God on War

You are here

God on War

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

Some people deny God's existence just because war and evil also exist. The idea is that if God is all-powerful, then He would never allow evil—like war—to exist. One might admire such idealism. But we can't admire the ignorance about the Bible that comes with the idea. The fact is that God allows war and evil to happen—for now, and for a purpose.

God to mankind: love, not war

All of human history and culture results from what happened in the Garden of Eden.

Adam and Eve are the original parents of everyone on earth. God created within them the ability to produce all the variations of the tribes and nations on earth today: "From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands" (Acts 17:26, New International Version).

But God did not want them to make war on each other.

First God made Adam. Hours later on the same day, using one of Adam's ribs, He made Eve. Unlike the animals, they were made in God's image. From their first breath they were full grown, fully developed and able to speak—but with no clothes. Adam and Eve didn't have anything to hide from each other! God immediately performed the first wedding ceremony: "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply'" (Genesis 1:28).

God commanded them as husband and wife to make love, but He did not command them to make war.

When did war happen?

It so happened that there was a lying, cheating, stealing and deceiving snake hanging around the garden near the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (see Genesis 3).

The snake was actually the chief fallen angel or demon who had borne a distinction rendered in Latin as Lucifer—meaning "light-bringer" and signifying the "day star." He was ultimately given the label Satan, which in Hebrew means "adversary." He's also called the devil, from a parallel Greek term meaning "accuser" or "slanderer." He appeared as a talking serpent in the garden to tempt and deceive Adam and Eve.

The angels were made eons before man. God didn't force His way of goodness and love on them—nor does He on us. They had to choose to do good and reject evil—which most of them did. However, Lucifer didn't believe that good was the best way. He made himself the enemy of God (see Isaiah 14:12-15). Then he led a rebellion of one third of the angels to also sin and choose evil as their way (see Revelation 12:4). They sealed their own fate. Together, they made war on God, and that was the beginning of war.

It was an insane war. The demons were outnumbered two to one in the angelic realm. And most foolish of all, they were fighting their Creator—Almighty God! It's impossible for the created to be more powerful than the Creator. What were they thinking?! Answer: They were thinking only of themselves—not caring about others or about God.

It sounds unbelievable, but in fact these unfaithful, demonic angels will attack God again. It's going to happen shortly before the return of Jesus Christ: "And war broke out in heaven: Michael [a faithful archangel] and his angels fought with the dragon [Satan]; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him" (Revelation 12:7-9).

The bad news is that they will also incite a human world war like we've never seen before.

Man and war

So how did man get involved in war and evil?

Back to the Garden of Eden: At the serpent's deceitful instigation, Eve and Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God specifically commanded them not to eat from it. More than that, they didn't eat the fruit of the tree of life, which God commanded them to do (see Genesis 2:8-9 and 15-17). Those two trees symbolized the two great ways of life: good vs. evil, give vs. get. War comes from choosing evil to selfishly and violently get things from others (James 4:1-2). War is not God's way.

What about nations that fight wars to defend themselves or others from attackers? You can understand why some nations have fought "for the right" as they saw it. You can appreciate the service of those who risk their lives to protect their nations.

Although God offered to fight ancient Israel's wars for them, His model nation ultimately chose to fight its own wars and suffer the consequences. At times God used Israel to execute His judgment (discipline or punishment) on other sinful nations. At other times He disciplined Israel by bringing other nations against it because of national sins.

But none of this changes the fact that it was not God's desire from the beginning that human beings, His children, would fight and kill one another in warfare.

Adam and Eve cast the mold by choosing the devil's way over God's way. Because of that, their firstborn son Cain started the first human war. You can read all about it in Genesis chapter 4. In a jealous, religious rage (sound eerily familiar?) Cain premeditated, plotted, attacked and murdered his own brother Abel. When the population of the world was tiny compared to today, this was a major, catastrophic war.

God pleaded directly with Cain to reconsider and choose the way of peace: "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door" (Genesis 4:6-7). Sin spawns war. Throughout history there is always another war. But there doesn't have to be.

Out-of-this-world peace plan

The time is coming soon when all nations will put aside their differences and finally seek to faithfully follow Jesus Christ. Even among those today who claim to follow Jesus, very few are really doing the things He says to do. If you want to be a true follower of Jesus Christ—and I hope you do—then here is His out-of-this-world peace plan for you and everyone else: "Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here'" (John 18:36, emphasis added).

Those who want to truly follow Jesus Christ won't fight in the wars of this world. That doesn't mean they don't love their countries, but it does mean that they love and serve the Kingdom of God first and more than any human nation. They know that all people are God's children.

