This has the potential to be a very long and detailed study. Whenever we deal with an issue as historically controversial and emotionally charged as warfare and the loss of human life, there is generally quite a lot of ground to cover. For the sake of manageability, it becomes necessary to streamline the investigation of this subject to a narrow set of questions, leaving the door open for potential follow-ups. Therefore, in this article, I would like to address two specific questions:

1) What is the actual and intended meaning of the 6th Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill?”

2) What has the 6th Commandment been understood to mean by Yahweh’s faithful people down through the ages, from Old Testament times to the Seventh-day Adventist movement?

These two questions can, I believe, be adequately addressed through the exploration of six main points:

1. How does the Word of Yahweh interact with individual consciences in order to allow for both perfect obedience to our Father’s will and individuality in religion? This speaks directly to the authority of the Bible over our thoughts, words, and practices.

2. What is the wording of the 6th Commandment in the Scriptures as it reads in the original language (Hebrew) and the language of Christ’s apostles who founded the New Testament Church (Greek)?

3. What have Ellen G. White and other early Adventists written about weapons and warfare?

4. What does the Bible says about “killing” in a variety of different contexts? What is the Christian understanding of warfare being “allowed” in Old Testament times?

5. What are the specific statements in the New Testament that are relevant to this subject as viewed from the perspective of the Christian experience?

6. Why is this issue important? How does our agreement (or disagreement) on this issue as Christians impact the development of character as the return of Christ draws near?

It is important to note, as we begin, that this study constitutes a presentation of the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church’s current understanding of these matters as generally agreed upon among the Church’s membership. As with all things not specifically commanded, an individual’s convictions are between that person and the Father, but in the interest of unity with all believers, which is always the Christian’s goal, there does need to be some common ground; thus, I am sharing what most members of the Church currently believe about warfare, weaponry, and the taking of human life, without declaring it as an “official position” or necessary doctrinal standpoint.

This examination is timely one. Over the years of our evangelism and ministry, we have encountered questions about warfare, non-combatance, and conscientious objection to military service a few times, such as when speaking with those associated with the Seventh-Day Adventist Reform Movement, who are notably anti-warfare, and it would be good to see what the authoritative sources claimed as a common foundation actually say. CSDAs are always open to learning new things, and unlearning old things as new light appears to us, so we are always willing to examine an issue more than once.

When it comes to individuality in religion, which is critical to understanding the issue, we believe that there must be allowances for some disagreement, even on “weighty” matters. On the subject of of bearing arms and physical combat, even among CSDAs, there can be some disagreement about how exactly to read some of Ellen G. White’s statements. It is not a disagreement sufficient to change the overall conclusions we draw as a people, which is how these things tend to go, but it is a testament to the idea that having differing viewpoints is not a reason to break fellowship, judge the “worthiness” or obedience of a fellow believer, or to press one’s ideas on others past the point of attempted persuasion.

As an extension of that idea, we believe that if a matter is not clearly stated in the Law, or is not an obvious and unrefuted application of the spirit of the Law, there should not be a “Church position” on it at all. Individuals in covenant are free to hold different ideas, otherwise we would be in danger of establishing a creed, something additional to the Commandments that our Father has instructed, and something further than the Faith of Jesus would allow. As SDA Pioneer J.N. Loughborough rightly stated, “The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed.” [Review and Herald, October 8, 1861] This principle is important for establishing and maintaining unity across multiple nations, languages and cultures, who bring different contexts to even the most straightforward instructions.

As a final note before delving into the details of the Scriptural instruction, it is important to recognize that this is a key issue for some brethren who faithfully profess Adventism, and we must be sensitive to that. At the same time, it is not reasonable to ignore it altogether, or minimize it, because what is important to one heart is important to the heart of our Savior, and therefore to us all.

We can have very strong feelings about things, and believe a certain way for many years, but we must always be willing to re-examine, re-evaluate, and ensure that Scripture is the sole foundation for all we accept as truth. The goal, after all, on an individual level is to have a Spirit-led conscience, one that is in harmony with the letter and spirit of our Father’s Law.

