Beyond Aquinas - A Different Approach to the Possibility of a "Just War"

Through countless ages, humanity has bemoanedSecond, Jesus made statements which seem to
war for the most obvious of reasons. Despite thesupport the idea of the use of violent force in
possibility that some wrong things may be putcertain situations. He told the disciples to take a
right through violence (however one might definesword with them (Luke 22:35-36):
violence), there is the inevitable problem of the"And he said unto them, When I sent you without
likelihood of great suffering being caused in thepurse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing?
process.And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them,
Much of this suffering is needless - evenBut now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and
accidental. Worse yet, the burden of this sufferinglikewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let
frequently falls upon those least responsible forhim sell his garment, and buy one." 8
the wrong which precipitated the violent response.Presumably, Jesus thought that there would be a
Sometimes, it seems that more evil may be doneneed for the sword. Pacifists try to assert that
by violent attempts to restrain evil than bythe sword actually refers something else and that
nonviolent attempts (or even by simply allowingthe disciples misunderstood His meaning. But again,
the original evil to prevail). How should a Christianthere is no compelling reason to suspect that than
respond to such situations?there is to suspect that Jesus means something
Building on Augustine's foundation (in The City ofelse when He refers to the purse or shoes or
God), Thomas Aquinas addressed the question inscrip. The plain sense of Scripture indicates that
his famous work, Summa Theologica. As he doesJesus is telling them to buy a sword and take it
elsewhere in this work, Aquinas begins by posingwith them.
a question and listing possible objections to hisNot long before his crucifixion, Jesus appeared
answer. Then he attempts to show why thosebefore Pontius Pilate and told him that (John
objections are not valid and why his perspective is18:36):
to be accepted. The question he poses is this:"My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
"Whether it is always sinful to wage war?" 1 Hiswere of this world, then would my servants fight,
answer is that it is not always sinful.that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but
Aquinas lists several possible objections to hisnow is my kingdom not from hence." 9
view. First, he cites Jesus' admonition to PeterThis implies that it is entirely appropriate for the
that "all they that take the sword shall perish withservants of an earthly kingdom to fight on behalf
the sword" (Matthew 26:52b). Second, he notesof that kingdom, for instance, to protect or
the instruction of Jesus, "But I say unto you notrescue their sovereign. Participation in military
to resist evil" (Matthew 5:39a) and Paul'saction would be expected from subjects of
instruction to the Romans, "Not revengingearthly kingdoms.
yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give placeWe have seen that Jesus was to some
unto wrath" (Romans 12:19). He asserts otherconsiderable extent pacifistic in his life and ministry.
possible objections that war is always sinfulBut we have also discovered that there are at
because it is contrary to peace (which isleast some passages in the gospels which suggest
supposed to be a virtue) and because thethat Christ was not always so universally opposed
practice of warlike exercises (which may end into violence. Let us now address the question of
slaying or plundering) is sinful.whether Jesus' life is to be considered as
Thomas does answer the objections that heparadigmatic for us as Christians.
previously posed. We shall now examine hisPaul says in 1 Corinthians 11:1, "Be ye followers of
treatment as an introduction to a slightly differentme, even as I also am of Christ." 10 If following
perspective on just war theory. He deals with theChrist means imitating His example, then we must
first objection by saying that Jesus meant onlyadmit that Jesus' example is (at least in some
that Peter was not to "take the sword" withoutway) paradigmatic for the Christian. This is a point
"command or permission of superior or lawfulupon which the just-war theorist and the pacifist
authority." 2 On this point, some pacifists (forshould be able to agree. His example should be
instance, those who believe that the use of armsapplied to the Christian life. Yet I would suggest
for the purpose of law enforcement is allowable)that there are limits to how closely His example
might agree with him. But Aquinas' argument, as itmay be applied to us.
is, seems a bit weak. Jesus does not makeSome of those limits are obvious. For instance,
mention in this passage of any other civilJesus lived only in Judea and countries near there.