When Jesus returns to the earth He will stop all human wars and establish an incredible era of a totally new, warless human culture. It will be a time when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4). The good news is that you can be part of that peace plan now!

You might also be interested in...

In the wake of the New York and Washington, D.C., suicide bombings, we need to...

Comments

  • Ivan Veller

    Hello Jennifer,

    To second Mr. Dowd's explanation, the word for “killed” carries the sense of:
    • “to kill, murder, destroy. Has the connotation of violence, especially in war…Can refer to a formal execution (2Sa 4:11)” (Zodhiates & Baker, “Lexical Aids to the Old Testament” [based on Harris, “Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament” and Wilson, “Old Testament Word Studies”])
    • “to kill, put to death, murder, slaughter” (Kohlenberger & Swanson, “A Concise Dictionary of the Hebrew”
    • "to kill, slay, murder, destroy" (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, “Hebrew Definitions”)
    So it would appear to be an act of premeditated violence.

    One other note: “The fact that God accepted Abel’s offering and rejected Cain’s” may or “may not have been based on the fact that Abel’s involved the shedding of blood and Cain’s did not” (Kohlenberger). If indeed this was the reason, I wonder (and the following is mere speculation) whether Cain’s act of killing Abel might have been an angrily sarcastic, offensive response to (what I would assume to be, based on Hebrews 9:22) God’s expectation that blood be shed?

  • Dan Dowd

    Jennifer,
    While you are correct that God did not directly command Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of Life (at least it is not recorded) - they were not forbidden. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die...,'" (Genesis 2:16-17). They could have chosen to eat of that tree, which is why God had to prevent them from eating from it after they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 3:22-24).

    Concerning Cain, you are again correct that he was not directly called a murderer in Genesis, but the Hebrew word used in Genesis 4:8 (slew or killed in the English) has the meaning of "smiting with deadly intent, to kill or murder." The Greek word used in 1 John 3:12 is even stronger and translated "murder" in the English (NKJV). The Greek word has the meaning of "butchering, or slaughtering." In either case (in Genesis or 1 John) the meaning is one of violence, not an accidental death.

    In both situations, rejection of God's instruction resulted in negative consequences and outcomes. Violation of God's law - even instruction against war and not killing - never has a good outcome.

  • hoyerkj

    2 things:
    1) The Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were commanded to eat of the Tree of Life.
    2) The Bible does not reveal Cain as a "murderer" (Hebrew word for kill is not same as murder), let alone show him as premeditating and plotting against Abel. It could have easily been unintentional manslaughter.
    -jennifer

  • Durango

    That was a really great article

  • Norbert Z

    I agree Randy, that the useage of the word Lucifer has a compelling debate surrounding the use of this proper noun. I also very much agree people don't have a problem with common nouns such as lion. A number of bible translations do just that with Isa 14:12, the YLT and JPS as an example of more reputable ones.

    Maybe this is just splitting hairs or all about semantics, certainly it will be for some people concidering we are not all exactly the same. Does the useage of a proper noun in one verse set side by side with another verse that uses it as a common noun affect how some people might perceive a comparison?

    Personally I do NOT believe when that verse was translated into latin, is something that was inspired by the Holy Spirit. To a lesser extant I can't be certain that Septuagint in its' entirity is also completely inspired just because the Apostle's used it. In my view it's just another translation and can have problematic verses that also create confusion, such as the "within" and "among" debate in modern translations of Luke 17:21.

    I think a needful question for any teacher is: Should people be lead to believe that the Holy Spirit gave Satan the name of Lucifer?

  • Randy Stiver
    REFERENCE TO THE MEANING OF "LUCIFER" IN ISA. 14:12: Thank you, Norbert, for your comment about my VT article "God on War." However, your rejection of Lucifer as the early name for the devil based on the meaning of the Hebrew "Heylel" is much debated. Please refer to our booklet "Is There Really a Devil?" [ The Word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 -- http://www.ucg.org/booklet/there-really-devil/did-god-create-devil/word-lucifer-isaiah-1412/ ] Light-bringer or Day Star in fact are meanings of the the Hebrew from which Lucifer was translated into Latin. But this does not create a problem. You cited 2 Peter 1:19 about how the "the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." This can refer to the dawning of understanding truth or by extension refer to Christ. If taken as you suggested to mean Christ, then please note that Jesus is also called the "Lion of tribe of Judah" (Rev. 5:5) even though Satan is described as a "roaring lion" (1 Pet. 5:8). The context of each "lion" text provides complete clarity as to whom it refers--just as does the context in Isa. 14:12 as compared to 2 Pet. 1:19. And consider this: why would God create Lucifer and call him an "arrogant boaster" (the variant meaning of "heylel")? Why not name him for what He desired him to become--a light bringer? Personally, I see a divine lament by God in Isa. 14:12 when He essentially repeats Lucifer's name--the Hebrew language techique for expressing great emphasis. "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" It was a sad song about the great cherub who chose to reject good and choose evil. Thanks again for reading VT! Randy Stiver Managing Editor Vertical Thought magazine
  • Ivan Veller

