The One Man Armies of Biblical Times

 Now, before I begin the post proper, I am going to attempt to emulate the style of the following website:

https://www.badassoftheweek.com/

However, while I do like how Ben Thompson takes the subject of history and makes it entertaining for the people who would otherwise zone out at the issue, I shall refrain from the profanity and as much crude humor as I can, though I will attempt to emulate his signature bombast and larger than life writing.

FYI, before I continue, I do want to say, despite a few differences I have with Ben as a fellow student of history (primarily minor nitpicky stuff really), he is a legitimate historian, and writer of several excellent books on the subject, and I do appreciate how he tries to make the subject of history appeal to a wider demographic.

With that out of the way, let's begin.

The Bible has long been a font of all sorts of interesting information. Ranging from religious instruction to legal codes to life stories to random wisdom, there is something for everyone, even if you are not a person who is a member of the Abrahamic faiths. The historical aspects of the record are also tales of people who did amazing feats of selflessness and courage, most involving war and acts of violence, though not all. I shall recount some of the higher profile stories of people who were so lethal that they didn't need reinforcements, they WERE the reinforcements.

And while the name Sampson usually heads that list for the casual reader, I shall not be going over his story except to say he's not the only guy who raised havoc all by himself, this post is going to cover some others who did the same.

Shamgar - If you read towards the end of the third chapter of the Book of Judges, in a section you could almost miss by accident after they detail how God's ninja Ehud assassinated a tyrant so fat they couldn't find the murder weapon because it disappeared into his own lard (not making that up, the guy was a blubber factory), it seems after said tyrant and the Moabite people learned not to mess with the Israelites, that's when the Philistines tried their earliest crack at being a scourge to the people.

Now, a bit of background. The Philistines were one of the Sea Peoples, that is, they were known for hanging around the Mediterranean Sea, and historians often concur they originated somewhere around Crete and migrated to the area known in the modern day as Palestine. In the process, they picked up a love of military expansionism, being absolute douchenozzles to anyone they could conquer, and worshiping a creepy, fish-headed being called Dagon, which H.P. Lovecraft later adopted as a low-grade cosmic horror for his stories.

Now, the Philistines could generally get away with being conquerors because they were early adopters of the Iron Age while most of the time they were still subjugating people still mastering bronze. In military terms, this was guys with AK-47s taking on guys using flintlocks, so whoever they decided to conquer was generally so owned they might as well have had "slave" stapled to their kicked backsides.

Now, the Philistines had noticed the Israelites had recently muscled into Canaan and had been setting up shop, and they figured they'd make these latest migrants bend the knee.

Or that was the plan until they encountered Shamgar.

Shamgar, son of Anath, he was just a simple farmer, specifically, he herded oxen, and one day, as he was trying to scratch out a living for himself, the Philistines showed up, declared everyone else to bend the knee or be gutted, and tried shaking down the Israelites for tribute.

Well, Shamgar just wanted to herd his oxen in peace, and he decided he was not going to take these guys lying down. Being a farmer, he took the only weapon he had, his ox goad, and he decided he was going to make the Philistines regret ruining his people's happiness.

Now, this is not exactly an ideal weapon. An ox goad was basically a bronze stick with an end barely sharper than a pool cue, mainly used to get a stubborn ox to move forward. Versus a bunch of guys with iron weapons and armor, this was not exactly a good weapon for anyone to go challenging them with.

But Shamgar did not care. The Bible is not clear on whether he just marched up to their armies and told them to throw down or if he decided to take a page from Ehud's book and shanked Philistines in the throat in the middle of the night with his ox goad, but the Bible does make clear over 600 Philistines were slain after Shamgar decided to take a stand.

The Philistines decided discretion was the better part of valor and they more or less sodded off for the next few generations, at least waiting long after Shamgar was dead, before they tried to invade Israel again.

