It is true that we should seek peace. We should especially pray for protection for fellow believers in war zones, for justice to prevail, for conflicts to end or never begin, and for Christ’s coming that will usher in eternal peace (Isa. 2:4). But we ought to recognize that seeking peace will not always preclude war, as Christ himself predicted (Matt. 24:6), nor condemn those who defend themselves lawfully (Prov. 17:15).

In researching another article, I read the news that the Pope of Rome occasioned controversy by his Palm Sunday homily. Reviewing his remarks, available from the Vatican here, it is easy to see why. For the Pope spoke of “God, who always rejects violence.” And again:

Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war. He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: “Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood” (Is 1:15).

And:

Christ, King of Peace, cries out again from his cross: God is love! Have mercy! Lay down your weapons! Remember that you are brothers and sisters!

These words contradict those of many of his predecessors. Pope Urban II urged the Europeans to the Crusades, saying at the Council of Clermont in 1095:

Most beloved brethren … Let this then be your war-cry in combats, because this word is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, let this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: It is the will of God! It is the will of God![1]

On the papist view, the authority that popes possess to teach and rule the church has come to them through their successors in an unbroken line going all the way back to the apostles (Roman Catechism §861-63; 1087; 1209; 1399; 1555; 1576). That notion does not hold up to historical analysis, but even if it were true it would mean that the current pope, Leo XVI, received his grace and authority, ultimately, from Urban II—Urban whose words Leo condemns. Time would fail to tell of the popes who promoted war as a valid policy, not least that Julius II, nicknamed the “warrior pope,” who sought to subjugate Venice in the War of the League of Cambrai (1508-1516), and whose worldliness repelled Luther during his visit to Rome in 1510-11. One need only consult a history of the Papacy to see that the Vatican, in enmeshing itself in secular affairs, often ensnared itself in wars.

Second, Leo’s words contradict his own communion’s catechism, which says “as long as the danger of war remains . . . governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted” (2308; comp. 2310).[2]

Third, Leo has his own private army, the mercenaries of the Pontifical Swiss Guard, and a police force. The guards account for about 26% of the Vatican’s resident citizenry, and the police (gendarmes) number another 120 plus members, arguably making the Vatican the most securitized nation in the world. Yet the man to whom the Guard swears personal fealty dares denounce those that make war as ignored by God, and dares speak in Jesus’ name, telling people to lay down their arms!

Fourth, the Pope’s words do no justice to the Old Testament that he quotes in support of his pacifism. Compare his “God . . . always rejects violence” to Exodus 15:3: “The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name,” which Moses uttered, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, after God destroyed Pharoah’s army at the Red Sea (ch. 14). Or to Joshua 23:3: “And you have seen all that the Lord your God has done to all these nations for your sake, for it is the Lord your God who has fought for you.” 2 Chronicles 20:29 summarizes God’s martial might on Israel’s behalf: “And the fear of God came on all the kingdoms of the countries when they heard that the Lord had fought against the enemies of Israel” (comp. 14:14; 17:10). Exodus 23:27 says that God promised military deliverance to Israel (“I will send my terror before you and will throw into confusion all the people against whom you shall come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you”).

Compare Pope Leo’s claim that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war” to Psalm 18:34 (“He trains my hands for war, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze”), or 144:1 (“Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle”). Or to 44:5 (“Through you we push down our foes; through your name we tread down those who rise up against us”), or 60:12 (“With God we shall do valiantly; it is he who will tread down our foes”). In Psalm 24, a messianic psalm, David said “Who is this King of glory? The Lord, strong and mighty, the Lord, mighty in battle!” (v. 8). While warfighting did affect David’s relationship with God, who prevented him from building the temple on that account (1 Chron. 22:8), it did not mean his prayers were wholly rejected or ignored: 2 Samuel 7 recounts God’s promises and bountiful blessings to him even apart from being allowed to build the temple, and David was allowed to begin the logistical preparations (1 Chron. 22:14-16).

Leo appeals to Isaiah in making his claims, but forgets that Isaiah prophesied God’s deliverance of Judah when she was invaded by Assyria (2 Kgs. 19:20-37), and that then too God fought on Israel’s behalf and miraculously slayed the Assyrian army of 185,000 men by angelic intervention. As for Isaiah 1, the best interpretation is that it concerns the domestic injustices of Judah. Verse 4 says that Judah’s people are “children who deal corruptly.” Verse 23 says:

Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not bring justice to the fatherless, and the widow’s cause does not come to them.

In verses 11-14, God bewails the Judeans’ sacrifices and worship, and in v. 29 says that when he redeems them “they shall be ashamed of the oaks that you desired; and you shall blush for the gardens that you have chosen,” a reference to idolatrous worship. When compared to the historical accounts of the kings (“Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah,” v. 1) who ruled during Isaiah’s ministry (2 Kings 15-20 and 2 Chronicles 26-32), the best interpretation of v. 15 bewailing the Judeans’ hands being full of blood is that it refers to hypocritical or idolatrous worship. Probably it also refers to either actual murder being committed or tolerated by those in power (v. 21, “righteousness lodged in her [Jerusalem], but now murderers”), which sometimes was a part of idolatry, as when Ahaz sacrificed his sons (2 Chron. 28:3), or else to the harm done to the innocent when those in power failed to uphold their cause (Isa. 1:17 tells Judah to repent and “correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause”). There is no occasion to think that it refers to warfighting, with the only possible allusion to war referring to it as God’s judgment (v. 7, “your country lies desolate; your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence foreigners devour your land; it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners”), which matches the accounts of war in Kings and Chronicles, where victory is regarded as God’s blessing (e.g., 2 Chron. 26:4-7; 27:6), and defeat as his chastisement (28:1-21).