So, what does the 6th Commandment actually say? In the King James Version, which I tend to use most often, but not exclusively, it reads, “Thou shalt not kill.” Bibles in other languages sometimes translate that verse to an equivalent, for example the Russian Synodal version also renders it that way. But, is that translation the best in this specific case based on what we know of the language of its original authorship? Is that reading, and that meaning, justified by the context and wording? We need to examine this.

Just as in most languages, there are several words in Biblical Hebrew for the killing of a living thing. Perhaps the most relevant to our current discussion is the word rasah, which is used 47 times in the Old Testament, and it exclusively means “to murder,” to take a human life unjustly, contrary to any legal proceedings, including warfare, self-defense, execution, suicide, or sacrifice. It is never used to mean any of these latter things, but is exclusively intended to indicate the unjust destruction of a human life. The KJV and those that derivative from it are actually in the minority of translations when they renders rasah as “kill” in Exodus 20:13, and within the King James it is unusual even in its own convention, as this word is rendered as “kill” in only five out of its 47 appearances, everywhere else being translated as “murder,” “slay,” or an equivalent.

There are specific words in Hebrew for killing in other contexts. For example, two closely connected words, naka and harag, are more general, and can indicate killing in either justified or unjustified ways. I have included some verses with the usage of these terms so that they may be examined for context:

Another pair of closely connected words are zabah and sahat. These are also used for “kill” in a wider variety of contexts, and can also mean sacrifice, including the sacrifice of an animal, or a human being.

Another use of the word naka is for killing in warfare. It is also used when describing incidents self-defense, such as in Exodus 22:2 and 3. When a thief breaks into a home at night and is killed, that word is naka, the one most commonly associated with warfare, and it is specifically said that no blood is to be shed in return for that life being taken. The one who has killed is innocent, under the Law, of any wrongdoing.

Here are some examples of the usage of these last few words:

The main point here is that just as in most languages, there are a variety of words that mean “to kill” that have a variety of meanings and connotations. The word used in the 6th commandment is a relatively rare word in the Old Testament, and it is extremely specific in its meaning. Despite more general terms for “kill” being available, and freely used by the Old Testament authors, there is never any overlap in the usage or context of these terms. Rasah is never used, for example, for killing in warfare, self-defense or lawfully mandated executions. The other words are always employed to give these meanings.

What about the New Testament? Here is where I find it gets very interesting.

Just as in Hebrew, there is a specific word in New Testament Greek for murder, and it is the word phonos. I have provided some verses so that a reader can verify the contextual meaning as a deliberate, unlawful killing of a human being:

Significantly, there are three places in the New Testament where the 6th commandment is directly quoted in the context of the Law, and in each place, this specific word for murder in Greek is always used. The verses are here, one from Matthew, one from Luke and one from Paul: Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, and Romans 13:9.

I have also chosen another verse from each of these three authors who quote the Old Testament Law as “Thou shalt not murder” in Greek, just to show they had, and used, other words for kill, such as this one, apokteino. From Matthew 24:9, Luke 13:4, and Romans 7:11, we can see that there are several words in Greek for killing, but in every case where the 10 commandments are mentioned, and the 6th specifically stated, the inspired authors chose the word for “murder” as opposed to any other manner of causing death.

In light of this, “Thou shalt not murder,” with that specific connotation, is seen by the CSDA Church as the proper understanding of the commandment based on the language of the Old Testament, its appearance in the New Testament and, as we will see, the writings of Ellen G. White for present-day Adventists. This is the only kind of killing that the Scriptures forbid under all circumstances. Any other application of the commandment, whether to warfare, self-defense, or lawful executions, results from a misunderstanding of the actual word used in both Hebrew and Greek.

Most Seventh-day Adventists consider Ellen White to have been inspired of God in her writings. In addition, they hold some respect for the early publications of the Adventist Church, since our Pioneers are the ones who really established the foundational principles of our faith. Thus, while Creation Seventh Day Adventists believe that the Bible, and the Bible alone, forms the basis of what we believe and what we consider a “test” of Christian character, it is often useful to discover that these early writers, so dedicated to the Bible and diligent in their commitment to living by faith, arrive at the same conclusions as ourselves.