The epilogue only makes this more incredible. Several generations later, when the events of the Book of Samuel happened, the Philistines tried to subjugate the Israelites again, only this time they seized control of the blacksmithing industry to prevent another Shamgar, like this:

 [19] A blacksmith could not be found in all the land of Israel, for the Philistines had said, "This will prevent the Hebrews from making swords and spears."  [20] So all Israel had to go down to the Philistines in order to get their plowshares, cutting instruments, axes, and sickles sharpened.  [21] They charged two-thirds of a shekel to sharpen plowshares and cutting instruments, and a third of a shekel to sharpen picks and axes, and to set ox goads. 

(I Samuel 13:19-21 [NETtext])

Yeah, you read that right, the Philistines were still so terrified of that farmer who murked over 600 of them with a farming implement that they wanted to know with receipts who owned anything remotely pointy, just to make sure that never happened again.

Ittai the Gittite:

Now, let's fast forward a bit. Sometime after David became King of Israel, his son Absalom got ideas about bumping off his old man and seizing the throne for himself, sending his daddy into hiding with his loyalists while he did all sorts of stupid things to cement the breach like setting up a big tent with all of his dad's wives and concubines (that didn't escape with David) and making clear to everyone nearby by the noises from the tent he was marking his territory in the crudest way possible, and also making clear even if Daddy tried to forgive him, he was going to make it nigh impossible to make things right later.

Given Absalom was a retarded pretty boy with more arrogance than sense, I'll spare a detailed account of how he wound up dead for his hubris.

However, that said, let's detail one of the guys who stuck by David at the time when Absalom convinced a lot of them to switch sides.

 [17] The king and all the people set out on foot, pausing at a spot some distance away.  [18] All his servants were leaving with him, along with all the Kerethites, all the Pelethites, and all the Gittites - some six hundred men who had come on foot from Gath. They were leaving with the king.  [19] Then the king said to Ittai the Gittite, "Why should you come with us? Go back and stay with the new king, for you are a foreigner and an exile from your own country.  [20] It seems like you arrived just yesterday. Today should I make you wander around by going with us? I go where I must go. But as for you, go back and take your men with you. May genuine loyal love protect you!"  [21] But Ittai replied to the king, "As surely as the LORD lives and as my lord the king lives, wherever my lord the king is, whether dead or alive, there I will be as well!"  [22] So David said to Ittai, "Come along then." So Ittai the Gittite went along, accompanied by all his men and all the dependents who were with him. 

(II Samuel 15:17-22 [NETtext])

Now, this just sounds like a loyalist and his peeps signing on with David, despite the fact David was vastly outnumbered, but let's cover a few things.

Ittai was from the Philistine city of Gath, meaning at one point he and David had likely crossed swords. Later, David, during the events earlier in the Books of Samuel, spent some time in Philistine territory, doing a clever double agent act where he pretended to do raids on his own people in exchange for being able to hide out in Palestine since King Saul wanted David's head at the time. In reality, he was offing all sorts of thugs like the Amalekites and other vulture-like raider tribes who were preying on the Israelites, covering his tracks by making sure he killed everyone and just brought back some loot for the Philistines, who bought this BS story hook, line, and sinker.

In the process, David got to meet some genuine tough guys on the Philistine side, some of which decided to sign on with him, realizing he was an up-and-coming warlord whose blade they didn't want to be on the wrong side of.

Ittai was one of them.

Now, at the time Ittai scraped together some of his fellow mercenaries for hire and convinced them to sign on with David, David was kinda screwed. Most of his army had deserted him for his upstart son, David was cut off from almost all support, and even with Ittai's mercs rounding out his resistance forces, David's odds looked pretty bad strictly from a numerical perspective.

But Ittai knew better. Despite David basically telling Ittai he appreciated the vote of confidence, this would make him an outcast to his people, he was signing on for some crummy odds, and he would be putting his life in the hands of a guy who made the Philistines' lives suck for years after becoming King of Israel.

Well, Ittai knew this. And he did not care. He willingly told David he had his loyalty until death, and despite his Philistine birth, Ittai knelt before the same God as the guy who made his people cry uncle because he knew David was the man on the winning side, and Ittai wanted to be one of his right hands.

As it turned out, Ittai made a smart bet. Despite the fact David had barely two brigades worth of men on hand (and that's including all the noncombatants with him), it was a slaughter.

