"War — what is it good for?" — what the Bible says about war

What the song does

Edwin Starr’s “War” was released in 1970 by Motown’s Gordy label, written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong, originally recorded by The Temptations and reassigned to Starr to allow a more aggressive vocal performance. It reached number 1 on the Billboard Hot 100. The song poses the title question and answers it categorically. Its production — military snare, brass stabs, gospel-trained group response — frames the answer as a public-square verdict.

The song is not a biblical claim and does not present itself as one. But the question it asks — what is war good for? — has been asked of the biblical text repeatedly, by readers from across the political spectrum. The biblical text does not return a single answer.

What the text says — disarmament and the peaceable future

The prophetic tradition contains some of the most-quoted disarmament images in any literature. Isaiah and Micah each carry a near-identical vision of weapons converted to agricultural tools:

“They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up the sword against nation, nor train anymore for war.” (Isaiah 2:4, BSB)

“Then they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up the sword against nation, nor train anymore for war.” (Micah 4:3, BSB)

The image is repeated, the vocabulary identical. Whether Isaiah and Micah share a source or one copied the other is a long scholarly question; the image’s prominence in the canon is not in dispute.

The wolf-and-lamb image of Isaiah 11 and 65 extends the same vision into the animal world. The peaceable future is a recurring biblical hope.

What the text says — commanded and regulated warfare

The same canon includes commanded warfare. Deuteronomy 20 sets out detailed rules for the conduct of war: prior offers of peace (20:10), exemption from military service for the newly betrothed and the recently planted (20:5-8), the ḥērem (devoted destruction) command for the Canaanite cities (20:16-18). Joshua records the execution of these instructions. Judges records continued warfare in the period of the tribal settlement. David’s kingdom is established and maintained by military force.

The Old Testament does not present war as good in itself. It presents the wars Israel conducts as commanded, regulated, and limited. Its long-range vision is the peaceable future of Isaiah 2 and Micah 4.

What the text says — the New Testament tension

The New Testament inherits the prophetic peace-vision and adds an active peacemaker blessing in the Sermon on the Mount:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” (Matthew 5:9, BSB)

The Greek eirēnopoioi is active — peace-doers, not merely peace-tempered people (see the Blessed are the peacemakers — what eirēnopoios means entry for the full word treatment).

Ten chapters later, the same Gospel records Jesus saying something difficult to fit beside Matthew 5:9:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34, BSB)

The immediate context (verses 35-37) clarifies that the sword in question is the social division that following Jesus produces within families — not a military sword. But the saying sits in tension with the disarmament vision and with the Beatitude.

Both texts are canonical. The interpretive history of the New Testament’s relation to violence — pacifism (Tertullian’s Christian non-combatancy in De Idololatria; Anabaptist traditions; Tolstoy; Dorothy Day), just-war theory (Augustine, Aquinas), and various positions in between — has been worked out over two thousand years of close reading of these texts.

To read the relevant passages in other translations:

• Isaiah 2:4 — NIV →
• Matthew 5:9 — NIV →
• Matthew 10:34 — NIV →
• Deuteronomy 20 — NIV →

What this entry does not argue

The Bible contains both commanded warfare and visions of disarmament, both peacemaker blessing and the “sword” saying. The interpretive tradition has weighed them differently across centuries and communities. This entry documents the textual tension; it does not adjudicate it.