I did a study on this in Graduate school - a lifelong student of Bonhoeffer before becoming Orthodox, his ethical quandary led me to research the thesis - 'Is it ever justified to take the life of another human being?'- I used Bonhoeffer as well as St Basil of Caesarea as my two main interlocutors for this paper. I went into this research as a pacifist and emerged at the end with an important qualification learned from St. Basil. I learned that Bonhoeffer understood that sometimes one must break 'the law,' violate the civil order, in order to reestablish it. If you do not you will always be outflanked by the wiliness and deceptiveness of evil and its lawlessness and indifference to murder. He discusses this in his Ethics. St Basil somewhat agrees but qualifies in a way that is most important - and Fr. John Anthony McGuckin discusses this question and refers to St Basil's response to it in his book The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine and Spiritual Culture. Fr. John in his book discusses the topic of Orthodox perspectives on war. St Basil, in response to those under his pastoral care as Bishop, responded to their questions concerning whether they could be allowed to defend their families and property from the incursions of marauding bandits who attacked them and were raping their women and killing their families in order to steal from them - whether it be their land or their possessions. St. Basil counseled that they could defend their families - even if that meant that the one attacking them was killed by them. BUT, St. Basil also said that the taking of a life, no matter the circumstance, is and partakes of the nature of, sin. So he told them if they killed someone, even in the process of protecting their loved ones, they had to undergo penance for taking the life of another human being. The reason is that, even if an enemy, the life of someone else is sacred because they are also created in God's image and likeness and ones own soul cannot do such a deed to someone else without damage to itself that may in fact lead to its own loss of grace and fellowship with God. Think of the fact that the LORD would not let David build the Temple he so desired to build for the LORD because he had shed the blood of other men. Yet was not David a "man after God's own heart" - so it is not a black and white issue. In a world corrupted by the powers of death and sin, even a relative 'good' may be tainted by 'sin' - Gk: hamartia - which means - to aim at a good and to miss it, or to wander from from the good or purpose that one has aimed at. Killing, then, even in just war theory, may only ever be relatively justified because it still partakes of the nature of sin. The killing of other human beings made in God's image, even if they are seeking to kill you and you kill them in defense of those whose you love, must be repented of. That person must undergo penance and seek the healing grace of our Lord Jesus Christ or they risk being swallowed by the guilt and shame tied to the unspiritual nature of their deed. They should also pray for those whom they have killed. So killing in war is not 'technically' the same as 'murder'. Considered by some as a 'necessary evil', it cannot be thought of as an act in keeping with the Kingdom of God, which is established through the cross of our Lord, not through the killing of others. - Fr. Dn. Stephen
Sometimes. If you kill a prisoner who has surrendered or an unarmed civilian. However it is rarely prosecuted. There are stories from the Korean War when US soldiers would shoot farmers working in their fields. There are too many stories like this to dismiss. When I was young veterans in the VFW would often tell of stories when they killed Germans who had surrendered.
@stevelenores5637 Sadly that is the reality of all the sorts of collateral damage part and parcel to every single war. Many times even just war never implies every scrimmage is fought justly. One can pray that war criminals are brought to justice in this life. But we all have to give an account before Christ. See www.equip.org/articles/just-war-tradition/
Hank what are your thoughts on the requirement for soldiers to take an oath and promise to obey the government, officers, etc. What if the soldier feels convicted that the command given is morally wrong?
@Cn7-7-l The hypothetical scenarios described needs to be taken on a case by case situation. Marine Corps Sgt. Dakota Meyer, who disobeyed orders but saved lives and received a medal of honor? [See www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/3894801/medal-of-honor-monday-marine-corps-sgt-dakota-meyer/] But not every situation is like that of Meyer. Lots of tensions. Each instance needs to be taken on a case by case basis.
Yes, however should someone take an oath in the first place if in their heart they know they may need to break it? As Christians we are required to obey God first and foremost rather than man. I'm not sure that Christians can make this type of oath in good conscience.
You cannot answer a question by redefining the questioner's question. In this case you are answering the question that you want to answer instead of answering the question that was asked of you.
