Anger can be a sin. Looking at someone with lust can also be a sin. Maybe. It depends entirely on a person’s heart.
But what about war? Is war always sinful? Christian theologians don’t agree on this. But what happens when we take it to the extreme—where war crimes or crimes against humanity are committed? What if the plan is to blow up an entire nation? Are any of those actions a sin?
I wish I could definitively say, “yes”. Sadly, I cannot.
Let me clarify. Any absolute answer is usually based on what humans have decided is the correct theology for their specific flavor of Christianity. But here is the thing: humans cannot dictate who God is or what He does. Yes, He gave us His word in the Bible, but we still have to interpret what those words mean. Given the hundreds of denominations around the world, it is a safe bet that some, many, or perhaps even all of us don’t quite get it right.
So, I’m not going to dive into a massive list of theological options. Instead, I want to look at where those frameworks break down in their efforts to make war “justified.” We are going to examine the absolute extreme: war crimes and crimes against humanity. If someone says they are considering blowing up an entire nation, that has to be a war crime. And if it isn’t categorized that way in the eyes of man—what about in the eyes of God?
The impetus for writing this is an article from “The Telegraph” that was in my msn.com news feed: “Trump considering ‘blowing up entire nation’ of Iran“.
✝️💔This article is written for the souls of people who are genuinely trying to follow Jesus.
Governments, administrations, and nations — in any era — will do what they do. That has been true from the beginning, and nothing I write will change that. It isn’t my goal.
My goal here is more like the little boy walking along the beach, picking up stranded starfish and tossing them back into the ocean. He can’t save all of them. But he can save some.
That’s my hope with every article: to reach the “some” who recognize how deeply the realities in this piece can shape their eternal souls — and who want to walk with Jesus in truth, clarity, and love.
A roadmap of where we’re going in this examination
I’m giving a roadmap of the examination path this article takes. Without one, it may feel like a road to nowhere. This is a complex issue, and there will be bends in the road. And yet, there are clear conclusions that we can reach. As I wrote above, your eternal soul is potentially at risk here, so I pray that I can lay this out clearly, and that you will take the time to follow the path, then consider it carefully.
The Heart-Level Standard: How Jesus treats internal intent (anger, lust, and planning) as carrying real moral weight long before an outward act occurs.
The Limits of “Justified” War: Where traditional Christian frameworks draw the line between state-sanctioned military action and personal murder—and where those frameworks start to break down.
The Point of No Return: Why planning or seriously considering actions that constitute war crimes—such as destroying a nation—collapses any “just war” defense and brings the moral weight back to the heart-level judgment Jesus described.
The Heart-Level Standard
Is lustful thinking a sin?
Former President Jimmy Carter famously made a statement about lustful thinking being a sin – and that he committed that sin. OK – but then, he was a President – not a theologian. Is this a big deal about nothing? Or is it real?
What did Jesus actually say about adultery?
Adultery – Matthew
Adultery
Mt 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”
Well, that sure looks like a yes.
Is killing someone a sin?
So, if lustful thinking is sinful, then surely killing someone must be a sin. Right? Uh, don’t be too quick to say yes, of course it is. Jesus made that quite clear. Or did He?
Murder – Matthew
5:25, 26 pp — Lk 12:58, 59
Mt 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Mt 5:23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
Mt 5:25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.”
You may read that and think – absolutely, Jesus said killing someone is unquestionably a sin.
But if you do that, you’d be incorrect.
In spite of everything that follows verse 21, there’s an important distinction in verse 21. It’s the word murder. That’s murder – not kill. And that’s a huge difference. Murder does involve killing someone. But not every killing is murder. We know that from our own judicial system today. Distinctions are made. Killing someone in self-defense won’t even get a guilty verdict in court.
Let’s look at how this difference between murder and killing works in the Bible.
However, the biblical prohibition on murder operates differently than sexual ethics. Biblical Hebrew distinguishes between “murder” and “kill,” with the commandment specifically forbidding “murder”—intentional taking of life—rather than all killing, which appears in limited circumstances including unintentional manslaughter. 1Joel S. Baden, Lost in Translation: Recovering the Origins of Familiar Biblical Words (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2025), 80–83.