Twenty thousand idiots who decided to side with Absalom were absolutely steamrollered by a tiny fraction of their number. Ittai was one of the three leaders of the warriors of King David that delivered overwhelming victory for their liege lord and his Lord in turn.

The Thirty:

Now, King David was a tough guy in his own right, but he had a pretty good eye for talent, and he had his group of elites that he christened "The Thirty".

Technically, he had almost forty men in this group, but given the numbers hovered around the thirties most of the time, this was a pretty decent summary of these over three dozen face-smashing engines of destruction he considered the tip of the spear that was his standing army.

Let's cover a few of these guys, shall we?

 [8] These are the names of David's warriors:Josheb-Basshebeth, a Tahkemonite, was head of the officers. He killed eight hundred men with his spear in one battle.  

This guy saw Shamgar's record and said "Hold my wine."

[9] Next in command was Eleazar son of Dodo, the son of Ahohi. He was one of the three warriors who were with David when they defied the Philistines who were assembled there for battle. When the men of Israel retreated,  [10] he stood his ground and fought the Philistines until his hand grew so tired that it seemed stuck to his sword. The LORD gave a great victory on that day. When the army returned to him, the only thing left to do was to plunder the corpses.  

When the army shows up to help and there you are sitting on a mountain of corpses asking your buddies "What took you so long, they're already dead."

[11] Next in command was Shammah son of Agee the Hararite. When the Philistines assembled at Lehi, where there happened to be an area of a field that was full of lentils, the army retreated before the Philistines.  [12] But he made a stand in the middle of that area. He defended it and defeated the Philistines; the LORD gave them a great victory.  

This guy had nothing but himself and a bean field between him and the Philistines winning. So he made himself a scarecrow with an attitude and dared them to take the field from him. They wound up fertilizing it while all the wimps who ran ahead hung their heads in shame.

[13] At the time of the harvest three of the thirty leaders went down to David at the cave of Adullam. A band of Philistines was camped in the valley of Rephaim.  [14] David was in the stronghold at the time, while a Philistine garrison was in Bethlehem.  [15] David was thirsty and said, "How I wish someone would give me some water to drink from the cistern in Bethlehem near the gate!"  [16] So the three elite warriors broke through the Philistine forces and drew some water from the cistern in Bethlehem near the gate. They carried it back to David, but he refused to drink it. He poured it out as a drink offering to the LORD  [17] and said, "O LORD, I will not do this! It is equivalent to the blood of the men who risked their lives by going." So he refused to drink it. Such were the exploits of the three elite warriors.  

Let me explain why this should impress you if it doesn't sound special. Imagine three grunts during World War I jumping out of the trenches, running across no man's land while defying artillery strikes and machine gun nests, making it behind enemy lines, stealing the canteen of the guy commanding the other side, then making it BACK to their own lines without a scratch on them just to impress their own commander.

Now, David, he could have drunk it, but he decided to be classy. God had blessed him with three guys willing to do insane stunts like this out of sheer loyalty and live to tell the tale, so he instead gave that water they risked their lives to get as an offering of Thanksgiving to the Lord in gratitude for blessing him with such hardcore, fearless warriors.

 [18] Abishai son of Zeruiah, the brother of Joab, was head of the three. He killed three hundred men with his spear and gained fame among the three.  [19] From the three he was given honor and he became their officer, even though he was not one of the three.  

Now, this guy was so awesome that his brother Joab made a special point to kill the guy who offed his brother as contemptuously as possible. Unlike his brother, Joab was a total prick who, while competent and hardcore in his own right (literally scaling the walls of Jerusalem on his own just to kill all the guys on the walls just to impress his boss), was disqualified from the Thirty because he took the concept of honor and wiped his own butt with it. In fact, the guy he killed to avenge his brother had been King David's former commander Abner under King Saul, who had surrendered into David's service in good faith.

David not only gave Abner a state funeral as an apology for his murder, he never forgot Joab's treachery, and Joab was later killed in front of the altar in the Temple of the Lord by his son Solomon, honoring his father's wish to make sure that "Joab's gray head would go to the grave in blood" for all the murders and treachery he had committed.