So, we can reverse cherry pick each other all day, but you assume things that are not assumable. In your example of shooting a child with a bomb, you do not contemplate little Hans in the Firebombing of Dresden. You don't examine Christian soldiers in *Democracies* in WW I shooting at each other. FWIW, I am not a pacifist. But you oversimplify a matter in which a Christian's duty to God might be to be as still as a statue instead of falling like lightning on a city because our Government commands it. I am not alone in expecting a more comprehensive brilliance from you.
I thing “so ordered to” is not a valid reason or defense as there were a number of German officers and soldiers who offered that excuse as a defense after Germany’s surrender. “One’s duty” might be better. It should be noted that some have reported that may as few as 10 percent of combat arms solders in the US Army were actually able to aim their weapons, obtaining a sight picture on another human being, and press the trigger. God, thru the chronicle of the OT allowed killing in times of armed conflict, but even when a nation was used as an instrument to judge other nations, particularly Israel, he never forgot their injustice and dealt with it at another time. Even in our time, ungodly, non believing nations have likely been used to stop atrocities inflicted by other nations when purportedly Christian nations sat back. While not anything near scriptural cannon, a verse of the US Army song goes, “Faith in God, then we’re right, and we’ll fight with all our might.” I’m no theologian and was an average peacetime soldier, but I believe that in order to stand up, you’d better be prepared, and that includes faith.
Jesus did not teach just war theory, and in fact, His teachings suggest that violence, even in defense of a nation, is incompatible with His message of peace. In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus emphasized nonviolence, instructing His followers to love their enemies and turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:27-29). His radical pacifism was not just about avoiding personal violence but also rejecting the notion of justified violence in any form. This would include the use of military force in warfare, where soldiers are, by nature, agents of death. In Matthew 26:52 when Peter struck a soldier in defense of Jesus, Jesus rebuked him: “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” This shows that Jesus did not approve of violence, even in self-defense, and highlighted the moral contradiction in using force to achieve any kind of justice or peace. Jesus’ message was one of peace through love and sacrifice, not one that endorsed violent means, even in righteous causes. Moreover, soldiers, as those who take life in the service of war, are often seen in the New Testament as participants in a system of violence and death. In Luke 3:14, when soldiers asked John the Baptist how they should live, he did not encourage them to fight in righteous wars, but instead urged them to be content with their wages and avoid extortion. The implication is that military service involves coercion and violence, which contrasts sharply with Jesus' teachings on peace and love for all, even one's enemies. In Revelation 19:11-21, Jesus is depicted as a warrior, but this passage is symbolic of Christ's ultimate victory over evil, not a justification for earthly war. In His ministry on earth, Jesus modeled peace and rejected the use of force for any cause, highlighting that true followers of God are to embody love and forgiveness rather than engage in violence. The New Testament consistently supports the idea that Christians should refrain from participation in violence, both in personal relationships and in broader societal conflicts. Instead of advocating for just war theory, Jesus pointed His followers toward peace, even at great personal cost. In this light, the soldier, whose role is inherently tied to the taking of life, stands in contrast to the values Jesus promoted-values that are rooted in mercy, non-retaliation, and the rejection of violence.
Why did Jesus tell his disciples to buy a sword in Luke 22:36? "He 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.'"
@@BibleAnswerMan In God we trust or in violence do we trust? The early Church, following the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, did not engage in violent self-defense or promote the idea of just war. Jesus taught His followers to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, and overcome evil with good (Matthew 5:39, Romans 12:21). Early Christians embraced these teachings, even in the face of persecution, often choosing martyrdom over resistance. Church fathers like Tertullian and Origen emphasized nonviolence as central to the faith. This changed with Constantine's rise in the 4th century. As Christianity gained imperial favor, it became entangled with state power. Constantine’s military victories, which he attributed to divine support, marked a shift where violence and war were increasingly justified under Christian pretexts. This led to the development of doctrines like just war theory, a stark departure from the early Church's commitment to peace.