Ellen White in particular wrote several revealing statements about warfare and the taking of human life. Here is one such statement, in which she specifically answers the question about what she thinks of those who would not bear arms in a military conflict: “It looks to me that Satan would exult to see us shot down so cheaply…” [Letter 7, 1862]

Here is a similar one, from the same letter, and it is worded even more directly concerning those who would choose to be killed rather than take up arms in defense of themselves and others. In this case, she is not only concerned about the life itself that would be lost as in the above quotation, but the testimony it would give to our fellow men, whom we are seeking to reach with the Gospel: “No, all would think we were served just right because we would not come to the help of our imperiled country.” [Letter 7, 1862]

In a letter written in 1879, she wrote of a journey undertaken by herself and some others, describing with favor those who were armed to protect them from animals, thieves, and Native Americans whom she thought may have been hired by thieves to disrupt their progress. “We have our wagons brought up in a circle […] We have two men to watch. […] They carry their guns upon their shoulders.” [Letter 20a, 1879]

Another of her comments, recalled by her son W.C. White on the same issue is revealed in a letter he wrote in 1915. “‘Some of our people in America and in Europe feel that those of our brethren who have been forced into the Army would have done wrong to submit to military service. They think it would have been better for them to have refused to bear arms, even if they knew that as a result of this refusal they would be made to stand up in line to be shot. I do not think they ought to do that,’ she replied. ‘I think they ought to stand to their duty as long as time lasts.’” [Ellen G. White: The Later Elmshaven Years: 1905-1915, Vol. 6, referencing W.C. White, May 26, 1915]

There is quite a bit we may learn from this statement.

The timing here is significant. Some Adventists who advocate for strict opposition to all military service and the use of weapons of war point to a Church publication in 1864/65, in which a strict non-combatant stance was strongly advocated. Some groups, such as the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement, incorrectly claim that this was the “original position” of the Church, when it is clear that many of the leaders were advocating participation in the Civil War that was then taking place (see the statement from James White below). Some have also attempted to misconstrue Mrs. White’s statement, claiming that when she says, “I do not think they ought to do that,” she means that they ought not to bear arms. The context of the passage, however, indicates no such conclusion. She is contrasting her thoughts with those who “think it would have been better for them to have refused to bear arms, even if they knew that as a result of this refusal they would be made to stand up in line to be shot.”

What Letter 20a and the statement from W.C. White indicate is that the 1864 resolution received no inspired support whatsoever, and does not appear to have been binding on any member of the Church in the years following its publication. It was certainly never used as a baptismal criterion or any sort of test of fellowship even back then. Therefore, it is mysterious that the singular declaration in 1864 (and published in 1865 on March 7th in the Review and Herald) absent any accepted divine endorsement, is given such heavy weight in some more recent groups despite the many statements both before and after that undermine its extreme view. Many statements may be found in the writings of Ellen White that are critical of warfare as a terrible result of sin, in which Satan exults. What some commenters fail entirely to recognize is that she, like most individuals who respect military institutions, separate the horror of war from the character of those who are compelled by their government, or their sense of duty, to serve despite its awful nature.

There is no mention that Ellen White changed her view later on in life with regard to the statements she made in 1862. She clearly did not write anything to counteract them, or make it known to her family in any way if she became more restrictive in her view of firearms later in life.

One of the objections that some Adventist groups make to warfare is the idea that in the times when God sanctioned warfare, Israel was a single nation. Thus, in every case, the righteous were on one side, and the other consisted of heathen nations that were not professing the true faith. In other words, there would never be a case where Israelites would be on two sides of the same battle. I am not sure that this is a particularly compelling point, since God did not love the heathen less than the Israelites; even so, the statement from Ellen White about standing to duty when “forced into the Army” directly addresses that argument. In the quotations provided thus far, especially the last one, the context is a war, in New Testament times, long after Christ’s earthly ministry, with Adventists, supposedly Adventists in good standing, on both sides of the conflict, and an Adventist prophet calling their service a “duty.”