Looking at that reference to the intentional taking of life – that’s what we use today as well. In general, not being a lawyer, it’s akin to the difference between murder and manslaughter. Except, of course, these days we settle for manslaughter even if murder appears to be the true situation – just because it’s expedient or to get some conviction when the jury might not convict for murder.
But – there’s more
Here’s the thing about what you just read. It doesn’t apply to war situations.
The Bible contains multiple Hebrew words for different types of killing: court-sanctioned death penalties, war, and divine punishment. For the ancient Israelite author and audience, prohibiting all killing would have been inconceivable. 2Joel S. Baden, Lost in Translation: Recovering the Origins of Familiar Biblical Words (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2025), 80–83.
But – again, there’s something to point out here. “For the ancient Israelite author and audience, prohibiting all killing would have been inconceivable.” That’s one thing when the Israelites prayed to God before going to war. We don’t do that anymore. We have generals get together and work out plans, contingencies, chances of success, etc. Or, we have a leader that just says to do it. Whatever the case, the praying to God – as it existed in Old Testament times – doesn’t happen today.
What if the leaders say they are fighting a Godly war? Well, that also doesn’t hold weight, because we are no longer under the Old Covenant and cannot use the Old Covenant to override Jesus’ words.
So, are war planners then automatically guilty of murder, in the biblical sense? Well, in yet another twist – no, it doesn’t mean that. The critical question becomes one of intention and justification: Is the leader acting in defense against aggression, or pursuing unjust conquest?
Selectivism proceeds from the fundamental premise that all wars are wrong but that not everyone’s involvement in a war is wrong. The particular circumstances and situations must be evaluated on each occasion to discern which side, if either, has a righteous cause to defend. The victim of a clear-cut act of aggression would have the right of self-defense, according to the selective view. 3Sproul, R. C. (1996). Following Christ. Tyndale House Publishers.
This is one response to extreme pacifists who argue that no war is justified, and every death in war is a sin. Just before this quote, Sproul wrote about Swiss theologian Emil Brunner, who wrote, Pacifism of the absolutist variety is practical anarchy.”
And so, we can see that it’s getting very messy.
Plus – keep in mind, all of this thinking is in the eyes of people. People who claim to be speaking for what God says. But – the question remains completely unsettled: what did Jesus’ words mean in terms of war?
The Limits of “Justified” War
There is a doctrine – made by men, again claiming to speak for God, that says there’s something called a justified war. Keep in mind that if we build this justified war foundation 100% from the Old Testament – it’s not valid for us today. We are, as I wrote above, under the New Covenant. It’s different.
In any event, since we’re looking at a specific situation, blowing up an entire nation, let’s say this is a justified war. Please note: I am not saying whether such a thing exists or not – I’m only saying let’s not bring up that issue here. Why not? Because this issue is much deeper, and it shouldn’t be bogged down with this so-called justified war issue.
The other thing about a justified war is the reality that it’s just too easy for a leader to say their war is justified. But again – it’s not their place to decide on their own war. It’s ultimately God’s decision to make. And – since this is written for the sake of your eternal soul – I dare say that God’s decision is the only one that matters for this topic in this article.
Just-war teaching has always required that wars conclude with truth and justice, addressing war crimes, apologies, reparations, and reconciliation.
…
This matters because it establishes that the only worthy purpose of war is to “make peace,” and if that is not the purpose, war should not be engaged. 4Kenneth L. Vaux, Journey Into an Interfaith World: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in a World Come of Age
So, here’s at least one problem with this thought. “… wars conclude with truth and justice, addressing war crimes, apologies, reparations, and reconciliation.” We know, on multiple levels, that few, if any, of these requirements at the conclusion of a war will even be considered, let alone accomplished. Especially in this case. How can any of those things be accomplished when the stated goal is to blow an entire country off the map? Answer – they cannot.
Let’s continue along that line, just in case the one quote wasn’t convincing.
Augustine argued that wars fought for greed, envy, hatred, and lust were unjust, in contrast to wars motivated by genuine care to protect one’s neighbor or prevent further wrongdoing2. Critically, even a just cause like self-defense can cloak harmful intentions, such as revenge. 5Eric D. Patterson and Timothy J. Demy, Philosophers on War, Revised Edition (Middletown, RI: Stone Tower Press, 2022), 10.
In this case, a number of intentions have been telegraphed. And while they will argue about the meaning behind many of the words, there’s only one interpretation of blowing up an entire country.