I did a study on this in Graduate school - a lifelong student of Bonhoeffer before becoming Orthodox, his ethical quandary led me to research the thesis - 'Is it ever justified to take the life of another human being?'- I used Bonhoeffer as well as St Basil of Caesarea as my two main interlocutors for this paper. I went into this research as a pacifist and emerged at the end with an important qualification learned from St. Basil. I learned that Bonhoeffer understood that sometimes one must break 'the law,' violate the civil order, in order to reestablish it. If you do not you will always be outflanked by the wiliness and deceptiveness of evil and its lawlessness and indifference to murder. He discusses this in his Ethics. St Basil somewhat agrees but qualifies in a way that is most important - and Fr. John Anthony McGuckin discusses this question and refers to St Basil's response to it in his book The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine and Spiritual Culture. Fr. John in his book discusses the topic of Orthodox perspectives on war. St Basil, in response to those under his pastoral care as Bishop, responded to their questions concerning whether they could be allowed to defend their families and property from the incursions of marauding bandits who attacked them and were raping their women and killing their families in order to steal from them - whether it be their land or their possessions. St. Basil counseled that they could defend their families - even if that meant that the one attacking them was killed by them. BUT, St. Basil also said that the taking of a life, no matter the circumstance, is and partakes of the nature of, sin. So he told them if they killed someone, even in the process of protecting their loved ones, they had to undergo penance for taking the life of another human being. The reason is that, even if an enemy, the life of someone else is sacred because they are also created in God's image and likeness and ones own soul cannot do such a deed to someone else without damage to itself that may in fact lead to its own loss of grace and fellowship with God. Think of the fact that the LORD would not let David build the Temple he so desired to build for the LORD because he had shed the blood of other men. Yet was not David a "man after God's own heart" - so it is not a black and white issue. In a world corrupted by the powers of death and sin, even a relative 'good' may be tainted by 'sin' - Gk: hamartia - which means - to aim at a good and to miss it, or to wander from from the good or purpose that one has aimed at. Killing, then, even in just war theory, may only ever be relatively justified because it still partakes of the nature of sin. The killing of other human beings made in God's image, even if they are seeking to kill you and you kill them in defense of those whose you love, must be repented of. That person must undergo penance and seek the healing grace of our Lord Jesus Christ or they risk being swallowed by the guilt and shame tied to the unspiritual nature of their deed. They should also pray for those whom they have killed. So killing in war is not 'technically' the same as 'murder'. Considered by some as a 'necessary evil', it cannot be thought of as an act in keeping with the Kingdom of God, which is established through the cross of our Lord, not through the killing of others. - Fr. Dn. Stephen
@rdrj3162 Thanks for chiming in. 🙏
Sometimes. If you kill a prisoner who has surrendered or an unarmed civilian. However it is rarely prosecuted. There are stories from the Korean War when US soldiers would shoot farmers working in their fields. There are too many stories like this to dismiss. When I was young veterans in the VFW would often tell of stories when they killed Germans who had surrendered.
@stevelenores5637 Sadly that is the reality of all the sorts of collateral damage part and parcel to every single war. Many times even just war never implies every scrimmage is fought justly. One can pray that war criminals are brought to justice in this life. But we all have to give an account before Christ. See www.equip.org/articles/just-war-tradition/
Hank what are your thoughts on the requirement for soldiers to take an oath and promise to obey the government, officers, etc. What if the soldier feels convicted that the command given is morally wrong?
@Cn7-7-l The hypothetical scenarios described needs to be taken on a case by case situation. Marine Corps Sgt. Dakota Meyer, who disobeyed orders but saved lives and received a medal of honor? [See www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/3894801/medal-of-honor-monday-marine-corps-sgt-dakota-meyer/] But not every situation is like that of Meyer. Lots of tensions. Each instance needs to be taken on a case by case basis.
Yes, however should someone take an oath in the first place if in their heart they know they may need to break it? As Christians we are required to obey God first and foremost rather than man. I'm not sure that Christians can make this type of oath in good conscience.
Unfortunately, it may be a brother in Christ whose life is being taken.
WW2 was Christian killing Christian in Europe.
@deanfloyd8931 Good point!
It's not murder if the war is necessary. Has much murder taken place in many wars? Absolutely!
@bobbyadkins6983 Thanks for chiming in.
You cannot answer a question by redefining the questioner's question. In this case you are answering the question that you want to answer instead of answering the question that was asked of you.
@maleccnurse1 What do you think the caller was inquiring about?
@@BibleAnswerMan "the United States military, with soldiers overseas, is it murder when they take life".