The sentiment espoused by many Adventists on this matter is certainly understandable; the idea of two Commandment-keeping Christians on opposite sides of a military conflict is distressing, heartbreaking, tragic… but this is exactly how Ellen White described warfare. Yes, it is all these things, and emotionally, it is a very powerful argument, SDAs fighting SDAs is an ugly concept to envision. But, our feelings can never be the measure of truth. Abraham needed to be willing to sacrifice his own son, Isaac. The Tribe of Levi, as we will soon read, were told to cut down their idolatrous brethren. These are terrible commandments from the perspective of sentiment and emotion, but they were divine in origin. And, yes, it has happened in the New Covenant, even in the time of Adventism. It is unpleasant. Nobody is rejoicing in the prospect… but it is not Scriptural to – as some groups have – condemn or criticize those who believe it to be their duty to defend their country or their countrymen from armed warriors, especially when their government requires them to do so.

What follows is a statement from James White, who writes, specific to matters of warfare, “The sixth [commandment] says, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ But in the case of drafting, the government assumes the responsibility of the violation of the law of God, and it would be madness to resist. He who would resist until, in the administration of military law, he was shot down, goes too far, we think, in taking the responsibility of suicide.” [James White, Review and Herald, Aug 12, 1862]

Here is a statement from Ellen White that cannot be read in any other way than as an agreement with the principle of the statement above: “There are generals in the army who are wholly devoted and seek to do all they can to stop this dreadful Rebellion and unnatural war […] They nobly perform their part when in an engagement with the enemy, but the treatment which they receive from their own officers is brutal. Among the soldiers there are men that have fine feelings and independence of spirit.” [Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 365]

Care is taken by both James and Ellen White to explain where the responsibility for warfare lies. The war itself is terrible, dreadful, unnatural, but the individuals, the soldiers who fight, are not judged by the same scale. They “nobly perform their part” when engaged in military conflict with the enemy according to the light given to Ellen White.

Here is a most revealing statement from the paragraph immediately following: “In some cases when generals have been in most terrible conflict, where their men have fallen like rain, a reinforcement at the right time would have given them a victory. But other generals cared nothing how many lives were lost, and rather than come to the help of those in an engagement, as though their interests were one, they withheld the necessary aid, fearing that their brother general would receive the honor of successfully repulsing the enemy. Through envy and jealousy they have even exulted to see the enemy gain the victory and repulse Union men.” [ibid, p. 366]

Note this well… she is critical here of those who would NOT send men into combat, into warfare, to quickly end a conflict by defeating the enemy, and that because of their jealousy and desire for worldly glory. We cannot reconcile this with the idea that warfare and bearing arms is contrary to the will of God, if not doing so for selfish reasons draws the rebuke of His prophets. It is the character of the men who refused to fight for carnal reasons that draws the criticism of the messenger, not their willingness to do their duty in warfare. If anyone claiming the gift of prophecy, divine insight, or accurate spiritual knowledge, comes along afterwards, and has a message contrary to this, they would need, clearly, to be able to explain firmly and convincingly why Ellen White’s insights on this matter were so completely and consistently incorrect. But we agree with her on this… we believe her inspiration was correct, and while the Church is certainly justified in discouraging Adventists from engaging in warfare as a general rule, we are Protestants. We do not believe that the Church has any authority to intrude on matters of individual conscience, particularly when inspired statements allow for selflessness, nobility, and “fine feelings” in their fidelity to dutiful service. Unless there is a clear “thus saith the Lord” on a matter (and as demonstrated, the 6th Commandment cannot qualify for such with regard to killing in general) no Church position can be used as a test of Christian duty and character without risking the formation of an image to the papacy.

That is actually why this is an important subject to examine – freedom of the Protestant conscience. The CSDA view is that if an Adventist would rather die than take up arms for any reason, then that is what they must do in order to preserve their conscience pure before the Father and Son. May they be blessed in that integrity, although most would agree with Mrs. White’s assessment of their choice as a life cheaply ended. But they should not, we believe they cannot, use that conviction as a yardstick to measure the faith of anyone else with different convictions based on what the Commandment reads, the way the Apostles understood it, or the inspiration of Ellen White, because, “we regard strict conformity to the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus the only true tests of Christian character.” [James White, Review and Herald, October 12, 1876] No individual human being, nor any Church organization, has the right or authority to step beyond this.

