Holy War

Biblical Texts

The phrase "holy war" does not appear in the Bible as a fixed term. Scholars began using it as a collective label for a number of Old Testament war narratives. The twentieth-century German Old Testament scholar Gerhard von Rad is generally credited with systematizing the concept. Some scholars prefer the term "Yahweh war" (or "wars of the LORD"), which stays closer to biblical language. Numbers 21:14 mentions a book titled "the book of the wars of the LORD."

Representative passages include the following:

• Crossing of the Red Sea: "The LORD shall fight for you" (Exodus 14:13–14) and "The LORD is a man of war" (Exodus 15:3)
• Deuteronomy 20: regulations for warfare, including the priest's encouragement of the people before battle and the sending home of those who are fearful
• The fall of Jericho (Joshua 6) and the sin of Achan (Joshua 7)
• Gideon's three hundred men (Judges 7)
• "The battle is the LORD's" (1 Samuel 17:47) in the account of David and Goliath
• Jehoshaphat's sending singers ahead of the army into battle (2 Chronicles 20)

Background

Many peoples of the ancient Near East likewise regarded war as a battle waged by their gods. In the Old Testament war narratives, the Ark of the Covenant goes before the army, and the narratives emphasize that victory depends on God rather than on military strength. These narratives sometimes also involve ḥerem (Hebrew for "utter destruction" or "devotion"), in which enemies and spoils were devoted to God and withheld from human use. In Joel 3:9, the phrase rendered "Prepare war" reads literally in the Hebrew as "sanctify war."

Significance in the Whole of Scripture

The Old Testament does not portray God as unconditionally on Israel's side. In Joshua 5:13–15, when Joshua asks the captain of the LORD's host whether he is for Israel, the answer is "Nay." The Old Testament also declares that if Israel disobeys, God will instead fight against Israel (Jeremiah 21:5). The prophets proclaim the Day of the LORD as a day of judgment for Israel as well.

The New Testament carries this theme forward as spiritual warfare. Ephesians 6:10–18 states that believers wrestle not against flesh and blood but against evil spiritual forces, and it calls them to put on the whole armor of God. 2 Corinthians 10:3–5 says that the weapons of the believer's warfare are not carnal. Believers are taught not to repay evil for evil (Romans 12:17–21), and the final battle is depicted as accomplished by Christ himself (Revelation 19:11–21).

Interpretation and Debate

Interpretations diverge over the ethical problem posed by the commands of utter destruction.

• Judgment view: Many evangelical scholars, including those in the Reformed tradition, regard these commands as God's judgment on the sin of the Canaanites (Genesis 15:16). They also hold that the commands were limited to a particular period in redemptive history and therefore cannot be repeated today.
• Hyperbole view: Some scholars read the language as the kind of exaggerated rhetoric common in ancient Near Eastern war records. As evidence, they note that although the book of Joshua records the conquest of the whole land, the book of Judges shows Canaanites still remaining in it.
• Spiritual or allegorical view: Some Church Fathers, such as Origen, read these texts as allegories of spiritual warfare.
• Peace church view: Peace church traditions such as the Anabaptists and the Quakers give priority to Jesus' teaching on nonviolence (Matthew 5:38–42) and reject the use of armed force by believers. This position is distinct from the just war theory that the Western church has maintained since Augustine.

Historically, the concept has been invoked to justify wars, as in the Crusades, and such uses have drawn ongoing criticism and reflection. Few denominations hold that the biblical texts provide grounds for calling the wars of any particular nation or people today a "holy war."

In the Korean Church

In sermons and prayer meetings, the expressions "spiritual warfare" and "spiritual battle" are used frequently, usually on the basis of Ephesians 6. Claims associated with the New Apostolic Reformation that extend this concept to practices such as binding territorial spirits have been criticized by a number of denominations.