So, we can reverse cherry pick each other all day, but you assume things that are not assumable. In your example of shooting a child with a bomb, you do not contemplate little Hans in the Firebombing of Dresden. You don't examine Christian soldiers in *Democracies* in WW I shooting at each other. FWIW, I am not a pacifist. But you oversimplify a matter in which a Christian's duty to God might be to be as still as a statue instead of falling like lightning on a city because our Government commands it. I am not alone in expecting a more comprehensive brilliance from you.
However, be very careful who you call a murderous nation; I think that warrants a great deal of national introspection.
@williamcordasco945 Shrewd point. Was not "murderous nation" properly defined without ambiguity in the video?
I thing “so ordered to” is not a valid reason or defense as there were a number of German officers and soldiers who offered that excuse as a defense after Germany’s surrender. “One’s duty” might be better. It should be noted that some have reported that may as few as 10 percent of combat arms solders in the US Army were actually able to aim their weapons, obtaining a sight picture on another human being, and press the trigger. God, thru the chronicle of the OT allowed killing in times of armed conflict, but even when a nation was used as an instrument to judge other nations, particularly Israel, he never forgot their injustice and dealt with it at another time. Even in our time, ungodly, non believing nations have likely been used to stop atrocities inflicted by other nations when purportedly Christian nations sat back. While not anything near scriptural cannon, a verse of the US Army song goes, “Faith in God, then we’re right, and we’ll fight with all our might.” I’m no theologian and was an average peacetime soldier, but I believe that in order to stand up, you’d better be prepared, and that includes faith.
@sombra6153 Point noted.
Jesus did not teach just war theory, and in fact, His teachings suggest that violence, even in defense of a nation, is incompatible with His message of peace. In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus emphasized nonviolence, instructing His followers to love their enemies and turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:27-29). His radical pacifism was not just about avoiding personal violence but also rejecting the notion of justified violence in any form. This would include the use of military force in warfare, where soldiers are, by nature, agents of death.
In Matthew 26:52 when Peter struck a soldier in defense of Jesus, Jesus rebuked him: “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” This shows that Jesus did not approve of violence, even in self-defense, and highlighted the moral contradiction in using force to achieve any kind of justice or peace. Jesus’ message was one of peace through love and sacrifice, not one that endorsed violent means, even in righteous causes.
Moreover, soldiers, as those who take life in the service of war, are often seen in the New Testament as participants in a system of violence and death. In Luke 3:14, when soldiers asked John the Baptist how they should live, he did not encourage them to fight in righteous wars, but instead urged them to be content with their wages and avoid extortion. The implication is that military service involves coercion and violence, which contrasts sharply with Jesus' teachings on peace and love for all, even one's enemies.
In Revelation 19:11-21, Jesus is depicted as a warrior, but this passage is symbolic of Christ's ultimate victory over evil, not a justification for earthly war. In His ministry on earth, Jesus modeled peace and rejected the use of force for any cause, highlighting that true followers of God are to embody love and forgiveness rather than engage in violence.
The New Testament consistently supports the idea that Christians should refrain from participation in violence, both in personal relationships and in broader societal conflicts. Instead of advocating for just war theory, Jesus pointed His followers toward peace, even at great personal cost. In this light, the soldier, whose role is inherently tied to the taking of life, stands in contrast to the values Jesus promoted-values that are rooted in mercy, non-retaliation, and the rejection of violence.
Why did Jesus tell his disciples to buy a sword in Luke 22:36? "He 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.'"
@Cn7-7-l So what? Where in the NT did any disciple or anyone in the early Church use a sword in self defense?
@1Whipperin Point of view noted. Respectfully disagree.
@@BibleAnswerMan In God we trust or in violence do we trust? The early Church, following the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, did not engage in violent self-defense or promote the idea of just war. Jesus taught His followers to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, and overcome evil with good (Matthew 5:39, Romans 12:21). Early Christians embraced these teachings, even in the face of persecution, often choosing martyrdom over resistance. Church fathers like Tertullian and Origen emphasized nonviolence as central to the faith.
This changed with Constantine's rise in the 4th century. As Christianity gained imperial favor, it became entangled with state power. Constantine’s military victories, which he attributed to divine support, marked a shift where violence and war were increasingly justified under Christian pretexts. This led to the development of doctrines like just war theory, a stark departure from the early Church's commitment to peace.
@@1Whipperin why would Jesus tell them to buy something they can't use?