[20] Benaiah son of Jehoida was a brave warrior from Kabzeel who performed great exploits. He struck down the two sons of Ariel of Moab. He also went down and killed a lion in a cistern on a snowy day.  [21] He also killed an impressive-looking Egyptian. The Egyptian wielded a spear, while Benaiah attacked him with a club. He grabbed the spear out of the Egyptian's hand and killed him with his own spear.  [22] Such were the exploits of Benaiah son of Jehoida, who gained fame among the three elite warriors.  [23] He received honor from the thirty warriors, though he was not one of the three elite warriors. David put him in charge of his bodyguard. 

Now, most of this is self-explanatory, but some clarification. A cistern was typically a hole in the ground for collecting water, and Benaiah killed a lion while trapped in one while it was freezing, and yes, despite being in a desert-like a region, it can snow there and it can get COLD.

[24] Included with the thirty were the following: Asahel the brother of Joab, Elhanan son of Dodo from Bethlehem,  [25] Shammah the Harodite, Elika the Harodite,  [26] Helez the Paltite, Ira son of Ikkesh from Tekoa,  [27] Abiezer the Anathothite, Mebunnai the Hushathite,  [28] Zalmon the Ahohite, Maharai the Netophathite,  [29] Heled son of Baanah the Netophathite, Ittai son of Ribai from Gibeah in Benjamin,  [30] Benaiah the Pirathonite, Hiddai from the wadis of Gaash,  [31] Abi-Albon the Arbathite, Azmaveth the Barhumite,  [32] Eliahba the Shaalbonite, the sons of Jashen, Jonathan  [33] son of Shammah the Hararite, Ahiam son of Sharar the Hararite,  [34] Eliphelet son of Ahasbai the Maacathite, Eliam son of Ahithophel the Gilonite,  [35] Hezrai the Carmelite, Paarai the Arbite,  [36] Igal son of Nathan from Zobah, Bani the Gadite,  [37] Zelek the Ammonite, Naharai the Beerothite (the armor-bearer of Joab son of Zeruiah),  [38] Ira the Ithrite, Gareb the Ithrite  [39] and Uriah the Hittite. Altogether there were thirty-seven.  

(II Samuel 23:8-39 [NETtext])

The last name on the list is a really bittersweet one. Uriah was a loyal man who, if you know of David's history, was the husband of Bathsheba, a woman David decided he wanted for himself and he sent Uriah off to a battle that would mean certain doom just to kill him and have his way with her.

David would never live this down, and God made sure the stain of this act would haunt David for the rest of his life, and it only gets more disgusting when you consider why Uriah deserved better.

Uriah was a loyal officer in David's army, and after David wound up sleeping around with the guy's wife, he realized she got pregnant and tried to cover it up by calling Uriah back, telling him to take a load off, spend some time with his wife, and hopefully, he'd not find the timing odd.

The thing is, not only was the ploy not successful, Uriah refused to do this because he was not only a soldier, he was a devout man of God, and it was God's own instruction to the military to put aside all other earthly pleasures while campaigning, and he informed David he could not afford to get drunk on wine and sleep with his wife when he could be back on the field, sharing in the troubles of the armed forces, who were still engaged in a military campaign.

Now, David could not lawfully order Uriah to NOT put pleasure above his duty, and he knew it. Instead, he decided to send him back to the front and sent sealed orders to Joab to make sure Uriah wound up cut off from support and left for dead.

Joab had a pretty good suspicion why David ordered this, and while he reluctantly did as the boss said, he basically send back a politely worded note in his battle report on the results calling his boss a cold blooded weasel in a roundabout way.

Now, Joab was a man who was pretty treacherous himself, so for HIM to be appalled at your skullduggery, you had to be an utter scumbag. 

David at the time let the hint even his own commanding general considered him miserable bag of feces pass him by, but God decided to give David a far more permanent reminder of the same in a way David could not ignore long after, and the guilt of Uriah's murder by David's callous disregard for a faithful soldier who did not deserve to have life and happiness taken from him by his own commander would never go away. The rest of David's life was riddled with trouble because David had sacrificed a man who was worth an army for his own lust and greed.

As part of his lifelong atonement, David made sure that the annals of history would forever know Uriah was one of the Thirty.