We seek a “Thus saith the Lord,” on any matter that we would teach dogmatically. Do the Scriptures have a declaration by the Creator that we shalt not defend ourselves, our families, or our countries in armed conflict if necessary? Absolutely not. In fact, we have precisely the opposite in both the Old Covenant and the New. Let us look first at the Old Testament statements of relevance:

When God gave the instructions to the Israelites to wipe out the various heathen people in the land to which they were going, (Deu 7:1, 2; Josh 10:4) His command included the word naka, which is “kill” in the sense of warfare of self-defense. The word in the 6th commandment is not used.

When many Israelites worshipped the golden calf at the foot of Mount Sinai, and the Levites who chose to remain faithful were told to kill their sinful brethren, (Exo 32:26) the word harag was used. It was killing, but it was not murder, because it was not contrary to the Law.

In the Book of Numbers, a priest named Phinehas killed an Israelite and his unconverted Midianite lover whom he had brought into the camp. (Num 25:7-14) This act was praised directly, and by supernatural means, with the ending of a plague that was destroying the nation. God afterwards gave Phineas a “covenant of peace,” and an “everlasting priesthood,” because his act is described as “atoning” Israel in Numbers 25:13.

The prophet Samuel commanded King Saul to kill the Amalekites, the subjects of King Agag. When he did not do so, God rejected Saul from the Kingship, and the prophet personally cut Agag into pieces. (1Samuel 15) The words used were harag, and mut, the latter of which simply means to “make dead.” It was killing, an execution, but performed by a prophet, and in accordance with the Law.

As a final example, it is useful to examine the record of Elijah the Prophet. This is a particularly significant figure because, based on Scripture and the writings of Ellen White, (Mal 4:5, Mar 9:13, 1SM, p.412) Elijah is actually a prototype of the 144,000. He was translated without seeing death, having perfected the character of Christ, and attained fitness for Heaven without passing through the grave. This same Elijah, while nearing the character of our Savior Himself, personally killed 450 priests of Jezebel who worshiped the god Ba’al. (1Kings 18:40) The word used there for “kill” is actually one we have seen before: sahat, “sacrifice.” He sacrificed them, taking their lives in an extreme act that purified the nation, and brought the tribes together as one. It is significant that one who was translated very shortly afterwards for perfecting character understood the necessity of taking the lives of other human beings in order to remain true to duty, and firm in his convictions under these dark circumstances.

There is always a specific word used for killing when it violates the Law, and it is found in none of these places. There are other words for when killing is necessary, commanded, or allowed.

That’s actually quite important. Some may say, “This is all Old Testament history. It has nothing to do with the Christian character in the New Covenant.” I think that as Adventists we should see that argument as repellent. The God of Phinehas, Samuel and Elijah is the God of Jesus, Paul and Ellen White. His character does not change, and so it does not matter what year it is… it does not matter what covenant it is… the Law does not change, certainly not the Moral Law as contained in the 10 Commandments, and God would never allow anything that was actually a violation of His Law.

Consider previous “allowances” that Yahweh provided for His people. For a time, God allowed polygamy. It was for the hardness of men’s hearts, (Mar 10:5) and because women without a “head” of their household were vulnerable to all manner of abuse and mistreatment in the ancient world… but polygamy is not a violation of the Law. It is a legitimate marriage covenant which can be violated by adultery just like any other. To be clear, nobody is advocating for polygamy. Essentially every example that the Bible contains of polygamous marriage ends in sorrow, and it certainly won’t help to sanctify a member of the 144,000, so Christians do not practice this, though God once allowed it under certain circumstances.

In the Book of 2 Kings, a soldier called Naaman was healed of leprosy by Elisha the prophet. When he was healed, he asked for an allowance, as he would often help his king and master to bow before the god he worshipped in a pagan temple. (2Kings 5:18, 19) He was technically bowing before an idol, but because he was not worshipping the idol, or the god it represented, the prophet did not count it as a violation of the Law, and permitted the soldier to do his duty without guilt. This isn’t specifically about killing, but it demonstrates the principle quite well, that a pure character may be revealed even in the midst of imperfect circumstances.

