Soldiers kill on orders - Can a Christian?

[markedward]

I define a soldier as someone who kills on the orders of someone else, without considering the rights or wrongs of that killing. There take a pay cheque to give up moral responsibility. But i believe God will ask them one day why they killed and injured each person they are responsible for.

First of all:

Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?"

[John the Baptist] replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely—be content with your pay."

When soldiers asked John the Baptist (the prophet of the day) what they should do now that they were baptized as followers of God, he didn't tell them to lay down their weapons, he didn't condemn them claiming they were morally apathetic, he didn't rebuke them for taking "a pay cheque to give up moral responsibility," all he told them to do was to not abuse their power. If simply being a soldier is as morally corrupt as you define them as being, wouldn't God's very own prophet tell them as much?

Second of all:

Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

God commanded His people to act as soldiers. Not every soldier fits your definition of being morally irresponsible, and not every command given to those soldiers is morally wrong. Yes, God will one day make every person give an account for their life, and yes, people who have killed will one day find out if they were justified or not in killing such-and-such person/people... but if God Himself commanded His own people to kill their enemies in order to help protect themselves from moral evil, then you should reconsider your definition of what it means to be a soldier.

Obviously there are going to be soldiers who do fit your definition, but you can't just blanket every soldier who ever existed or will exist as being morally corrupt or in it just for the money.

[Duane Morse]

Mt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mt 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
Mt 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mt 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mt 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mt 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mt 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mt 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.



The thing is, in the way I see it, is this:

Jesus changed the way we were to respond to things, by saying - But I say unto you,

It is the establishment of a new order - a new covenent.


It is Jesus - as GOD! - telling us not to kill and take vengeance anymore.
It is Jesus - as GOD! - telling us to live by different rules.


It is Jesus - as GOD! - telling us to lay down our arms, and to accept what may be.
Because anything else, is falling into the trap of Satan.


Do we do, as an individual, anything different than we should do as an individual within a group?
I would say - NO!

When in a mob, people sometimes do what they would not do when in an individual setting.

So, Christians can sometimes justify killing a faceless enemy in the mob situation of a war - whereas they could not justify the killing in a more personal basis.

Sure, some here would justify the killing of another individual over lesser grounds - like that of stealing the personal property of another.
Some would justify the killing of another individual over other, and more grievous grounds.



But when the fecus hits the fan - when does Jesus - as GOD! - ever tell us to kill another individual?


You can follow a government, or, you can follow God.

And in the end, if God put all governing bodies in place - none of us has the right to fight against the other, because the one we are fighting against has always been put there by the will of God.



Christians should always be pacifist in nature - with no exceptions.

[Slug1]

I think you guys are missing the point SOT is making. I'll respond to slug to flesh out what I believe SOT's point to be.


Slug, have you personally ever disagreed with orders that you have been given, believing that God would not condone those orders? If so, did you refuse to carry out those orders? or did you carry them out anyway? If you have not faced such a situation yet, what would you do in such a situation?

I believe this is SOT's point, if a christian soldier personally believes that God would be against the orders they have been given, do they refuse to carry out the orders or do they put the orders above what the Holy Spirit is convicting them of?

All my orders have been lawful. I have never been given an unlawful order by a superior. ALL soldiers are allowed to refuse an unlawful order. All soldiers know this also. Doesn't even matter if a soldier is Christian or not.

That is why I asked the question if SOT had personal experience (served in the military) or if the opinion they have is the results from what is witnessed from movies and books.

This is one of the reasons that Christians need to be soldiers because they will stand up against such unlawful orders. Here another opinion of mine so you can toss it right out after reading it... the problem with AbuGhraib prison in Iraq and the mishandling/abuse of the EPW's... would not have happened if a Christian was incharge. A Christian would not have allowed that to happen or continue to happen having stepped in on the situation and realized what was going on.

As a nation, this nation... needs Christians to be in all professions to include the military so the solid and moral compass, a righteous element is present in all walks of life and all professions. As I've said before, all soldiers serve God (Romans 13:4) whether that like it or even believe it or not. It would be great for more soldiers not only serving God but also having faith in God WHILE they are serving in the military.

[ServantofTruth]