On whether Christians should support "Gays Against Groomers"

 Recently, an alliance of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have come out in opposition to what they see as the excesses and depravity of the transgender movement lobby, specifically, against the "grooming" by the transgender lobby of impressionable minors into getting body-altering drugs and surgery to become transgender themselves. Given said lobby advocates against parental consent and often want to separate children from proper supervision by their legal guardians to involve children in discussions of sexual activity and the permanent alteration of their minds and bodies with surgeries and hormones as an apparent panacea for the stresses and rigors of adolescence, this alliance of the LGB have come to view the transgender lobby as a threat and believes such things should be legally barred from anyone who is not a consenting adult or at least such activities should only take place with the active knowledge and participation of parents, with the parents having veto power over the transgender lobby if they so choose. Otherwise, this alliance as stated above considers the transgender lobby as "grooming" minors into unhealthy activities and exposing them to sexual activity, discussion, and imagery while still under the age of majority.

With this in mind, I have encountered some Christians on the fence about allying with the said group for political and moral reasons, fearing even an alliance against what they deem a shared evil would still be giving tacit approval to homosexuality, which runs counter to all standard Christian ethics and morality. Others would argue such an alliance, temporary as it may be, would still be of political and moral benefit to help roll back evils both sides can agree are beyond the pale.

Now, I consider myself a political moderate and this post is merely to examine the problem from both a secular and moral perspective, both to help Christians come to a better decision on this matter and for the non-Christians reading, hopefully, this will give you better insight into their evaluation of morals and ethics as regards real-world politics.

From a purely political and pragmatic viewpoint, I would see no reason such an alliance, temporary as it may be, would be a problem for either side. During World War II, Winston Churchill and the British people allied with the Soviet Union over their shared enemy of Nazi Germany. Churchill was an especially ardent foe of Communism, the official ideology of the Soviets, but remarked (and the below is a paraphrase of the essentials), on the pragmatic consideration for the alliance,

"If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

Basically, Churchill knew such an alliance would be of limited scope and purpose, and afterward his nation and the Soviets would still agree on little, but the Nazis were such a threat a temporary alliance against their shared foe made more sense, even if only for the short-term, as long-term a Nazi victory was anathema to both sides.

However, Christians view such real-world political situations in moral terms, and thus wish to adhere their real-world politics to the ethics of the laws of God as established by the Bible, and below will give an example of the good and bad of such alliances with non-believers in God and under what situations this proved wise and unwise, to hopefully provide insight for those still considering the above mentioned real-life problems to come to a decision.

During the reign of King David and his son Solomon, a profitable and mutually beneficial alliance was struck with the state of Phoenecia. The Phoenicians were a primarily commercial culture established mostly in what would be modern-day Lebanon. During the reigns of David and Solomon, despite differences in their religions, culture, and politics, both forged an effective alliance based on trade and maritime commerce, particularly with King Hiram, as detailed in the Books of Samuel and Kings. Within the strict framework of trade, this was an alliance that served both sides well.

One of the best examples of this alliance panning out well for both sides was for the building of the Temple of the Lord, which David had wanted to build, but God refused to allow it, instead saying it would be David's successor who would do so. Thus, during the reign of Solomon, with the commercial assistance of Hiram, the Israelite people were able to acquire many of the key building materials needed for the Temple of the Lord, which included the famed "cedars of Lebanon", which were renowned for their excellence in building and construction.

Now, according to the Books of the Law, there were no formal prohibitions on an alliance with a foreign power, unless God specifically forbade it, like was commanded by God concerning the Canaanites, whom God insisted be wiped out during the military campaigns detailed in the Book of Joshua.

Otherwise, alliances were not formally forbidden, so long as said alliances did not supplant trust in the Lord nor did the alliance lead to the importation of any idols or worship of gods other than the Lord. Otherwise, any purely secular benefits such as pacts of non-aggression, right-of-way passage, and trade were in no way formally condemned. As seen above, such trade even proved beneficial in building one of the finest monuments to the glory of the Lord.

