every mind captive into heeding the Anointed One.
As we can discover from the verses above, the "arena" of our warfare is the mind. The enemy manifests itself with arguments and "exalted" thoughts that would undermine the knowledge of God. This enemy cannot be discerned by a "different colored uniform". This enemy cannot be determined by its language or its racial characteristics. This enemy cannot be identified by the sound of its "national anthem"! This enemy can be determined only by the import of its words, teaching and behavior.
The disciple of Christ has weapons that are designed specifically to deal with this "mind warfare". The man of God CANNOT use "carnal" weapons and spiritual weapons at the same time. It is no more possible than serving two masters. They are mutually exclusive. One cannot "make a defense" and shoot bullets at a person simultaneously! Reader, can you not see the contradiction?
Considering the spiritual realm in which we war, who or what is the real enemy? Can we expect the country we are sojourning in to identify them for us? Absolutely not! If you had lived in Russia for the last forty years and listened to the government, America would have been identified as the enemy. However, if you had been born in the United States, the USSR was named as the foe. The real enemy is spiritually discerned. In this case, our "enemies" become those who do not know God, His Anointed Jesus and the love residing in them. How about our next-door neighbor? Maybe even the ungodly policies of our own city, state, and nation.
How are we to attack these "enemies"? In the Old Testament, the Jews were told to drive them "physically" out. Tear down their religious icons. Destroy them from the land. In the kingdom of God, we are told to make war by standing fast and armed with God's armor.
We are to drive out their ungodly thinking and attitudes by attacking their "strongholds" (2 Corinthians 10:3ff). We are to tear down the "spiritual" idols that rob them of a relationship with God. We are to destroy them from the "land" of Satan and resettle them into the "kingdom of light" (Colossians 1:13-14). We are to allow the light of Jesus shining through us to blind them to Satan's devices. We are to be the salt of the earth, flavoring and preserving the good news of peace. You get the point.
During America's wars, the "enemies" were identified. They were referred to as Red Coats, Lobster Backs, Tories, Redskins (you remember the saying, "the only good Indian is a dead Indian"), Spiks, Wetbacks, Japs, Slant Eyes, Huns, Cossacks, Gooks, Cong, Slope Heads, Reds, Communists and terms that I dare not write.
How did God refer to these "enemies"? In the same way as He referred to us -- those children in need of Redemption. Reader, I ask you again. How can the child of God accomplish these spiritual objectives while utilizing "carnal" arms in order to inflict injury and death upon "enemies of the state" for whom Christ also died?
As the above scripture implies, the New Testament is a covenant of "principles". Unlike the Old Covenant, the called out are not administered by an abundance of "don't don'ts" and "no-nos". "Solid food" belongs to those who are willing to exercise their "spiritual" muscles. Christians have a mandate to grow in discernment. Paul expands on this idea in Philippians 1:9-10.
"And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent."
The Greek literally says "so that you may be able to distinguish between those things that are different."
Christians are asked to look at things differently. They are to weigh the issues of life from a Godly perspective. The conclusions "arrived at" will generally be completely different from the world's.
On the subject of "carnal" warfare, Even though the scripture does not say directly, "Do not participate", abstinence is taught plainly in principle. In view of this, let us look at some other questions proponents would ask concerning the subject.
1. Why didn't John the baptizer tell the soldiers that asked his advice to get out of the army in Luke 3:14? Of course, I cannot answer for revelation but I can make some observations. First, it was not John's purpose to reveal the nature of the New Covenant but to call men unto repentance as they looked toward the coming Messiah. It was Jesus' place to teach about the kingdom. He said, "the least in the kingdom of heaven was greater than John the Baptist." John was neither a Christian nor a member of the New Covenant. John's mission was limited in scope to the Jews and therefore cannot be considered a true parallel.
Second, we know that certain Jews were allowed to be numbered for war. These soldiers John spoke to were not Roman soldiers as many have erroneously concluded but consisted of the Jewish militia. These Jewish soldiers would have been authorized according to the Old Testament to make war upon Israel's enemies.
2. Why was not the centurion Cornelius instructed to leave the Roman army upon his conversion to Christ as referenced in Acts 10?
Good question. We know that there is nothing recorded in that context that would imply he was told to forsake "carnal" warfare. However, we have only information dealing with his immediate conversion -- not his further discipling . We don't know whether or not he was challenged later in his Christian walk. We do know, however, that if he lived long enough, Cornelius would have been called upon by Rome to wage war against Christians. By the time of Domitian's reign (circa 77AD), Christianity was a criminal religion in the Roman empire and Christians were routinely jailed and killed in numerous ways.
This dilemma, according to the author's view, can be applied to "carnal" warfare in general. The necessity falls upon one to choose "national" aims and goals over "spiritual" ends. Since we know his character, we can assume that he grew in knowledge and discernment and made the appropriate choices for the kingdom.
We have very little recorded on the extended "discipling" of any of the converts recorded in Acts. However, we have absolutely no allusions to any Christians partaking in "carnal" warfare in or out of scripture. We do know they were martyred repeatedly. We do know that they went to their deaths without defending themselves with "carnal" arms. These things we do know.
3. If it is scriptural for the unbelieving servant of the state to engage in "carnal" warfare, why would it not be right for the Christian? If it is sinful for a Christian, why wouldn't it be sinful for the unbeliever?
This question has already been dealt with to some extent. In the first place, Christians are called out of the world and given another mission in life. They are to set Jesus apart in their hearts as Lord, always prepared to make a defense of him and the lifestyle that we are called to exemplify. As already proven, the unbeliever has never been called. Something can be considered ordinary behavior in worldly terms and be considered unseemly by Christians. It is the disciple of Jesus who is instructed to discern the things that are excellent. As before proven, the demands of the kingdom take precedent over the call of the state.
While these three questions raise interesting speculations, they argue "little" against the arguments already presented in this thesis. The proponent is going to have to do much better. He will have to show that Jesus would be pleased with such behavior. He will have to show that this "behavior" could be considered advancing the goals of the kingdom of God.
In China, there is much to be said for patriotism. To love one's country is one of the first things that children are taught. They celebrate every year Mao's long march that brought them Independence. They learn and repeat "out loud" slogans of the great revolution. They stand and salute when their national anthem is played or sung. They believe that China is the greatest country in the world. Jung Gwo (the Mandarin name for China) literally means the "Middle Country". They are instructed that China is the center of culture and substance in the whole earth. The rest of the nations are barbarians, at best.
We could "call the roll" for all nations and arrive with similar attitudes. However, God calls us to look beyond the scope of human and national boundaries to the universal kingdom of God. To recognize the true enemies and the great worth of all mankind. To avoid civilian encumbrances that would make us ineffective in advancing this kingdom. The reason is repeated many times in the sacred text -- so that they might be saved. Jesus died for all the nations -- even the Russians or whoever America's enemy might be this year.
I would think, in lieu of these truths, that the child of God would think very seriously before he defended a view that says:
It is right and Biblical for the disciple of Jesus Christ to pick up "carnal" arms in order to inflict injury and death upon another human being of any nationality for which Christ also died at the instigation of any country?
I welcome the comments of all, even those who would "dare" disagree. E-mail here.