God’s command to kill the Canaanites in the book of Joshua, modern-day Jihad, and Just War Theory are related. Here is a question fielded by William Lane Craig:
I have heard you justify Old Testament violence on the basis that God had used the Israelite army to judge the Canaanites and their elimination by Israelites is morally right as they were obeying God’s command (it would be wrong it they did not obey God in eliminating the Canaanites). This resembles a bit on how Muslims define morality and justify the violence of Muhammad and other morally questionable actions (Muslims define morality as doing the will of God). Do you see any difference between your justification of OT violence and Islamic justification of Muhammad and violent verses of the Quran? Is the violence and morally questionable actions and verses of the Quran, a good argument while talking to Muslims?
Craig provides a more accurate contrast between the Old Testament Holy War and modern-day Islamic jihad.
Now how does all this relate to Islamic jihad? Islam sees violence as a means of propagating the Muslim faith .... By contrast, the conquest of Canaan represented God’s just judgement upon those peoples. The purpose was not at all to get them to convert to Judaism! War was not being used as an instrument of propagating the Jewish faith. Moreover, the slaughter of the Canaanites represented an unusual historical circumstance, not a regular means of behavior .... But Muslims and Christians differ radically over God’s nature. Christians believe that God is all-loving, while Muslims believe that God loves only Muslims. Allah has no love for unbelievers and sinners. Therefore, they can be killed indiscriminately. Moreover, in Islam God’s omnipotence trumps everything, even His own nature. He is therefore utterly arbitrary in His dealing with mankind. By contrast Christians hold that God’s holy and loving nature determines what He commands.[1]
Jihad is not the same as holy war in the Old Testament, nor does Jihad qualify as just war today. The biblical view of just war theory for today, however, has a connection to “holy war” in the Old Testament. Mike Stallard makes that connection between Old Testament holy war and the present Just War Theory:
Virtually no Christian argues that the Old Testament supports pacifism. Divinely sanctioned war seems assured if all one has is the Old Testament text. All believers then must hold to the fact that in history there have been at least some biblically justifiable wars. One of the most striking examples is that of Moses’ instructions to the children of Israel as they await the soon conquest of the Promised Land: When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you go to possess and has cast out many nations before you ... you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them (Dt. 7:1-2; NKJV) .... For someone who accepts the Old Testament as canonical, it is hard to dismiss the fact of justified warfare based upon these and many other examples.[2]
Mike Stallard next goes to the New Testament to justify just war theory:
The strongest arguments in behalf of a just war are the statements that affirm the government’s right to use force. Paul does this in Romans 13:1-7. The government can “bear the sword” (existence of just war and punishment) but does so in the context of being ministers of God to punish evildoers (right motive and intentions). Furthermore, the passage seems to imply that Christians are to be submissive to the government in all things (a participatory approach if your country is at war would be consistent with this command).
Stallard provides eight criteria of a just war theory, which is also an admission that not all war is justified. Stallard in his article elaborates on the criteria of a just war.
1. Only proper and competent authorities may declare and wage war.
2. Such authorities must have a just cause.
3. Violence may only be used as a last resort after all other options have failed.
4. The nation declaring a just war must have the right intention or a legitimate aim in doing so.
5. There must be a high degree of probability for success for the nation waging a just war.
6. There must exist just means for the just war that are both discriminate and proportional.
7. Only one side in the war can be justified.
8. The war must be fought in a proper spirit of love.[3]
You can decide if America met the eight criteria of a just war in the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, especially after Iran’s stated goal of wiping Israel, our ally, off the face of the earth. Iran is not only the sworn enemy of Israel but also of America, who have citizens and military in reach of Iranian nuclear bombs if permitted to be built.
Another argument for just war theory is the self-defense of one’s nation. Eugene Merrill put forth this case:
We prefer to come down on the side of those who understand the Christian to be a citizen of two realms---the earthly and the heavenly---with their respective privileges and responsibilities. In a fallen world this sometimes means that the believer must take sword in hand in defense of home and country in recognition of the fact that the “[human] authorities that exist have been established by God” (Rom. 13:1).[4]
Does just war theory apply to individuals? Self-defense was allowed in Exodus 22:2 in case of a thief breaking and entering one’s house at night. The homeowner was permitted to use force to kill the invader to protect himself and his family. R. A. Cole writes: “To kill a thief digging through the mud-brick wall (Exodus 12:5) is justifiable homicide, if done after dark. He may be an armed murderer, for all the householder knows.”[5]
Just as a nation has the obligation not to bear the sword in vain in militarily defending itself against enemy intruders, the Bible is also clear that individual believers can use force to defend their homes and families; this admittedly will be rare if ever. Nevertheless, the responsibility is provided in Scripture. Dr. Stallard makes this connection: “Can a man legitimately defend himself and his family from rape, pillage and murder? If the answer is yes, the defense of some form of just war theory is virtually won as application can more easily be extended from individuals to governments.”[6]
Christians are divided on the subject of the individual Christian’s use of force. John Piper was asked, “Are you opposed to people owning guns?” Piper referred to Jim Elliot and the other missionaries who had guns but did not kill the attacking Auca Indians because to have done so would have sent them to hell. Yet Piper said he believed in the military protecting our nation and the police bearing arms and protecting our families from criminals, but not individual believers protecting themselves or their families against wicked intruders. Somebody wrote and asked Piper, "Would you protect your daughter if you had a gun?" Piper answered, "Probably." But then he wrote, “We don't need guns in our houses. Those who live by the gun will die by the gun.”[7]
Piper believes in the principle of just war theory and self-defense in reference to our nation, but not in the application of self-defense for the individual Christian. It is understandable not to want to be responsible for someone going to hell. But if it is permissible for the military and the police to bear arms for our protection and to send people to eternity without salvation so should the Christians as a last resort be permitted to own and keep a gun in his house for the protection of their family.
Stallard defended the idea of self-defense in the New Testament: The Apostle Paul appeals on numerous occasions for military protection for himself. This appears, at the very least, to set up an implicit sanction for just war in case of self-defense (Acts 16:37-39; 22:25-29; 23:12-27; 25:11). It is hardly befitting a man who would want to emphasize avoidance of all use of force. While working on F-16s as an engineer I was once asked why I was working at a place that made weapons to kill people while I was going to seminary at the same time. Was this not a contradiction in my life? (The person asking the question did not know that Baptists like to fight!) My immediate response was that it is not a spiritual thing to let your family, or your country be destroyed (a classic appeal to the idea of self-defense).[8]
[1] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, #16 Slaughter of the Canaanities. August o6, 2007. Accessed 8-1-2028. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/slaughter-of-the-canaanites/
[2] Dr. Mike Stallard, Baptist Bible Seminary Faculty Forum. Is There Such a Thing as a Just War? January 24, 2002. Accessed 8-2-2018. http://our-hope.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/JustWar1.pdf
[3] Ibid.
[4] Eugene Merrill, Show Them No Mercy. 92.
[5] R. A. Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary (vol. 2, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973) 179.
[6] Mike Stallard, Is There Such a Thing as Just War? Dr. Mike Stallard Baptist Bible Seminary Faculty Forum (January 24, 2002) 3. http://www.our-hope.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/JustWar1.pdf
[7] Piper, John, Are you opposed to people owning guns? Desiring God (October 13, 2008) https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/are-you-opposed-to-people-owning-guns
[8] Stallard, Baptist Bible Seminary Faculty Forum Is There Such a Thing as a Just War?15.