However, later in the Books of Kings, this Phoenecian alliance did not augur so well. King Ahab of Israel (as the Kingdom of David had fractured into the polities of Judah and Israel at this point) foolishly chose to cement an alliance with Phoenecia by marrying Jezebel, a daughter of the reigning king of that land.

Contrary to God's strict instruction to not let a foreign marriage lead oneself or others into sin and depravity, Ahab did nothing as his foreign wife imported idols and priests of Ba'al, and not only did he allow her to poison the people against the Will of God, he also allowed her to wage pogroms against the worshippers of the Lord, trying to wipe them out and establish Ba'al worship as the only state religion.

Now, later in life, Ahab repented of his sin, and Jezebel met an ignoble end for her crimes against the Lord and His followers, but this is when alliances with non-Christians turned into a curse as opposed to a blessing for both sides.

It's worth noting earlier on, during the reign of Solomon, King Hiram remained well aware of the laws and strictures of the Israelites and respectfully honored their moral limitations, rejecting an offer from Solomon to continue trade arrangements with Phoenecia in exchange for grants of towns and territory under Israelite dominion. Not only was the offer essentially scorned, but Hiram also called the lands offered the "lands of Cabul", essentially calling them pointless and worthless, as it was not the policy of Hiram's people to expand via conquest or demographic dominion, largely content to exist as the shopkeeper for other nations. It was also in contravention of the Books of the Law for Solomon to make this offer, as the Lord made clear no territory under Israelite dominion should ever be willingly ceded to a foreign power, especially not any lands from Canaan, which had explicitly been set aside as a communal inheritance for the people of Israel.

All the above said, for Christians on the fence about the decision mentioned in the lede, I have outlined Biblical precedent on the good and bad of alliances with non-believers, and under what limits such alliances could work and what excesses would cause more harm than good.

Regardless of which side of the divide you fall on, I merely hope that the above precedents and information provide better guidance for making decisions in accordance with God's Will. Also, regardless of whether my arguments on the merits and possible pitfalls were convincing, I advise my Christian brethren to not only consult with fellow believers on the wisdom of such decisions but that they also enter into prayer with the Lord for guidance, if only to make sure that the proper road to His Will is followed.

LGBT gamers really need to stop being wet blankets about anti-rainbow iconography mods

Recently, TheGamer covered a controversy where a modder replaced some instances of rainbow flags appearing in a Spiderman game with the American flag.

https://archive.ph/dpMAf

As expected, the thin-skinned LGBT crowd shrieked about this being homophobia and hateful and raised the trumpets of flatulence over something someone with more sense, less ego, and a thicker skin would not care about.

Now, the article above takes the side of the LGBT up in arms crying about how this is hateful to them and all, and I just have this rebuttal.

How does a mod you do not have to endorse, look at, or download for your own game accomplish this?

Now, to be fair, the modder in question decided, in their infinite stupidity, to try uploading this on Nexus Mods, where they had to ban modders causing a stink about IRL politics before, so this was just begging for trouble and should have been uploaded elsewhere, so in that regard, the modder was not very bright.

But that said, and I say this as a person who generally can play games with LGBT themes and symbolism and ignore it (as I am not gay myself) without getting offended. At the same time, I look at moddable games this way: You can make it look however you want.

If some modder wants to make their game world look LGBT friendly, cool. If they are a heterosexual crusader and want to banish any hint of anything else from their own copy of the game, whatever. If you don't care either way and wish to leave the matter alone, also good.

That said, I just want to thump the LGBT guys on the nose for one thing: You really need a thicker skin.

If your lifestyle cannot survive without constant validation, are you really secure in it? If you break down into shrieking, incoherent rage over someone who does not agree with you, are you being realistic? Do you honestly think you'll decrease the animosity towards your interests by trying to crucify everyone who dares dissent?

All those questions should be rhetorical, but I'll answer them anyway: The reaction to stuff like this makes you all look like a bunch of egotistical colostomy bags who cannot handle not having your backsides patted and demand everyone who does not agree be forced to do so else you'll have a tantrum.

Laugh it off, ignore it, and let the people who don't agree go in one ear and out the other. You will live without their approval, and frankly, no one has an entitlement to 24/7 adoration, and if you believe otherwise, then you're not very good at realizing reality is not a hug box.

