CYOA –Deut 20 – To War or Not to War? That is the Question!

The challenge of Holy War, and war condoned by God, and war initiated by God, is a challenge that always leads to unsatisfactory answers. I think it is something I will wrestle with until the day I die. I spent much of my second year at Bible College debating, considering, and reading about these war passages. What I learned was not so much a stance to hold, but the necessity to consider the situation carefully before making any pronouncements. It was a time of learning how to deconstruct. I, like Yoder (book - What would you do?), believe much of the conversation around Holy War rests on faulty premises. The most basic of these faulty premises is that there are two options, Go to War OR Don’t Go to War. I am convinced that neither of these are the correct choice, as the dichotomy finds its base in the most prevalent heresy of our time, binary thinking. The mode of thought that limits one to two options, it is neither Biblical nor God honouring. It is incredibly non-creative, and does not use critical thought, both of which God created humans to utilize while on earth to adequately image the creator. Therefore, my response to questions about war, since that point, has been the process of deconstruction; through which I believe we can perceive other ways to think about war.

Some of the questions I might pose are: If the narrative of scripture is the coming of Shalom, how then does war fit? Is there a progression within the narrative from war-> less war? Might there be other options? Given that we no longer live under theocracy, how can we legitimately state that our side is God’s side? Rather than destruction through war, are collaborative options available that might better use resources to solve the perceived conflict? Through such thought, I have concluded that both no war and war are minimalist positions, and there are many other positions that are more maximalist (conservatives in theory should be happy here) within the Biblical text and given human potential for us think through and be creative in constructing.

Here is a summary of some potential ideas of how to deal with Holy War: (My Notes from Peace and Justice class- Thank you very much Gareth Brandt)

From Joshua to Jesus (irony Jesus name was Joshua in Hebrew, Joshua was one of the most violent people in the OT)
1) Marcionism- 2nd century Gnostic pacifist- different God in OT and NT
- Problem- separates OT and NT and anti-Semitic
- contribution- honest about the obvious difference
2) Enlightenment- we choose which elements of ancient culture are usable for us
- problem- we become the highest authority
- contribution- acknowledges evolution and progression of thought- which is good
3) Allegorization – look for the deeper spiritual meaning of the violence (Origen -more what God is really like)
- Problem- doesn’t help us deal with the text- spiritual may be true but does not deal with history
- contribution- long history, shows us deeper realities
4) Sovereignty- we don’t question God’s ways “God’s ways are higher than ours”
- problem- pious concern to not taint God, if we can’t say something God did was bad we can’t call anything he did as good either
- contribution- let God be God, we don’t have to explain everything
5) Justice- there were various just causes for violence e.g. rid the nation of evil, punish wrong doing, distinguished good and bad violence, salvific or redemptive violence, just war by Augustine
- problem – doesn’t explain all acts of violence, there are some that do not seem to be redemptive, inconsistent use of scripture- lack of unity in OT and NT- OT as a social ethic and NT as a personal ethic, does not recognise the social political message of Jesus
- Contribution- it helps us understand some wars, and it explains the Christian involvement in war for the past 1500 years
6) Liberation – the uprisings of the oppressed but not the massive armaments of superpowers, primarily looking at the exodus
- problem it only explains some wars, inconsistent with the love ethic of Jesus
- contribution- God is concerned for the oppressed
7) Miracle – Divine intervention was meant to teach people to place their trust in Yahweh and not in their own weapons, wars are fought from a place of weakness, this sees Yahweh as a warrior, sometimes fought against Israel as well as for
- problem- reconciling Yahweh the warrior with Jesus the lover, we are called to be pacifists because God is not, different motivation for pacifism
- Contribution- obey and have faith in God, treats the OT and NT the same that the point is to obey
8) Progression- OT wars are partial, temporary ethic for a particular nation fulfilled by the superior ethic of Christ for all nations in the New Testament. Anabaptist- all war and violence is evil in lens of Jesus, progressive revelation and OT fades in validity for the superior Jesus mandate Hebrews 1:1-2, OT wars would be seen as ritualistic (Renee Gerard- French anthropologist- scape goat theology of Christ and in the OT)
- problem- doesn’t take the OT seriously enough
- contribution- sees Jesus as the complete revelation of God, Christo-centric
9) Projection- Violent commands and portrayals of God are the product of peoples and authors projecting their own violence on God, anthropological basis, interpreting the wars after the fact and interpreting it in relation to the specific culture they were in, it describes rather than prescribes, we should not read our current questions onto their culture and their world view, would tell us that Humans are not as much about God, God works within culture and does not destroy it,
- problem- not a high enough view of inspiration of scripture
- contribution- it shows the complexity of divine human interaction
10) Involvement- A description of how God is involved in all human affairs, even those that seem morally repugnant, he is active in judgement and redemption in violence, with Jesus there is a more complete understanding of God, God has not changed but the human experience of God has changed, Jesus was a major change in this process
- problem- how does a loving and Holy God work through violence and evil
- contribution- shows how God is and incarnate God and involved in humans, he is always with human beings


That ends my little prologue about war in general. There are no answers, only better questions.

Now to Deuteronomy 20 – A what did Silas notice section:

• Chapter 19 ends with the Lex Talionis (Law of the Tooth) – Jesus had something to say about that, maybe his teaching of compassion and being least (Matt 5:38-42) also has relevance to the Holy War section.
• v.3 “Here, O Isreal” – by my count this is the 5th time this little phrase is used in Deuteronomy in full (Deut 4:1, 5:1, 6:4 the most famous “Shema”, 9:1, and partial in 10:12, 27:9). What this shows me is this section is a rally cry for the nation of Israel, evidenced in the shema, as understood as “Listen O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh Alone” defining Yahweh not as philosophical oneness (a poor anachronistic understanding), but as Israel’s God compared to the other gods of the region. Thus, Deut 20 needs to be understood in its context as one God among many doing battle, not the monotheism of Christianity somehow doing battle against non-entities, or worse against people who are “other” than “us”.
• Avoiding going to war is acceptable. v.5-8 gives a number of excuses to avoid being a part of war. (Some may argue these mean this or that, but I see it as meaning war is not the trump card. In a sense, other priorities ought to come before war.)
• Offer peace. If any part of this passage causes me to squirm it is this section v.10-15. As it seems to be a façade of peace, not actual shalom. This same type of peace offered here sounds remarkably similar to the Pax Romana, which Jesus fought ideologically with his entire life. Thus to state that God offers Pax Israela here only to contradict this type of Pax in the Gospels is the point where I see the most dissonance within the Bible.
• God is an environmentalist. I love v.19-20. “Destroy all the people…but there is no need to go overboard, make sure you are careful which trees you cut down when you are building your siege ramps”. I like is because it states that the environment has an intrinsic value, not to be usurped by the fleeting disagreements of humanity.