authority.It does not follow that we as Christians are
However, a look at the context of Jesus'required to live only in those countries. He was
statement reveals that whether or not onebaptized in the Jordan River but surely we need
"perishes" is not the real issue. Jesus makes itnot baptized in only that river; many other such
clear that the real reason that Peter is not toexamples of instances in which His life is not
take the sword is that the arrest is part of God'sparadigmatic could be given. Jesus was not a
plan for his life and ministry as indicated insoldier (nor His disciples) and He does not discuss
prophecy (Matthew 26:54 - "But how then shallparticipation in warfare. So on the specific question
the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?") Itof participation in war, we have really no paradigm
is for this reason that Peter should not resist -offered to us. Thus, we can see that there are at
with or without recourse to the sword.least some ways in which the applicability of the
Similarly, Aquinas replies to the second objectionJesus paradigm is very limited. How then can we
by noting that these scriptures speak of privatebest define the extent of paradigmaticity
individuals acting to avenge wrongs (not theapplicable to the modern Christian - who does not
prosecution of war). This point is questionable, too.live in first-century Judea, is not a Jewish
Yet should be admitted that Romans 12:19carpenter, does not worship in the temple at
(quoted above) must be read in context withJerusalem, etc? An important part of the answer
Romans 13, verses 1 through 4:is that we must look for scriptural testimony
"Let every soul be subject unto the higheroutside of the gospels for additional guidance.
powers. For there is no power but of God: theThe Broader Witness of Scripture
powers that be are ordained of God. WhosoeverOne of the more troubling characteristics of
therefore resisteth the power, resisteth thepacifism is the inclination to be dismissive
ordinance of God: and they that resist shallconcerning the witness of Scripture outside the
receive to themselves damnation. For rulers aregospels. Of course, this is understandable because
not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilta great deal of the testimony in the Old
thou then not be afraid of the power? do thatTestament and the New Testament epistles is
which is good, and thou shalt have praise of thedifficult to reconcile with an extremely pacifistic
same: For he is the minister of God to thee forview of Jesus. The many examples of God
good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid;sending his people into wars do not fit well with
for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is thethe idea of a pacifistic God. Nonetheless, the Old
minister of God, a revenger to execute wrathTestament is "the scripture" that Jesus quoted
upon him that doeth evil." 3(and thus, implicitly endorsed).
Considered together, we may infer from theseSome suggest the accounts of the Old
verses that we are not to take the law into ourTestament wars are just historically inaccurate
own hands but that we may rely on the "powerswritings (from perhaps late in the temple period)
that be" (civil authorities) to right wrongswritten for political/cultural purposes. Others say
perpetrated against us. Indeed, God has ordainedthat the writings are authentic but that Jesus so
them to do so.transformed our situation that these writings are
The objection that war is contrary to peace isnot applicable (or perhaps, are not applicable in a
quite true, of course. Yet peace alone is notsignificant way). Yet the most influential Christian
necessarily the highest good. For example, Godcommentator of all time on the Old Testament
apparently views holiness as a higher good thanscripture (the apostle Paul) says:
peace. For this reason, God punished the nations"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
by the instrument of war many times in history,profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
as we noted earlier.for instruction in righteousness: That the man of
Finally, Aquinas addresses the objection thatGod may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all
"warlike exercises" are evil by correctly notinggood works." 11
that they need not be (for instance, if suchIf Paul is to be trusted, then it is of little
exercises are executed so as to not takeimportance when or even why the Old
"innocent' life or plunder). Therefore, the executionTestament writers (whoever they were) wrote
of a just war is possible in the mind of Aquinaswhat they did. We are left with Paul's testimony
(and in my own perspective).that scripture (the Old Testament, that is) is
Thomas asserts that the waging of war may beprofitable for doctrine, instruction, etc. to an
just when three requirements are met:extent that "the man of God may be perfect,
1) First, the authority of the sovereign (ratherthoroughly furnished unto all good works." Paul
than that of any private individual) is necessary toseems to saying that we would know God
call a people to war.sufficiently from the Old Testament Scripture
2) Second, a "just cause" is required. That is, thealone to be "perfect" (that is, even if the gospels
country being attacked is to be justly punished ordid not exist).