The point of no return
With all this, the conclusion seems inescapable.
However, in the interest of verifying my own conclusions that blowing an entire nation up is clearly sinful in God’s eyes – regardless of our human and even theological attempts to claim they’re justified and those who plan and carry them out are innocent – I ran this whole thing by the Christian AI agent from Faithlife/LOGOS.
It had all the information above, and then I posed this one issue to verify my thinking on this issue. No, it’s not a question. It’s a statement. To an AI agent, that generally leaves it on its own to agree, push back and disagree, and give evidence as to why it agrees or not.
❓ Question:So, it’s very much a case of “it depends”. Although, even the concept of “a just war” isn’t universally accepted by all denominations/theologies, if I remember correctly. It’s not like we pray to God as the Israelites did in the Old Testament.
And here’s the response.
🤖✨You’re absolutely right on both counts. The early church and certain Christian groups like the Anabaptists, Quakers, and Mennonites have maintained pacifist positions, while the majority of larger denominations—Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Catholics, and Reformed churches—have adopted just-war interpretations.1 The United Church of Christ declared itself a “Just Peace Church” in 1985, arguing that just-war criteria “now rules out war under modern conditions” and calling for moving beyond just-war thinking entirely.2 The Episcopal Church has held since 1931 that “War is incompatible with the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”2
The gap between Old Testament warfare and modern Christian ethics is profound. Unlike just-war theory, which presumes a defensive posture, the Old Testament’s Holy War rules presumed an aggressive stance—if God had summoned Israel to fight, no human moral limits applied.3 But here’s the critical problem: The actual wars of conquest in Joshua violated the Torah’s own code of warfare in various respects.3 Most Israelite wars egregiously violated traditional just-war criteria—they were clearly aggressive, failed to grant immunity to noncombatants, and were disproportionate in destruction.3
The essence of war is lawlessness, and thinking about war in a “just war” fashion risks viewing it as a game played by rules—when in reality, only after war ends do “rules” become relevant through war crimes trials.4 Your instinct is sound: leaders routinely claim justification while planning atrocities. The frameworks exist precisely because they’re so easily abused.
1 Robert G. Clouse, “War,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Daniel J. Treier and Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017), 929.
2 Stephen R. Rock, Faith and Foreign Policy: The Views and Influence of U.S. Christians and Christian Organizations (New York, NY: Continuum, 2011), 54.
3 Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Alan Kreider, and Eleanor Kreider, The Road That I Must Walk: A Disciple’s Journey (New York, NY: Cascade Books, 2014). [See here, here, here, here.]
4 Peter C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 53.
Conclusions – Is blowing up an entire nation a sin?
I believe it is. I felt that way just from my view of who God is – loving, merciful, and the creator of everything.
Going through this exercise, focusing on war, especially on the concept of blowing up an entire nation, strengthens my beliefs.
But don’t just take my word for it.
Below is an excerpt from The Ethics of War, by Paul D. Miller. I’d never heard of him before this. As always, for any author I’m not familiar with, I had to check out the man, and the book. Here’s one item that stood out, since it’s from the Editor in Chief of Christianity Today.
“If the peacemakers are the blessed ones, as Jesus said, is any war ever right? If so, when and how? These questions were complicated enough for two thousand years of debate within Christianity. Now, with nuclear and biological weaponry, drone warfare, and artificial intelligence, the questions are even harder. No one is better equipped to guide Christians through seeking and finding the right direction on war and peace than Paul Miller. This book will help you as you seek to conform your conscience to the kingdom of Christ.” 6Russell Moore, editor-in-chief, Christianity Today; Miller, P. D. (2025). Ethics of War: A Short Companion (pp. i – ii). B&H.
And here’s an excerpt from the book about us – the people who vote for our leaders, at least one of whom is willing to take us into a war with the express intent that we may very well blow up an entire country.
To be informed means engaging with facts. Written media—newspapers, magazines, journals, and books—are far more informationally dense and emotionally dispassionate. Of course, they can be just as partisan and biased, but the nature of the written word means we are more actively engaged—the neurons in our brains literally show more electrical activity when reading than when watching TV. We are required to think about what we are reading, which makes us participants in education rather than consumers of content. Citizens, voters, and taxpayers should read. If we are fighting a war, we should read about the war. If we are close to intervening in a war—as we are in Ukraine and Israel—we should read about that too. Allowing our leaders to take us to war and not caring enough to stay informed about it—as was the case during the long war in Afghanistan—is a dereliction of our duties as citizens.
