As violence continues in the Israel-Hamas conflict, it provides an opportunity to ask, “How should Christians think about war?” and look for our answers not from emotions, opinions, convenience, or culture, but Scripture. When thinking about life’s biggest questions, God should be the final arbiter whom we seek and submit to.

As I understand it, here are five key principles from Scripture that ought to guide our thinking in this present conflict and future ones to come.

Five Biblical Principles Concerning Warfare

(1) Governments Are Established by God & Have Authority to Enact Violence Against Evil Doers

A government or ruling authority, as a divinely instituted institution, has the right and responsibility to protect its people from external threats (Romans 13:4). This authority justifies actions taken to neutralize such threats. Individual Christians are commanded to not personally retaliate when offended, belittled, or inconvenienced (Matt. 5:38-40). Governments are commanded to protect the innocent life of its citizens and to wield the sword (act in violence) when necessary to do so.

(2) Any Act of Governmental Violence Must Have Just Cause

A nation has the moral right and responsibility to defend itself and its citizenry when under attack (Nehemiah 4:4), especially when innocent civilians are targeted unjustly. Self-defense is a legitimate response to protect valuable and innocent life and prevent further harm.

(3) Governmental Violence Must Have Right Intention & Aim

The purpose of any defensive or military action must be to restore or preserve peace and security of innocents as far as able (Romans 12:18), not to seek territorial expansion, revenge, or to positively seek the harm civilians. The focus must be to eliminate the threat, stop the wrong doers, and ensure safety of innocents. The driving motivation must not be hatred of enemy in front of them, but love of innocent neighbor and family behind them (Matt. 22:39).

(4) Governmental Violence Must Have a Proportional Response

Any military or defensive action must be proportional to the threat posed (Exodus 21:23-25). It would be wrong to nuke a country because they didn’t fulfill a contract. An effort and aim to avoid or minimize harm to civilians are necessary, even if enemy forces use civilians as shields. The response should match the scale of the threat.

(5) It Must Be Done as Last Resort

Force should only be used when all other peaceful or diplomatic efforts to preserve peace and protect have failed (Romans 12:18). Self-defense becomes necessary after the exhaustion of non-violent measures to address significant threats to life or security.

As you can see, these principals are not based on a certain view of Israel’s status as a special people of God or because of their special history. They’re basic principals derived from Scripture that hold true of any nation regardless their politics, policies, or pedigree.

Applying These Principals to Israel’s Campaign Against Hamas & Hezbollah

Taking these principals, here is how I think they apply to the current military campaign of Israel against the terrorist organizations of Hamas and Hezbollah (both of which are officially designated by the American government as Foreign Terrorist Organizations).

(1) Israel’s Legitimate Authority

Israel has the right to defend itself from hostile attacks, especially when civilian populations are targeted (Nehemiah 4:14). The rocket strikes and acts of terrorism by Hamas and Hezbollah are unjust, and Israel is compelled to respond in self-defense.

(2) Israel’s Just Cause

The Israeli government, as a divinely instituted authority, has the responsibility to protect its citizens from the external and existential threats of Hamas and Hezbollah (Romans 13:4). Their efforts to neutralize the ongoing threat and eradicate these organizations are rooted in this authority.

(3) Israel’s Right Intention

Israel’s goal is to restore peace and security, not to expand territory or seek revenge (Romans 12:18). The nation’s aims to neutralize militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which are committed to ongoing violence and the destruction of Israel and its citizens.

Now, here, one may ask, “But isn’t Israel’s combative measures resulting in massive civilian casualties?” Yes. That reality is a horrendous tragedy. However, the tragic and massive civilian casualties have occurred are unintentional on Israel’s part. They aren’t intending to kill civilians, but terrorists, and are making great (and militarily inefficient) efforts to make the civilian deaths as small as possible. This is a difficult task since both organizations intentionally use their citizens as shields, hide their military operations under and amidst civilian structures (e.g. schools, neighborhood, hospitals), and financially incentivize citizens to hide and store military resources in their homes. Contrarily, Hamas and Hezbollah are seeking to intentionally destroy Israeli citizens (e.g. massacring only citizens on October 7, shooting thousands of rockets at civilians over the years). Said shortly, Israel intends to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah with minimal civilian casualties. Hamas and Hezbollah intend to destroy citizens in the largest number they can. The aims are completely different.

Although the tragic loss of civilian life is a somber reality in this conflict, Hamas’ use of civilians as human shields is what has created the situation. Israel’s military strikes are aimed at military targets alone. They’ve no interest in killing civilians. It doesn’t help them militarily nor would it help them garner the support they need worldwide. But, the terrorists embed themselves within civilian areas on purpose, making it difficult to avoid casualties no matter how hard they try. If someone has taken fifteen hostages and uses them as shields to fire upon a crowd of one-thousand, we wouldn’t blame the police officer who fires at the shooter even though it endangers and maybe even kills the hostages. We’d understand he is not responsible for the innocents’ deaths; that would fall at the feet of the shooter who used humans as a shield so he can carry out his plan to kill the thousand others. It would be sad, but the police officer would not be the responsible party.

(4) Israel’s Proportional Response

To my knowledge, Israel’s military response has been measured and focused on eliminating military threats while minimizing civilian casualties, even though groups like Hamas use human shields (Exodus 21:23-25). Israel’s actions, tragic as they are, are proportional to the threat.

(5) Israel’s Last Resort

After decades of failed diplomatic efforts, Israel has turned to military force as a last resort (Romans 12:18) to put this ongoing pattern of Hamas and Hezbollah’s attacks to an end. Non-violent measures have been exhausted, and self-defense is now necessary to counter existential threats.

In light of these biblical principles, it is clear that Israel’s current military action against Hamas and Hezbollah is justified. Terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah aim not only to terrorize Israeli civilians but to destabilize the region and perpetuate violence. Israel, out of love of neighbor, must enact governmental violence against terrorists intent on their demise.

What About a Ceasefire Instead?

Some ask, “Wouldn’t a ceasefire be better than conflict?” It is a good question asked – I trust -with the best intentions. The call for a ceasefire, while appealing for the reason of immediate relief, presents significant challenges. A ceasefire at this point legitimizes these terrorist groups and their activities It allows them to regroup and continue their attacks in the future. Also, it delays a lasting solution to the violence which is to dismantle the terrorist organizations in full. If a doctor were to stop chemotherapy because it makes the patient sick, harms some healthy parts of the body, and seeks to eradicate the cancer we’d say the doctor is performing malpractice. In the same way, halting Israel’s military response would fail to address the root issue—the existence of groups who are devoted to the destruction of innocent life. Like cancer, the best way to deal with terrorists is swift and just death.

Finally, this perspective is not based on an uncritical belief that modern Israel holds a special place in God’s plan, as promised in the Old Testament. Rather, it is rooted in the universal principles of justice, peace, and the protection of life, which are extended to all believers in Christ.

Conclusion

As Christians, it is crucial to understand that defending innocent lives is not only morally permissible but a God-given responsibility for governments. In the case of Israel, their actions against Hamas and Hezbollah are driven by a just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, and a proportional response, and has been pursued as a last resort. While a ceasefire may seem like a compassionate solution, it risks exacerbating the conflict by allowing terrorists to regroup and strike again. Instead, the focus must remain on restoring peace and stability through the eradication of the forces committed to violence.