    (Finished)

    Why the similarity? The Bible doesn’t say. So, the following explanations are PURELY SPECULATIVE:

    (A.) It may describe glorious beauty—analogous to “arising like the dawn” (Song. 6:10b, NLT 2010). Satan was originally “perfect in beauty…precious” (Ezk. 28:12b-13a KJV). Christ had “no…[physical] comeliness…no[r] beauty” (Is. 53:2 KJV), but spiritually “his countenance [i]s as the sun shineth in his strength” (Rev. 1:13-16 KJV; see Jn. 17:5,24). When like him, we will “shine as the brightness of the firmament…as the stars” (Dan. 12:3 KJV)—“glory of the stars” (1 Cor. 15:41 KJV).

    (B.) Could it mean ‘brilliant ‘star pupil’’? It cannot mean literally ‘‘akin’ to the Light,’ since God never said to “the angels…at any time…‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son’” (Heb. 1:5, ESV 2011). Perhaps, however, cherubim serving in high office at the throne have an opportunity to be personally mentored by God—and to the extent they walk in the way of righteousness, sharing his values, God might feel close kinship. As a being “full of wisdom” & “perfect in [his] ways” (Ezk. 28:12, 15 KJV), perhaps this cherub had performed his duties with exemplary piety, humility, & devotion (?) to the extent of being granted the honorary title of ‘Lucifer’ for having ‘lit the Way’ of virtue (?) for others following the Father.

    (C.) Conversely, however, I wonder if the name may mean ‘one who heralds the new day that is dawning.’ Was ‘Lucifer’ a revolutionary ‘nom de guerre’ audaciously adopted during his attempt to dethrone God? Or, was its use the arrogant assumption of a title perhaps reserved for the Sovereign Himself? If so, its use here (“How art thou fallen…O Lucifer”) might be as heavily ironic sarcasm—a caustically satirical reflection on Satan’s utter failure to bring about a better way of life.

    (D.) A possible myriad of heavenly beings are ALL referred to as ‘morning stars’! At creation, when God “laid the foundations of the earth…the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:4, 7 KJV). Perhaps (per Hebrew poetic form) the same group is referred to again: “…together. All of the angels shouted with joy” (NIRV 1998).

    As someone who rarely engages in speculation of this magnitude, I am certain someone far more skilled at this topic than I am could give a far more complete, precise, & thorough explanation.

    Ivan

  • Ivan Veller

    (Continuing)

    One can assume that Satan, “the father of” lies (Jn. 8:44), is now no longer allowed to dwell in the presence of God. For instance, as David – “a man after [God’s] own heart” (Acts 13:22) – said, “He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight” (Ps. 101:7 KJV). Momentarily, Satan (Job 1:6) or one of his demonic henchmen (1 Kings 22:22) may periodically be granted temporary visitor’s access to God’s presence at the heavenly court of justice. Ultimately, however, “the abominable, and murderers…idolaters, and all liars” (including Satan and the demons) do not have “part in” “the tabernacle of God” (Rev. 21:3, 8 KJV)—“what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” (2 Cor. 6:14-15a KJV).

    However, to have once been permitted to dwell with God, Satan must have originally shared God’s values: “the righteous…the upright shall dwell in thy presence” (Ps. 140:3 KJV)—“LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness…nor doeth evil” (Ps. 15:1-3a KJV). Is. asked, “‘Who among us shall dwell with [God]? …He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil…Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty: they shall behold the land that is very far off’” (Is. 33:14b-17 KJV). Therefore, we can conclude that Satan used to be righteous, “full of wisdom…upon the holy mountain of God…perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee…[with] violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God…O covering cherub” (Ezek. 28:12-16a KJV)—“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” (Is. 14:12 KJV).

    “Lucifer” (KJV 1769) means “‘light-bearer’ 1. shining one, morning star” (Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions). Thus, the literal English Standard Version renders this poetic title as “O Day Star, son of Dawn” (ESV 2011). Comparatively, the poetry in 2 Peter 1:19, “until the day dawn, and the day star [“morning star” (ESV)] arise” (KJV), may (as you say) refer to Christ.

