Wars in the Old Testament

I originally wrote this for Olivet's two discussion groups, academy (political) and dialog (theological), but I was so proud of it that I decided to preserve it for posterity on my web page. For the record, the first response I received was an outraged post claiming that I sounded just like a fundamentalist and that this did not in any way support my professed pacifism. That was satisfying.

The topic of wars in the Old Testament and their relation to the properly Christian stance toward war has come up quite a bit as of late. Here is my attempt to distinguish some characteristics of Old Testament wars. I am not an Old Testament scholar, but more than once, I did read the entire Old Testament in a fairly condensed period, so this gives me some claim to be able to address it as a whole, just as a reader. I divide the wars into three broad categories, and I subdivide the first.

A. Wars waged by Israel before the Exile

1. The conquest of Canaan

This is the war of Israel par excellence, and it is also the most troubling for pacifists. The techniques employed were brutal, including the extermination of entire peoples, in clear violation of the Geneva Convention. There are some telling details, however, which might give some meaning to the brutality. First, it is clear that the conquest of Canaan was not intended to be theft of any kind -- the motivating force behind the scorched earth policy seems to be to prevent the Israelites from gaining wealth through their conquest (within certain limits). Thus when one Israelite keeps some of the spoil, the entire camp is cursed, and the offender is killed. To use another example, the fall of King Saul can be attributed to his failure to fully exterminate a particularly loathsome nation.

All of Israel's failings in the period of the Judges and of the Kings are to be traced back to their failure to follow this rigorous and almost impossible war policy. They make compromises with the local nations, which turns them into simply one nation among other. Israel is not to compromise -- it is to be a radically different kind of nation. The prohibition on keeping the spoils of war represents a radical reliance on God to provide for the nation. This can be seen in some of the Israelites' war strategies, as well. The battle of Jericho is the most telling example: the Israelites simply march around the city, in an apparently useless gesture, and God himself strikes the city down. Gideon, as well, saw his forces significantly reduced by the act of God, so that the victory could be attributed not to the strength of Israel, but to God.

The point of this war is thus not simple conquest, but the radical clearing of a space for a completely different kind of nation, built not on worldly strength, but on trust in God. This difference can be seen in the radical hospitality, including forgiveness of debts, freeing of slaves, providing for widows and orphans, that characterizes the Torah. These wars are also a judgment of God upon the sinful nations, a judgment which, as we shall see, extends to Israel once it becomes just "one nation among others" (the earliest of prophetic themes, as illustrated in the striking first chapters of Amos).

2. Wars waged in self-defense

Until the Kingdom was fully established under David and Solomon, most wars of self-defense can be viewed as extensions of the conquest of Canaan or as consequences of the failure to follow it through. After the two Kingdoms were firmly in place as distinct nations, however, there are several wars of self-defense and even of territorial ambition. The role of the prophets in these wars is instructive. In every case, they denounce any kind of alliance with another nation as an act of faithlessness -- even after becoming largely one nation among others, Israel still remembers its call to radical trust. Virtually all the kings who engage in such wars either get a bad review or, failing that, are cut down in their prime, effectively punishing the entire nation for their sins. Hezekiah is a notable exception, in that he does not engage in normal warfare in his defense against the coming conquerer, and the continued freedom of Israel after that point can only be credited to God's miraculous work. Even Hezekiah is scolded, however, for displaying the wealth of Israel to the representatives of empire, thus exhibiting worldly pride.

B. Wars of pagan nations "ordained by God"

These nations are all cast as a punishment on Israel for its failure to live up to God's call, a failure that is almost uninterrupted from the initial call of Israel -- remember that the Law was violated before God was even finished dictating the first tablets to Moses. The prophets (such as Jeremiah) see resistance as futile and see conquest as a necessary cleansing of Israel, a whittling down of the nation to the righteous remnant which will one day return to the promised land in peace. "Nonviolent resistance" is the order of the day, and those Israelites (such as Daniel) who manage to move in the foreign society while still remaining obedient to the Law in very bodily and even subversive ways are rewarded.

Though God does use these pagan nations to accomplish his goals with Israel, he does call them to judgment for their evil works. Thus the psalmist is able to say, reportedly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, "happy the one who dashes their infants against the rocks." It would be a misreading of events to say that God gave any kind of blanket approval to the nations waging the war, and we must remember that every empire in the Old Testament does fall, and that is cause for rejoicing. In short, Israel is not called to "root for" the righteous army carrying out God's will, but to endure their *punishment* and to live in hope that God will call the conquerers to judgment once his purpose for Israel is completed.

C. Wars after the Exile

These wars are recorded in the Apocrypha (primarily the books of Maccabees) and these wars of self-defense are presented as successful and as righteous. In order to understand this, we have to see how circumstances have radically changed since the time of the Kingdom -- after the Exile, Israel is finally faithful to its call. Thus the foreign conquerer Antiochus Epiphanes is not an instrument of God's judgment, but something like a manifestation of Satan. The war against Antiochus is presented as a defense of the purity of Israel's worship, and thus of the nation of Israel as a radically different community. It is wildly successful as long as the Israelites rely only on their own resources, leading to several glorious years of a free theocracy for Israel. Once the later Maccabees make an alliance with the Romans, however, the whole thing falls apart, paving the way for yet another foreign conquerer. Although the author of 1 Maccabees is not as vocal in his criticism as the author of Kings, it seems that the alliance with Rome is ultimately an act of faithlessness parallel to the alliances in the period of the Kingdom.

In conclusion

God's use of war does not appear to be a blanket approval of war as one tool among others. It is used in the judgment of sin, and only Israel, God's uniquely chosen nation, has the opportunity to avoid judgment in its use -- and that only if Israel follows a radically different code of conduct in its wars befitting its character as a radically different nation entirely reliant on God. Insofar as Israel becomes one of "the nations" and uses war as such, it heaps judgment on its own head, as do the pagan nations used by God to execute that judgment.