Thank you. I had my bible open on Matthew 5 The Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:3-10 speak so briefly of how to live and act in a Godly way. We could take 5:9 independantly 'God blesses those people who make peace. They will be called his children.' But it's meaning is even stronger within its context.
Matthew 5: 21-22 are also interesting. If the thou shalt not kill, should be translated murder and only means a killing without just cause. How can Jesus smoothly go on in the next verse to say if you are angry with someone - you will stand trial. This is clearly not just refering to a small few people who kill for evil reasons - he is speaking to us all in both cases. The arguement flows fluently in both directions.
Calling someone a fool - a verbal attack.
Feeling anger - the evil emotion within yourself
The murder/ killing - puting that evil within into action.
We are called to control our language, to control hateful and evil thoughts/ emotions - be pure of heart, and yes not to murder/ kill.
Lastly Matthew 5:17 Jesus says, don't think i came to do away with the law and the prophets. Actually i came to give them their FULL MEANING. The Sadducees and the Pharisees used scriptures to burden people and argue with Jesus. But Jesus said look beyond your understanding of each individual law, each sentence of scripture to the meaning for it. We have the added advantage of Jesus LIVING the law and prophets. His life was a perfect example of how to live day to day fully by scripture. The only life lived that way. No prophet lived right. John the Baptist couldn't live the perfect correct life - only Jesus/ God in the flesh.
Many prophets and kings and wise men and women wanted to see these things, but they didn't! The apostles did and then they wrote it down or told others their stories to write down, by God's will (the Holy Spirit is as much God as Jesus or the Father - least we ever detract from the importance of one part of the Godhead). Only Jesus spoke and lived a righteous life and he certainly never taught violence only peace and love. As a christian i want to follow his example - not use scripture to go against the only person who matters God. Scripture can not argue with itself, only we can not understand part of it. Jesus teaches love and peace, therefore so does all scripture.

[Brother Mark]

I believe this is SOT's point, if a christian soldier personally believes that God would be against the orders they have been given, do they refuse to carry out the orders or do they put the orders above what the Holy Spirit is convicting them of?

Actually, that was responded to above. Whatever is not of faith, is sin. All should obey their authority until that authority tells them to sin. So if one believes they are being ordered to sin, then do as Daniel did. Appeal to the authority to change their mind as he did with the food. But when an act cannot be changed, follow God and suffer the consequences.

[Brother Mark]

Scripture can not argue with itself, only we can not understand part of it. Jesus teaches love and peace, therefore so does all scripture.

Correct. Jesus is the exact image of God. So we know that if God, in the OT commanded others to go to war, then Jesus would as well. They are one. All of the OT law is based on loving your neighbor, yet God told Saul to kill the Amelekites. God does not change nor contradict himself. He loves people, but will use war if necessary.

[ServantofTruth]

I certainly would never question the bible, or if it states that God ordered a war/ conflict. You obviously make a direct connection between God ordering an Israelite king to wage war and a 'christian' country going to war today. I make no such connection.
As creator and sustainer of all life God has the total right to do as he pleases. And yes this will always be for a loving reason. So please put 'flesh' on your arguement - Why does the bible say God ordered Saul to make war in this case?
How can we make a connection between God directly ordering a war and a soldier joining an army today and killing?
As i have said i don't believe anyone today has the same '2 way connection' with God as the prophets and kings and judges had. They had the priests and chief priest. They had the holy of holies, arc of the covennant, and the priest could get correct answers to questions from God. I can't enter the presence of God and come away with my face shining so much i have to wear a viel like Moses. These were special people chosen by God.
I would consider it blasphamy to say i could speak for God on the same level as Isaiah or Jeremiah, or one of the gospel writers or Peter for example.
So how is a ruler or parliament/ senate (not sure of american terms?) going to say what is a Godly war and righteous and what is not? Do they even say it is? Do they say they are going to war for Jesus or for worldly reasons?
I would like to focus in, if other people don't mind, on the life and teachings of Jesus. I'll post again seperately to begin this.

[ServantofTruth]

I have been taught and it does seem logical, that a christian should follow the example of the 'life' of christ. So firstly i need to know if we agree this is right or not?, or this particular line of discussion would be pointless.
Next we will have to look at first how Jesus lived and then move onto what he taught. I put forward that Jesus lived a totally peaceful and non violent life. To begin with remember we are looking at 'how he live himself', we will move on to teaching and words. Was Jesus ever violent to anyone? Do we have cases of him shouting at people, abusive language or taunting or taking the micky? Did he ever hit anyone? Lastly did he ever kill anyone. I am talking about Jesus Christ Incarnate (God made flesh) living on this earth - so please no clever Old Testament answers!
Lets look at the gospels, the 4 accounts of his 'earthly' life. So my first point is if Jesus in 33 years, especially the 3 years of ministry, lived the love your neighbour to perfection - surely we should copy his example.
For this first point can we try to stick to how he PERSONALLY LIVED then move on to teachings. At the end we can put it all together for the big picture.

[markedward]

You can follow a government, or, you can follow God.

Or both:

Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

God tells us that we are to respect the authority of our governments, and I don't think God somehow forgot about governments having armies. And that epistle was written during a time when the Roman Empire, as well as the land of Judea, was most oppressive upon Christians.

Christians should always be pacifist in nature - with no exceptions.

Zero exceptions?

Luke 22:36 [Jesus] said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Why would Jesus tell His disciples to carry a deadly weapon with them if they were not expected to use it? I've heard some people argue that the whole command was metaphoric: purse for money, bag for belongings, sword for protection. Yes, the sword is protection, but if we are supposed to be 100% pacifistic, Jesus would not have recommended that they carry a weapon that could even accidentally kill an enemy they were trying to protect themselves from. Why not a shield, or even just a staff? No, Jesus recommended the weapon.