  • Ivan Veller

    Hello Norbert,

    Good question. I hope this explanation helps:

    “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8, 16 KJV). Love is unselfish (Mk. 8:34-35; Php. 2:2-8). Thus, it is God’s nature to share. Examples include creating us like himself (Gen. 1:27; 5:1), sharing his spirit essence (Rev. 21:6), and promising to glorify us (Rom. 8:17).

    God is a generous God, and it is to angels whom he gives the glory and honor of participating in some of the most supremely momentous acts ever prophesied. For instance, “the Lord…shall descend…with the voice of the archangel…and the dead in Christ shall rise (1 Th. 4:16a KJV). Likewise, “an angel…having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand…laid hold on the dragon…and bound him a thousand years” (Rev. 20:1-2 KJV).

    God “created all things” (Eph. 3:9; Rev. 4:11 KJV)—including cherubim and all other angels (Col. 1:16; Rev. 10:6), since angels are not divine (Col. 2:18; Heb. 1:4; Rev. 22:8-9). One such angel – who became “the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan” (20:2 KJV) – was formerly a “covering cherub” (Ezek. 28:16 KJV).

    Since “all things [made] according to the pattern” of “the [physical] tabernacle” “serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things” (Heb. 8:5 KJV; see Ex. 25:9), we can assume that “the cherubims[’] spread[ing] out their wings on high, and cover[ing] with their wings over the mercy seat, with their faces one to another” (Ex. 37:9 KJV), is “pattern[ed]” (Heb. 8:5 KJV) after “the true tabernacle” (8:2 KJV). This is indeed the case: God, enthroned, “sitteth between the cherubims” (Ps. 99:1 KJV; see also 1 Sam. 4:9; 2 Sam. 6:2, Ps. 80:1, & Is. 37:16).

    The being now known as Satan was an “anointed cherub that covere[d]” (Ezek. 28:14 KJV) or guarded God’s throne, serving within “the Holiest” part of the heavenly sanctuary (9:3 KJV)—next to “the throne of grace” (4:16 KJV). He was one of “the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat” (Heb. 9:5 KJV), where God “dwellest” (Is. 37:16 KJV).

    Later, once his “heart was lifted up” with pride (Ezek. 28:17 KJV), he attempted to seize God’s throne and “take over as King” (Is. 14:14 MSG). Though limited in his power, he currently presides as “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4 KJV) in a counterfeit kingdom comprised of evil “principalities…powers…rulers of the darkness of this world…spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph. 6:12 KJV).

  • SeekingtheTruth

    As I was reading Norberts point, I thought he was going to say that Randy refers to the serpant as a serpant but also as a snake. I read the Bible to say serpant, but not snake. All snakes are serpants, however Randy, all serpants are not snakes.

    Also, I would suggest that humans are quite capable of concentrating their efforts on more than one thing at a time. While it's true that Gods Kingdom is the priority, we can also take care of other businesses as well. We all have to live in this life. Not considering the evil of this world and halting it where ever possible as Randy seems to say, we would then what? All roll over and let the communists take over, the dictators? Why not since our concern is only with the Kingdom of God right? Wrong.

    If this were a truly christian nation, we'd be letting God take care of us. Knowing we are not though, it seems prudent that we take initiative with our national interests and with those of our allies. In doing so, we can then bask in our ever shrinking freedoms till Jesus comes back. But refusing to stand up for what's right is surely not the answer even if Randy thinks it is.

  • dusty

    Norbert Z:

    You are quite right in your comment on applying the term “Lucifer” to the devil. Satan’s name is not, was not then, and never has been Lucifer.

    Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in the Bible where this name is used and is a mistranslation that originated in the Latin Vulgate. The Hebrew word “helel” should be rendered “arrogant boaster” which makes more sense in context with the next two verses. This is a blasphemous translation. “Lucifer” or “Morning Star” is properly a name of Jesus Christ as you correctly pointed out in referring to 2 Pet. 1:19.

    “…son of the morning” means he was created, as all angels were, by the One who became Jesus Christ—the Morning Star.

  • Norbert Z

    Randy,

    From what I understand, anyone who has studied the use of the the word "Lucifer" in the Latin translation; this is going to cause problems with clarity with one of your paragraphs. Even moreso seeing your words, "The snake was actually the chief fallen angel or demon who had borne a distinction rendered in Latin as Lucifer —meaning "light-bringer" and signifying the "day star." "

    How then will anyone who intially uses a KJV think about 2Pet 1:19 "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as to a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the "day star" arise in your hearts:" The day star here is refering to Jesus Christ.

  • cjgennaro

    Excellent article Mr. Stiver

  • KARS

    This is one of my favorite magazines to read.

  • Join the conversation!

    Log in or register to post comments