There is a really critical and major point that speaks to our identity as Adventists that should not be missed… the fact that God allowed, even commanded, warfare and killing under any circumstances shows, proves, that it is not the same as murder, that it is not something that is condemned under the Law. No actual violation of the Law was ever sanctioned under any circumstances; that is outside the character of Yahweh whom we worship, and as SDAs we know that the Law cannot be changed in the least Jot or tittle, (Mat 5:18) not after the cross, and not between Testaments. The reason we are Sabbath-keepers is because we, of all people, know that the commandments did not change in meaning or intent after Christ’s death and resurrection. Therefore nothing that God commands or allows will ever make one guilty before Him unless there is a specific command to cease from doing so, as with animal sacrifices. (Heb 7:26, 27) The idea that something was “okay” in the Old Testament because of a Commandment, but not now, is not an argument that a consistent Adventist should accept.

What about the New Covenant? There are many relevant verses that apply to this matter written after the death and resurrection of the Savior.

In speaking to soldiers that came to him for counsel, John the Baptist told them not to do “violence”,’ and to be good soldiers, not to abandon their posts. While this counsel was given before the cross, it was written by an author with a post-crucifixion perspective, and the soldiers’ posts did not become obsolete a mere handful of years after their conversation with John. With regard to the meaning of John’s use of the word “violence,” the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald gives this commentary in support of a consistent understanding: “The idea is not that they should not follow in that war the manner of all national warfare, but that he [… ] abstain from lawless indulgence in rapine and lust which soldiers of ancient times were apt to be guilty of.” [J.N. Loughborough, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Sep 30, 1862]

In preparing His evangelists for traveling the world, Yahhsua said to them, “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

Some (including the author if the 1864 SDA Church declaration) have pointed out that later in that chapter, Luke 22:50, Peter cuts off the ear of one of the men who came to arrest Jesus, and the Savior healed the ear. This, they say, is a rebuke of violence, and they point to the passage in Matthew, where Yahshua says, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Mat 26:52) However, this isn’t a general rebuke. The reason Peter had that sword in the first place was because he, like the other disciples, was following the instruction of Luke 22:36, and while Jesus did heal the one who came to arrest Him, it was because He knew He was to be arrested. He did not rebuke the act of attempting to defend Him as a general principle, or of carrying and using the sword. No, it was because, like Judas, Peter was trying to prevent the crucifixion, and therefore the fulfillment of the Plan of Salvation. We know this, because earlier Christ warned him not to resist the sacrifice to come, (Mat 16:21-23) and John’s record of the incident has Him saying to Peter, “Put up thy sword into the sheath; the cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11)

In terms of the general teaching of the New Testament concerning Christians and military service, we can point to a number of examples of soldiers, (Mat 8:5-13) and after the Gentiles began to be gathered in, Roman jailors, guards, and even high-ranking officers who heard the apostles preaching and became believers, (Acts 16:22-34) but there is no indication that they surrendered their duty in order to accept the Christian faith. When the Apostles told them, in precisely-worded Greek, “The commandment is: Thou shalt not murder,” its meaning was always very clear.

As much as I have tried to condense the information presented in this study, there is just so much here that I think is important for us to consider when drawing conclusions about what we teach the world as Christ’s followers. No genuine Christian would advocate proactive or unnecessary violence; no Christian would seek the death of another human being as the ideal solution to any problem. None of us would even seek to force the convictions or preferences that individual believers hold about these things, and Creation Seventh Day Adventists in particular have often said that we would “rather die than unnecessarily hurt anyone’s feelings.”

What we desire, what we are truly seeking, is a common understanding of what a “test of fellowship” is, and of how we recognize other sincere, faithful believers that follow the Commandments of God and have the Faith of Jesus, even when our culture, language, and national traditions are different.

In matters of warfare and weaponry, we need to be able to accurately answer the question of what the Bible says concerning taking lives, and whether or not it is always a sin to do so, or a violation of the Christian character. While other writings of our Pioneers, and even Ellen White, can be useful in helping us to come to conclusions, they themselves are never to be used as wellsprings of doctrinal positions, especially when those positions have the potential to affect the acceptance, rejection, and standing of Church members.

On matters this deep, it is helpful to have studies like this one that can delve a bit into the languages in which the Bible was written, to see what it does, and what it does not, say. The commandments do address murder, but do not address all the circumstances in which “killing” may take place. The Jewish Old Testament, the Tanakh, also confirms that the proper wording in English for the reading of the commandment is “Thou shalt not murder,” so for what it is worth, that is how a Jewish person, to whom the Oracles of God were first given, would always have understood that verse.