some wrong is be made right (for instance, anAt the very least, this implies that the testimony
unjustly seized property is to be restored).of the Old Testament should not be contradictory
3) Third, it must be waged only with the intentionto the gospels (properly understood). Much of the
of doing good and avoiding evil.gospel writings assume that the reader has some
Aquinas quotes scripture (Romans 13:4) as theknowledge of the Old Testament. (The gospel
basis of his first requirement:writers do not take time to explain the Passover
"For he is the minister of God to thee for good.or who Solomon was, for instance.) It is not
But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for heenough to say that Jesus changed things. It is
beareth not the sword in vain: for he is thenecessary to explain how He changed things. For
minister of God, a revenger to execute wrathinstance, one might say that an "eye for an eye"
upon him that doeth evil." 4was changed to "turn the other cheek." But it is a
In doing so, he extends the ordination of thedifferent thing entirely to say that participation in
"powers that be" to include warfare in addition towarfare was changed to "turn the other cheek."
law enforcement activities. Is he justified in doingThe epistles also shed light on the life and ministry
so? It would seem to me that he is justified inof Jesus with respect discerning the limits of His
doing so for several reasons.paradigmicity for us and they help to clarify what
First, the authorities are responsible to God toHe really meant in his teachings. For instance,
promote (as much as they are able) the commonRomans 13:4 (quoted above) shows that the
good of those whom they govern. This wouldpacifism of Jesus may not be extended to the
seem to allow inclusion of the responsibility to atprohibition of law enforcement activities. The civil
least protect the helpless and innocent fromauthority is said to be "the minister of God, a
unjust attack whether from forces internal orrevenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth
external to the country.evil" and a "not a terror to good works, but to
Secondly, there is no apparent limitation of thosethe evil." Note that there is no restriction of the
powers to "law enforcement" in the text itself.terror within the boundaries of the country - only
Also, there are many examples in the Oldthe terror is restricted to evildoers.
Testament of God using military campaigns toThe Principle of Relative Obligation
justly punish nations for their sin. (Apparently, theIf then the Old Testament examples of God
goal of such campaigns was something beyondexecuting justice through warfare can not be
the mere establishment of Israel's position inshown to be canceled by Jesus' paradigm, it
Canaan. See, for instance, Isaiah 13: 17-19 andbecomes clear that the obligation recognized in
Jeremiah 46:1-10).the Scripture (that civil authorities are charged
The idea that a just war must have a "justwith the protecting the common good at least of
cause" seems rather a common-sense sort oftheir constituents) must be affirmed as consistent
requirement. It would be difficult to imagine thatwith that paradigm (properly understood). But
any activity which risked injury or death of itsanother question quickly arises - How is that
participants could be justified that did not include aobligation to be balanced with the conflicting
just cause for that activity.interests of our enemies (whom Jesus tells us to
Likewise, the requirement to prosecute war onlylove)?