Was Jesus ever violent to anyone? Do we have cases of him shouting at people, abusive language or taunting or taking the micky? Did he ever hit anyone?

You're equating violence with being oppressive. John the Baptist's example cleared this up when he told the soldiers to not be be abusive with their power as a military. As in, they were to act honorably with their power as a military. And read John 2. Jesus makes a whip and starts hitting people and animals and flipping tables to get them out all of the temple. Jesus became violent, but only when it was necessary. Otherwise, He Himself states that He was not there (for His three-year ministry) to judge and condemn the sinful, but to teach that they could be forgiven. But, again, keep in mind the command He gave His disciples about carrying a sword. It would probably be best that they would never have to use it, but there just may be a time when they need to protect themselves or others even to the point of death, otherwise Jesus would not have recommended that they carry a deadly weapon with them.

[Ecumaniac]

Jesus is the exact image of God. So we know that if God, in the OT commanded others to go to war, then Jesus would as well.

Yes, we know that Jesus would command people to do what God would have them do in the same circumstances. So, if God commanded people to fight before the new covenant, so would Jesus also have commanded them to fight before the new covenant. But the question is not, "What did God command people to do in the Old Testament?" but "What did God command people to do in the New Testament?" And Jesus teaches us: "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Many things change between the OT and the NT, so using the OT as precedent is a tricky thing to do. We no longer need to circumcise our children; perhaps we would no longer be expected to kill the Amelekites.

[Ecumaniac]

Luke 22:36 [Jesus] said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Why would Jesus tell His disciples to carry a deadly weapon with them if they were not expected to use it? I've heard some people argue that the whole command was metaphoric: purse for money, bag for belongings, sword for protection. Yes, the sword is protection, but if we are supposed to be 100% pacifistic, Jesus would not have recommended that they carry a weapon that could even accidentally kill an enemy they were trying to protect themselves from. Why not a shield, or even just a staff? No, Jesus recommended the weapon.

This is a very interesting passage, and I'm glad you brought it up. Personally, I err on the side of caution; if the sword is for self-defence, then given the non-violent response of Jesus and his followers to extreme persecution in the Bible, it must be assumed that it is only a weapon of absolute last resort, and not even necessarily to be used with deadly force.

This is a good and balanced discussion of the verse, to which I don't think I could add much.

[ServantofTruth]

How many times do we need to go round the Romans 13 arguement? Yes we are to be in submission, but submission like Jesus taught us. Jesus and Paul taught to pay taxes and love your neighbour. Not rise up against them in rebellion. But niether Jesus or Paul said join the army and kill for the government.

[Fenris]

But niether Jesus or Paul said join the army and kill for the government.

Soldiers don't kill for the government. They kill to keep their fellow citizens safe.

[ServantofTruth]

I now wish to reply to the your comments on Luke 22: 36. I don't know what value is given to my commentary by Matthew Henry. And i can't type out all his comments. But basically he says the buying of a sword comment was just to show times were about to get a lot more dangerous for the disciples. That the sword of the spirit is actually the real sword for disciples of Christ. That it is said 'ironically' 2 swords between 12 men, what use is that when all our enemies are armed! 2 swords are sufficient for those who need none, having God himself to be the 'shield of their help and the sword of their excellency' Deut 33:29
Again i have no way of knowing if any posters respect the comments of Matthew Henry. But my thinking goes along the same lines, although i can't put it anywhere near as well! This was a comment of danger to come as he knows he is about to be arrested, as he chose the place and time of his own arrest and sent Judas to get the armed mob.
I would be interested in what other respected commentaries say, those used by the people puting the other side of the arguement.

[markedward]

And once again, I refer back to John the Baptist baptizing soldiers, telling them not to abuse their military power. Obviously John, as a prophet of God, was letting them know it was okay to be in the military as long as the soldiers weren't morally irresponsible.

Your definition of a soldier is flawed in that you equate military power with moral irresponsibility.

But niether Jesus or Paul said join the army and kill for the government.

They didn't say a lot of things. They never said to build hospitals. They never said to build TV stations. They never said to do this or that. Go with what they did say rather than what they didn't. The followers of God did say not to abuse military power, they did say to respect the authority of the government, etc.

Again, if being a soldier suddenly became morally wrong the moment Jesus came on the scene, something would have been said about it, and there were plenty of chances for it to happen; John the Baptist baptizing the soldiers, Jesus speaking to the Roman centurion, and throughout the book of Acts soldiers are spoke of a number of times, but not once are they condemned for being soldiers. The fact that they are soldiers or centurions is usually mentioned in passing; but not once are told "being a soldier is morally wrong." Being a soldier was a recognized position in society, no more odd than it was to be a farmer or a tailor or a carpenter.