We see from the Scriptures that warfare was allowed, even instructed, under the Law, which the Father would never permit for His Chosen if it was “evil” from an objective spiritual viewpoint, because He has never allowed “sin” under any circumstances. He would have wiped out the heathen Himself, or by means of a designated angel, before the Israelites’ entrance into Canaan, if it had ever unavoidably been “sin” for one human to take the life of another in battle. This, to me, is one of the strongest arguments for the rejection of extreme pacifism, because it is not merely based on an understanding of any particular verse or passage, but on the revealed characters of the Father and Son.

We see that John the Baptist, in speaking to Jewish soldiers, told them to refrain from unnecessary violence in the course of their duties, but not to refrain from their duties, a sentiment later reinforced by Ellen White, and that being the meek who inherit the earth does not require us to be cut down “so cheaply” if there are no other alternatives but to defend one’s self, country, and loved ones.

In fact, we would conclude that Agape-love requires us to defend others when it becomes apparent that it is necessary to do so. Abraham rescued his nephew Lot for love’s sake, (Gen 14:14-16) and that instinct, that drive, has nothing to do with the covenant under which one is living.

The main issue here is about our judgment. We, who will one day judge the angels, must know the way to judge matters, and our brethren, the way that the Father and Son do. There must be individual freedom to pursue one’s convictions on matters as personal as this without condemnation or rejection from the Church. The last thing we ever want to do is to demonize, to villainize, those who disagree with us. Are those who see it as a duty to take up arms and fight bloodthirsty monsters? In the spirit of Christ, we say, “No. They seek to relieve the suffering of others, and maintain freedom for themselves and their people.” Are those who would refuse to take up arms even if their lives were at stake weak, or cowardly? In the spirit of Christ we say, “No. They are among the bravest of all people, willing to die for principle, and we would count them among our noble brethren, should they sacrifice all in order to keep their consciences clear.”

What we wish to do, ultimately, is to educate our consciences by the Word, so that as we draw ever closer to the return of our Savior, our consciences are in harmony with the “mind of Christ,” and the mind of one another.

David.

Further Considerations

Beyond the formal study presented above, there are some additional ideas that may help to firm up the principles of what the Scriptures teach, and to emphasize what a “test of fellowship” is according to the Bible and our Adventist pioneers. The people of God are not legalistic. Neither are they licentious, seeking to excuse or trivialize the transgression of the Law. The Church, by the Spirit of Christ, is balanced on points of character-defining doctrine, while allowing individual freedom to govern a believer’s relationship with His Creator and Savior.

Some might think that a matter as extreme as death would require strong agreement among all members of the Church regarding the applicable principles – and there is. The taking of a human life is not a thing to be celebrated, but to be avoided. All are agreed on that; however, what we are discussing are extreme circumstances, where life and liberty may be sacrificed on the altar of warfare. Is the Christian to stand by and see others slain, when he has strength in his hands to spare them from suffering? No Scripture has ever taught this. Our Adventist pioneers do not appear to have believed this. While Church publications over the years have not always been consistent, and have often reflected varying opinions of the articles’ authors, it is the principles of our faith – as defined by the Scriptures – that provides us with a consistent and firm foundation on which we rest our souls. When these principles are endorsed by recognized prophets and messengers of the Most High, this can be helpful… but it is the Bible that remains the authority, not the endorsement. Yahweh’s people always have sufficient information to know His will as individuals, and as a Church.

In light of the above, here are some final thoughts to consider:

1) This is not an easy matter being discussed. What an individual would do when an attempt is made to force him into fighting for a cause that he may or not agree with is an extremely personal decision, and one not governed by the wording of any commandment, or any authoritative statement of faith. The example of Christ is critical here, and as a general rule, He advocated turning the other cheek when attacked. (Mat 5:39) However, it is important to point out that Christ Himself did not employ the same approach in every circumstance. When struck by the High Priest’s assistant, instead of meekly accepting it, “Yahshua answered him, ‘If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why smitest thou Me?’” (John 18:23) In short, we have principles that govern our behavior under general circumstances, but we have been given no rule-set for every situation in which the Christian may find himself. It is the Living Spirit of God, and not a static policy, that guides our behavior.