Reading and getting informed is the necessary prelude to the most important part of our civic duty: voting and advocacy. When we vote for a candidate, we are exercising power on behalf of a vision of justice that the candidate or party represents. Sadly, any vision of justice represented by an earthly political party or sinful human being is necessarily partial, flawed, and mixed with injustice. When we vote, we typically must pick the lesser of two injustices or vote strategically based on our understanding of the balance of power between rival parties across the branches of government. That is true generally of all public issues, including foreign policy, diplomacy, war, and peace.
Some things should be obvious: Christians should not vote for candidates or parties that advocate war crimes or murder. Christians should not vote for candidates or parties that advocate for international aggression, wars of conquest or glory, ethnic cleansing, and so forth. Fortunately, such clear-cut cases are rare. Parties and candidates typically spin their agendas to make it sound good because they know voters want to feel like they are the good guys. No one comes right out and says, “Vote for evil.” Just as Satan comes disguised as an angel of light, wicked political ideologies come speaking the language of justice and peace. That makes it harder, but more important, to exercise judgment and discern where the balance of justice lies between rival candidates and parties.
I suggest a general rule of thumb both for voting and for our own hearts: recognize the most dangerous temptation we face, and try to exhibit, and vote for, the opposite. In wartime, the most dangerous temptation is bloodlust, vengeance, cruelty, and triumphalism, so we should advocate and vote for the measured, dispassionate, and necessary use of force until victory, and then advocate for magnanimity and charity in the aftermath. Vote for candidates who seem to exhibit a mature attitude toward the use of force in wartime: neither triumphalist nor defeatist, committed to victory but not vengeance. “I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine,” General William Tecumseh Sherman lamented. “It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.” Sherman, who served in the Union army during the American Civil War, was a victorious general in a just war. Yet he famously concluded, “War is hell.” That’s the attitude we should want our presidents to have. 7Miller, P. D. (2025). Ethics of War: A Short Companion (pp. 163–165). B&H.
Please, consider all of this, not the least of which is the point of no return.
Final thoughts on the Point of No Return
I realize that many Christians are quite sure they are true followers of Jesus. They also “know” they cannot lose their salvation.
But – that flies in the face of the Parable of the Sower. You may want to check out “Jesus told parables. Was He hiding something?” for more on that.
Another thing to consider is whether one is truly saved in the first place. For example, if someone is baptized, but they don’t mean it – rather, they’re doing it “for show” – one has to ask – will God actually accept it? In other words, will an all-knowing God be tricked into granting salvation to a person if He knows full well the “baptism” wasn’t genuine?
Here’s the thing. If we reject those examples, or others where there’s an implication that God can be mocked, tricked, or otherwise forced to do something, please check out the passage below.
Warning Against Falling Away – Hebrews
6:4-6 Ref—Heb 10:26-31
Heb 5:11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
Heb 6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so.
Heb 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
Heb 6:7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.
Heb 6:9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure. 12 We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.
Uh oh.
Clearly, there is a point of no return.
In your zeal to be loyal to a political party, a human being, or anyone/anything else – please don’t forget – our ultimate loyalty, as Christians, is to God.
Footnotes:
- 1Joel S. Baden, Lost in Translation: Recovering the Origins of Familiar Biblical Words (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2025), 80–83. ↩︎
- 2Joel S. Baden, Lost in Translation: Recovering the Origins of Familiar Biblical Words (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2025), 80–83. ↩︎
- 3Sproul, R. C. (1996). Following Christ. Tyndale House Publishers. ↩︎
- 4
- 5Eric D. Patterson and Timothy J. Demy, Philosophers on War, Revised Edition (Middletown, RI: Stone Tower Press, 2022), 10. ↩︎
- 6Russell Moore, editor-in-chief, Christianity Today; Miller, P. D. (2025). Ethics of War: A Short Companion (pp. i – ii). B&H. ↩︎
- 7Miller, P. D. (2025). Ethics of War: A Short Companion (pp. 163–165). B&H. ↩︎
Discover more from Which god can save?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.