By the same token, if a modder wants to cover their game in all sorts of LGBT positive stuff, it's their game, let them do whatever they want, and leave them be. A moddable game is a game that is your personalizable world, let each moddable game be what the player desires, neither side needs to rock the boat because doing so just creates drama. And this world has more than enough of that.

Now that I got that out of my system, I recommend people, in general, spend less time obsessing over this sort of stuff and if you got to promote mods for any reason, why not promote mods anyone can enjoy, like this:

https://www.pcgamer.com/this-skyrim-mod-turns-all-the-dragons-into-the-actual-state-of-ohio/

I mean, let's face it, politics and who you are sexually attracted to just causes all sorts of drama and upset, and people obsessing over it on either side, well, I'll be blunt, you'd be better off agreeing to disagree.

As for me, I think I'll avoid mods about such real-world controversies and instead go back to playing Skyrim while the Buckeye State is laying waste to Helgen, that sounds a lot more hilarious and entertaining than seething over IRL political and social issues.

Biblical Justification For War: A Commentary

 This post will be half a historical lesson and half biblical commentary. The reason is because of the fact this post will draw from a historical source and the historical background is both interesting on its own merits and ties into the biblical content.

This commentary will draw on the scholarship of Henry Wager Halleck, Major-General in the Union Army during the American Civil War, from a book on military history, tactics, and strategy he wrote while he was still a 1st Lieutenant called Elements of Military Art and Science. While most of the text is concerned with matters utterly unrelated to the Bible, the very first section examines the reasons and justification for war and draws on moral precedent offered by the Christian faith for his arguments on the topic.

It's worth noting Halleck was never much of a battlefield general, his record in that regard being, on the whole, uninspiring and mediocre at best. His credentials as a scholar and military bureaucrat, however, were indispensable to the Union during her darkest hours, and it's his academic credentials that I will comment on below.

His original comments will be in italics, and mine will be in bold text.

It has been deemed proper, in commencing a course of lectures on war, to make a few introductory remarks respecting this question of its justifiableness. We know of no better way of doing this than to give on the one side the objections to war as laid down in Dr. Wayland's Moral Philosophy, and on the other side the arguments by which other ethical writers have justified a resort to war. We do not select Dr. Wayland's work for the purpose of criticizing so distinguished an author; but because he is almost the only writer on ethics who advocates these views, and because the main arguments against war are here given in brief space, and in more moderate and temperate language than that used by most of his followers. I shall give his arguments in his own language.

"I. All wars are contrary to the revealed will of God."

This section is Halleck's initial thrust against moral arguments against war, using the arguments put forth by a leading writer on ethics of his time. The sections in quotations in the above italicized text are the arguments which he is setting out to refute.

It is said in reply, that if the Christian religion condemns all wars, no matter how just the cause, or how necessary for self-defence, we must expect to find in the Bible some direct prohibition of war, or at least a prohibition fairly implied in other direct commandments. But the Bible nowhere prohibits war: in the Old Testament we find war and even conquest positively commanded, and although war was raging in the world in the time of Christ and his apostles, still they said not a word of its unlawfulness and immorality. Moreover, the fathers of the church amply acknowledge the right of war, and directly assert, that when war is justly declared, the Christian may engage in it either by stratagem or open force. If it be of that highly wicked and immoral character which some have recently attributed to it, most assuredly it would be condemned in the Bible in terms the most positive and unequivocal.

In the lede of his argument, Halleck rightly points out that the Bible in no way outright condemns war, at least in the sense they do not condemn the waging of one under just and lawful pretenses. He also points out that while war had meaning to the public consciousness both of Biblical time and of the contemporary day in which he wrote his text, neither support the assertion war was wholly in controversy to the expressed Will of God.

From Genesis until the end of Kings are lots of examples of military campaigns, many with God's sanction, knowledge and/or approval. The Books of the Law contain specific regulations for the disposition of troops, the sharing of spoils, the conduct of armed forces, and so on. The Books of Joshua and Judges contain many details of sanctioned military actions done with God's personal approval. The Books of Samuel and Kings also contain more of the same. These are but a few examples, but are quite illustrative of my point.

