Sunday, during his show’s opening monologue, Fox News host Mark Levin argued against religious leaders and theologians who said war at any time was “wrong” and violated God’s word.
Levin argued that there were multiple instances throughout Scripture in which war was justified.
Transcript as follows:
LEVIN: [Y]ou know, there’s been a lot of discussion about theology and this war, and I want to get into this a little bit.
I don’t pretend to be a theologian or a scholar, but just like you, we get to participate in this.
Let’s begin with last Sunday, the Associated Press, the Pope said, among other things, “Brothers and sisters, this is our God; Jesus, King of peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war.” He said, “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war but rejects them,” saying, “Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen, your hands are full of blood.”
So I got the thinking, not just Catholicism or Christianity generally, or Judaism or any of the faith. Wow! That’s pretty pacifistic. Never? Never?
What is a just war? Because whether it’s Catholicism or Christianity, generally, or Judaism or other faiths, that’s not the case, obviously, with the enemy we’re fighting with, they live to kill, and that’s how they interpret their faith.
Jihadis kill as many people as you can, anybody who disagrees, and so forth and so on. So, that’s not a universal view throughout all faiths.
But what is a just war? Because that’s key.
I’ve been studying this. Catholicism talks about just wars, but really again, so do Protestants, so do Jews and others? What qualifies?
But the Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the conditions for a just war in Paragraph 23-09. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations, must be lasting, grave and certain. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impracticable and ineffective. There must be serious prospects of success and the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
And so these are, briefly the four elements of a just war, and I thought to myself, well, this is a just warn then, by this definition, by these elements. But let’s continue. Let’s dig a little deeper.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 22-63: The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. The act of self-defense can have a double effect, the preservation of one’s own life and the killing of the aggressor. The one is intended. The other is not. St Thomas Aquinas.
22-64: Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore, it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder, even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow. If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.
Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self- defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of his own life than of another’s. St Thomas Aquinas.
22-65: Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. Let me repeat — legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.
The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
This is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
22-66 in part: The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to the people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good.
Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.
And he goes on in part —
Let’s go to 23-08: All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for avoidance of war, however, and I’m quoting, as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense once all peace efforts have failed.
23-09: The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy at one and the same time, the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain.
All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impracticable or ineffective. There must be serious prospects of success. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
I’m continuing. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the Just War Doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good, like the president.
And then lastly, 23-10: Public authorities in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.
So this doesn’t strike me as pacifistic. This strikes me as common sense. This strikes me as exactly what the President of the United States has done. He’s tried to negotiate. He’s tried peace efforts, and again, he has confronted this enemy for many reasons, slaughtering its own people, spreading terrorism and so forth and so on.
Now let’s go to the Bible. In the Old Testament, we’re sometimes depicted as divinely sanctioned. God is portrayed as a warrior who directs battles for his people, as seen in passages like Exodus 15:3: The Lord is a warrior. The Lord is his name.
Psalm 144:1 which speaks of God training hands for battle. Certain wars were considered holy or commanded by God, with religious rituals accompanying military campaigns.
Exodus 17:16, Numbers 31:1-3, 1 Samuel 15:1-3.
In Isaiah 2:3-4. The prophets also talk of peace, of course.
Now in the New Testament, Jesus instructs followers to love their enemies. Matthew 5:43-44, and retaliation; Matthew 26:52 and pursue reconciliation, Romans 12:18-21. The Christians are called to be peacemakers, Matthew 5:9.
So what do we need to make of all this? Well, war isn’t outlawed under certain circumstances, peace is preferred. Love is preferred, conciliation is preferred. Right? Negotiation is preferred, diplomacy is preferred. But there is evil.
The Bible recognizes it. We recognize it. But there is also this, Revelation 19:11-21 describes the Second Coming, the ultimate war, as has been written, as others have written, Jesus judges and makes war “with justice.” It is going to be bloody. I am quoting, “The birds will eat the flesh of all those who oppose him. He will conquer completely and consign to a ‘fiery lake’ of burning sulfur.” This is in Revelations.