2) This was stated in the article already, but it worth repeating for emphasis. Those who espouse a position of total pacifism, and seek to relate this to Adventist tradition, will sometimes reference the 1864 Church declaration published in the Review and Herald in March of 1865. Ellen White’s writings, Letter 20a and W.C. White’s statement from 1915 in particular, post-date this by a significant margin, with the letter describing a situation related to self-defense, an even more individual and personal application of the principle, perhaps, than general warfare. Things did not suddenly change for the entirety of the Church constituency as a result of this declaration, nor does it invalidate what actual inspiration presented before, and after, in terms of general approaches to war and combat.

3) To follow up, and expand on that idea, while the SDA Church published a position in favor of non-participation in warfare in 1864/65, it does not appear to have ever been endorsed by any inspired statement, and it was never accepted as a dogmatic test even at the Adventist Church’s most creed-reliant leading up to its creation of the list of “28 Fundamental Doctrines” for evaluating baptismal candidates. As a rule, an article in the Review and Herald can never be used to establish doctrine. Only the Bible can do that, with supplementary works serving to support it as applicable. We reject creeds. This cannot be stated often enough, as it has been the bane and demise of every once-faithful, now-fallen Christian organization. We reject the use of non-Biblical writings as primary sources for doctrinal positions, especially those in which there are statements that may be legitimately debated by conscientious believers.

For example, one of the points suggested in the Review and Herald article espousing this position is that Christ’s statement to Peter to “put up thy sword” (Mat 26:52) is a denunciation of all armed defense for all time, or at least going forward from that point. This is not at all stated in the Gospel of Matthew from which the statement is drawn, and the inference being drawn is in fact is directly falsified by the Gospels of Luke and John, the first of which has Christ’s own counsel being to make sure that one has a sword, (Luke 22:36) and the latter of which explains that Peter’s error was not the impulse to defend Christ, but the action taken to defend Him in this particular circumstance, in which the Father had ordained that He drink the “cup” of suffering, and die on the cross for the sins of mankind. (Mat 16:21-23, John 18:11)

Another point advanced by the article is that engaging in warfare would require an Adventist to violate the Sabbath commandment. Engaging in logistically necessary activities has always been understood as acceptable on the Sabbath despite “work” being performed, whether by doctors, nurses, law-enforcement officers, priests/pastors, or military personnel. The Book of Maccabees from the inter-testamental period demonstrates that the Jews also understood the necessity of military activities on the Sabbath, and are in agreement with New Testament Adventists in assigning no guilt to those who have been required to do so.

In short, the article most often used as the “heart” of the argument for absolute pacifism for all Seventh-days Adventist is, itself, deeply flawed in several points of doctrine on the very matter it advocates, and is subject to legitimate critique.

There can be reasonable, sincere disagreement on the conclusions drawn by the Review and Herald in this, and many other articles released by the SDA Church over the years. The Review and Herald has not always been consistent in the positions it has published, and has never held itself out as a source for authoritative declarations (in contrast with The Watchtower for Jehovah's Witnesses). We do well to remember who we are, and where the foundation of our faith is to be found.

4) We may consider the War in Heaven following Lucifer’s rebellion, after which the angels that sided with him were expelled from Heaven. According to the visions of Ellen White, angels were armed for combat. Beings of light, created more pure than humans, and having never been corrupted by sin either before or after their conflict, were obliged to engage in open warfare. The fall of the demons, their descent into evil, was because they rejected the authority of the Father and Son, not because they engaged in combat. Both sides did this, which revealed, but did not corrupt, their characters. Of course, the “rules” are different between humans and angels, and neither angels nor demons “died” in this battle, but there was warfare. There were weapons of war. There was the opportunity to defend one’s self, and one’s homeland. The same principles defined by the Commandments apply to all intelligent creatures, and there are times, regardless of the age, testament, or covenant, when the Spirit moves on Yahweh’s people to end rebellion, brutality, and suffering by the most effective means available to them at the time.

Home | Contact | More Articles