But it has been said that the use of the sword is either directly or typically forbidden to the Christian, by such passages as "Thou shalt not kill," (Deut. v. 17,) "I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also," (Matt. v. 39,) &c. If these passages are to be taken as literal commands, as fanatics and religious enthusiasts would have us believe, not only is war unlawful, but also all our penal statutes, the magistracy, and all the institutions of the state for the defence of individual rights, the protection of the innocent, and the punishment of the guilty. But if taken in conjunction with the whole Bible, we must infer that they are hyperbolical expressions, used to impress strongly on our minds the general principle of love and forgiveness, and that, so far as possible, we over come evil with good. Can any sober-minded man suppose, for a moment, that we are commanded to encourage the attacks of the wicked, by literally turning the left cheek when assaulted on the right, and thus induce the assailant to commit more wrong? Shall we invite the thief and the robber to persevere in his depredations, by literally giving him a cloak when he takes our coat; and the insolent and the oppressor to proceed in his path of crime, by going two miles with him if he bid us to go one?

Halleck in this section addresses many common canards of the anti-war side, citing passages of the Bible usually drawn divorced from their context to support the assertion war is not sanctioned by God under any circumstance. As Halleck points out, without the agency of critical thinking, then those same parties would be right. Further, he notes the illogic of this point would invalidate all structures of society dedicated to the law and its enforcement on society, and even worse, would make a paradox of civilization itself.

He goes on to note that, when taken in context with the rest of Scripture, the expression of "Thou shalt not kill" does not prevent such exigencies as self-defense, for food (in the context of hunting), or the extermination of pest animals. In fact, the Books of the Law explicitly condones all the above and often provides detailed instruction on their extent and execution.

On the topic of waging war, Halleck notes that it would be an institution that made no sense if the Bible did not specifically rule out all instances and reasons for doing so yet forced us to literally obey "Thou shalt not kill" in its absolute literal sense minus the biblical context of the phrase.

Again, if the command, "Thou shalt not kill," is to be taken literally, it not only prohibits us from engaging in just war, and forbids the taking of human life by the state, as a punishment for crime; it also forbids, says Dr. Leiber, our taking the life of any animal, and even extends to the vegetable kingdom,—for undoubtedly plants have life, and are liable to violent death—to be killed. But Dr. Wayland concedes to individuals the right to take vegetable and animal life, and to society the right to punish murder by death. This passage undoubtedly means, thou shalt not unjustly kill,—thou shalt do no murder; and so it is rendered in our prayer-books. 

Halleck further elucidates on the context of "do not kill", noting that when it is considered in the context of the rest of Scripture, the more appropriate meaning in that context is a prohibition against killing for any reason that constitutes evil intent. Self-defense, the harvest of food, and lawful punishment of taking life without lawful cause are thus three immediate reasons for which one would have, the right, under the stricture of the context of Scripture in its Whole, to take the life of another, be it plant, animal, or one's fellow man.

It cannot have reference to war, for on almost the next page we find the Israelites commanded to go forth and smite the heathen nations,—to cast them out of the land,—to utterly destroy them,—to show them no mercy, &c. If these passages of the Bible are to be taken literally, there is no book which contains so many contradictions; but if taken in connection with the spirit of other passages, we shall find that we are permitted to use force in preventing or punishing crime, whether in nations or in individuals; but that we should combine love with justice, and free our hearts from all evil motives.

It is at this point Halleck makes the decisive part of his argument. After having shown the fallacy of cherry-picking Scripture for a justification against killing for military purposes, he goes on to show that doing so was at times sanctioned, approved, and commanded by God, therefore, killing in those cases fell under the auspices of Law, specifically, as a lawful punishment that God commanded the Israelites to inflict on those who offended Him.

He finishes by noting killing is thus not absolutely forbidden by the Word of God, so long as it is done under the following conditions.

1. Killing is done to preserve the rule of law or to punish it's violators.

2. Killing is done with motives consistent with love of our fellow man combined with justice, meaning no reason for the waging of war should be for any reason that is selfish, petty, or malicious.