The Pope would seem to have a selective view of the Old Testament in which he appeals to those passages that suit him, but ignores its larger message about the methods of God in working out redemption in ancient days. Thus also the Pope’s handling of the New Testament. He is right that Christ entered Jerusalem on a donkey to fulfill Zechariah’s prophesy (9:9-10) and to show what manner of king he is (Jn. 18:36). But Leo makes no mention that Christ being a king of peace does not mean that there is always and everywhere peace under his rule. For he said elsewhere:

 Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. (Matt. 10:34-35)

And it is said of his second coming that “heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war” (Rev. 19:11) and “from his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron” (v. 15). Just how far that is to be understood literally it is hard to say, yet we can say with confidence that Christ brings both peace and war: peace for those that reconcile themselves to God by faith in his name and who obey his commandments and love their fellow men (Jn. 14:27; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:14-17; Col. 1:20), and yet also war when the wicked react to his people with violence (Matt. 10:16-25).

As for Christ’s saying that “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52), the Pope apparently takes it as mandating pacifism, whereas it appears to have been a proverb that meant that, in the particular case in view, Peter’s actions in resisting Jesus’ arrest by the sword would end with Peter’s demise. For soldiers are elsewhere permitted to retain their occupation (Lk. 3:14), and Roman officers are held out as some of the foremost examples of believing Gentiles (Matt. 8:5-13; Acts 10:1-2). It is moreover clear from scripture and wider history that not all armsbearers come to a violent end.

That the Pope has in view certain conflicts at the present time seems obvious enough.[3] For he quoted Tonino Bello, a bishop who opposed the Gulf War and headed Pax Christi, a pacifist group. Yet there is an important difference between desiring peace (as is every Christian’s duty, Heb. 12:14) and preaching the modern ideology of pacifism. For pacifism regards refraining from force as an absolute principle, not a general one, and thereby condemns all who have used force in lawful causes. It stands in judgment of God’s law, which permits personal self-defense (Ex. 22:2) and national warfighting (Deut. 20) – which law Christ did not abolish (Matt. 5:17) – and condemns the deeds of many, even of Christ himself when he expelled the moneylenders from the temple with a whip of cords (Jn. 2:14-16).

By the pacifist principle of non-violence without exception, a woman whose abusive husband breaks into her (post-separation) domicile to assault her ought to attempt dialogue or else allow herself to be murdered rather than shoot him and seek his prosecution. (To speak of something that happened to a female relative of mine.) When a state attempts to murder its own citizens en masse, they ought to not resist.[4] And when one nation menaces another, the latter ought to acquiesce to the usurpation of its territory or other rights.

Such is the philosophy Pope Leo preaches in Christ’s name. In so doing he contradicts his predecessors, his own catechism, his own behavior in keeping mercenaries, and, above all, Scripture. Christ has a term for those that say one thing and do another—hypocrite (Matt. 23:13, 15, 25, 27-29).

It is true that we should seek peace. We should especially pray for protection for fellow believers in war zones, for justice to prevail, for conflicts to end or never begin, and for Christ’s coming that will usher in eternal peace (Isa. 2:4). But we ought to recognize that seeking peace will not always preclude war, as Christ himself predicted (Matt. 24:6), nor condemn those who defend themselves lawfully (Prov. 17:15). For “Scripture cannot by broken” (Jn. 10:35), and it is written that there is “a time to kill” (Ecc. 3:3) and “a time for war” (v. 8). And in this too we see that popes are no reliable guides to God’s truth and what things make for righteousness.

Tom Hervey is a member of Friendship Presbyterian Church in Laurens County, SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation, and helped modernize Volume I of James Hervey’s classic dialogue on evangelical faith, Theron and Aspasio, available now at Monergism.

[1] There are several different versions of Urban’s speech, the precise text of which varies considerably; unsurprising, given this occurred nearly 1,000 years ago. Nonetheless all the versions agree that he urged the professing Christians of the time to invade the so-called Holy Land and forcibly take it from the Moslems as a response to the sufferings the professing believers of the East had suffered at Moslem hands. The words quoted here are said to be his response to the good reception his initial speech received.

[2] The part substituted by the ellipses reads “and there is no competent and sufficiently powerful authority at the international level,” which of course has been found to invariably be the case: neither the League of Nations nor the United Nations have had any appreciable success in stopping wars or arbitrating disputes. N.B., this section of the catechism quotes a document of Vatican II.

[3] Whether such conflicts as the Israel-Gaza or Iran Wars are just or prudent is not my interest here, and I deem it beyond my competence to say.

[4] Indeed, Gandhi, one of the heroes of non-violence, actually said the Jews ought to have committed mass-suicide to protest Hitler, proof that non-violence toward evildoers can entail both passive and even active violence against oneself (as also the hunger strikes that Gandhi and others promote).