with intent to do good and avoid evil - evenJesus himself gives us an important key to
though it may be good for our enemies - wouldunlocking this mystery in Matthew 15, verses 22
seem to be mandated by Scripture. (See, forthrough 27 12:
instance, Luke 6:35 : "But love ye your enemies,". . . a woman of Canaan came out of the same
and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again;coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy
and your reward shall be great, and ye shall beon me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter
the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto theis grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered
unthankful and to the evil.")her not a word. And his disciples came and
The Incarnation of Jesusbesought him, saying, Send her away; for she
Many opponents of just war theory tend to basecrieth after us. But he answered and said, I am
their pacifism largely on the concept that Jesusnot sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
was a pacifist - and that his life is paradigmatic forIsrael. Then came she and worshipped him,
us as Christians. If these two premises are true, itsaying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said,
would be quite reasonable to conclude that allIt is not meet to take the children's bread, and to
Christians should be pacifists. But serious questionscast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord yet the
arise concerning both of these ideas.dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their
Was Jesus, indeed, a pacifist? If so, which type ofmasters' table." 13
pacifism did He exemplify and teach? (There areThough this text does not indicate that only those
many different types.) It is quite true that Jesusof the Jewish nation could receive the mercy of
made many statements supporting (at least, inGod, it strongly suggests that Jesus is assigning a
some sense) a pacifistic approach to life. It wouldpriority to the Jews because they are His children
only be reasonable to admit that when an(in a unique way) due to their covenant relation
individual is attacked by an aggressor that Jesuswith their King. Since those citizens of a nation are
taught that the individual should not resist.also in a covenant relationship of sorts (social
Certainly, He most strikingly exemplified thatcontract), one might suggest that the interests of
approach in his suffering and death on the cross.that nation should be considered above (but not
His teaching in the "Sermon on the Mount" alsoto the exclusion of) the interests of those outside
reflected such a worldview, as in Matthew 5,that nation. This idea is also supported by
verses 38 and 39:Galatians 6, verse 10: "As we have therefore
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye foropportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say untounto them who are of the household of faith." 14
you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shallSo then the concern of the state (like that of the
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him theFather) is to care for its "children" first - but not
other also." 5to forget to do good to others as well. The killing
But how closely does the pacifism of Jesus - asof foreign noncombatants is, of course, to be
revealed in His incarnation - match the pacifism ofavoided whenever possible - but not if avoiding it
those who oppose any Christian's participation inwill result in similar casualties among the citizenry.
any (earthly) warfare?Conclusions
First, it should be noted that Christ sometimesThough Thomas Aquinas' version of the just war
modeled for us certain behaviors which are quitehas its problems, I think I have demonstrated
inconsistent with such a totally nonviolentthat sufficient arguments can be offered to
perspective. Consider, for instance, Jesus' cleansingsupport the use of violence certainly in law
of the temple (Mark 11:15-17 6):enforcement and arguably in prosecution of a just
"And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus wentwar - even in modern times. Further, the gospel
into the temple, and began to cast out them thataccounts of the life and ministry of the incarnate
sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew theChrist may be interpreted in such a way as to
tables of the moneychangers, and the seats ofallow for the use of violence and participation in
them that sold doves; And would not suffer thatearthly warfare. Indeed, some of Jesus'
any man should carry any vessel through thestatements tend indicate that violence is the
temple. And he taught, saying unto them, Is it notappropriate response in certain situations.
written, My house shall be called of all nations theThe broader witness of scripture is replete with
house of prayer? but ye have made it a den ofreferences to God as initiator, "warmonger," and
thieves." 7even as the main participant in war. New
The word ekballein, normally translated "cast out"Testament epistles contain material which assert
or "throw out," suggests that Jesus used violencethat civil authorities may use violence and that
against the moneychangers. However, the pacifisttargets of that force are not necessarily limited
interpretation translates ekballein as "send away."to those within the nation's boundaries. Further, in
If Jesus merely "sent away" the moneychangers,the regrettable situation the enemy presents a
then violence was not necessarily involved. On therealistic threat to the citizenry of a country -
other hand, there is no compelling reason towithin the boundaries discussed as defining a just
discard the more common translation of ekballeinwar - such a war may be justly fought. Indeed, it
in favor of the more unusual rendering. In theis the solemn responsibility of the state to fight
absence of such a reason, the traditional renderingsuch a war - and it is our responsibility as its
("cast out") would seem to be the better choice -citizens to support such a war.
indicating that Jesus physically "threw them out."