So taken together, what do we have here? Well, let’s dig further. Just War Theory, as I just explained, war can be morally justified under strict conditions such as self-defense, protection of innocents and proportionality. Public authorities have the duty to defend the nation, and soldiers can serve honorably if they act within ethical limits.
But there are those who advocate for complete non-violence, complete pacifism. They reject even retaliation, and insist at all times on an understanding of forgiveness, reconciliation, dialogue, negotiation, diplomacy, what have you.
But there are times when that results in what? Mass murder, depending on the enemy. That is pacifism.
Pacifism comes in different stripes and to different degrees, but the Bible, whether you’re looking at the Old Testament or the New Testament, that doesn’t compel pacifism.
What about a preventative war? What’s that? The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Associated Terms, says that a preventative war is an armed conflict initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk.
So a preventive war can be a just war, a moral war. Ecclesiastes 3:8 indicates there are times for war acknowledging that conflict is sometimes inevitable. Romans 13:1-4 suggests that governments have the authority to “bear the sword” to maintain order.
Well, what about an imminent threat as a basis for military action? Well, this is the age of supersonic weapons, hypersonic weapons, where time is measured, not in months and weeks or days but moments. And one definition I read that I like impending threats that are rapidly approaching rather than immediately occurring, something more than preventative but not immediately occurring, because that is suicide with modern war technology.
Okay, let’s keep going. What about protecting innocents? There are 30 Bible verses about protecting innocents with force, including Psalms 82:3-4, “Defend the weak and the fatherless, uphold the rights of the afflicted and oppressed, rescue the weak and needy, deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
Proverbs 24:11-12, “Rescue those being led away to death, hold back those staggering towards slaughter, if you say, but we know nothing about this does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?”
So again, over and over and over again in the Bible and then in the Catechism, there are clear justifications for force. In some cases, they’re compelled, and the force is to be overwhelming and definitive. Psalm 72:4, “May he defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy. May he crush the oppressor.”
Psalm 94:16, “Who will rise up for me against the wicked? Who will take a stand for me against the evildoers?” I’m just giving you some examples.
Psalm 140:1-2, “Rescue me, Lord from evildoers. Protect me from the violent who devise evil plans in their hearts and stir up war every day.”
Okay, we focused on Catholicism, Christianity, more broadly. We talked about the Old Testament, the New Testament, that is the Bible. What does Judaism say about war? Because some of you are saying, what do you know, Mark? You’re Jewish.
I know a lot. It doesn’t mean I’m an expert. King Solomon in Ecclesiastes, here’s what he said: Everything has an appointed season. There’s a time for every matter under the heaven, a time to give birth and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot that which is planted, a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to break and a time to build, a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time of wailing and a time of dancing, a time to cast stones and a time to gather stones, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing, a time to seek and a time to lose, a time to keep and a time to cast away, a time to read and a time to sew, a time to be silent and a time to speak, a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.
What is he saying there? These things are not black and white. It depends on the circumstances. You get guidance from the Bible. You get guidance from principles. You get guidance from morality, prudence and to say war at any time is wrong or that it violates God’s Word simply is not the case.
There are mandatory wars, defensive wars, including defending against attacks in the Jewish faith on the Holy Land, saving the Jewish people from oppression, biblical battles to defend the land that God gave the Jewish people. This is part of the Jewish belief system.
What of self-defense? Well, there are optional wars. There are wars to protect the innocent. There are wars of prevention. The moral considerations in Judaism and Christianity are actually very similar, and neither endorses strict 100 percent pacifism at all times and under all conditions. There’s not a hard and fast doctrine that requires it.
You try peace, you try negotiation where possible, but humanity has a number of evil people within it, and we also know that from the Bible too.
We have Psalm 140:1-2, “Rescue Me, Lord, from evildoers. Protect me from the violent who devise evil plans in their hearts and stir up war every day.” That’s a big deal. So I hope this helps. I hope it helps a lot.
The President of the United States is actually, as I’ve read to you, parts of the Bible, is actually in full compliance with his faith, and I would argue, in full compliance with the Judeo Christian belief system and value system and the Bible.
Follow Jeff Poor on X @jeff_poor