Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 7
He argues there is “no just war teaching in the Old Testament… none,” and says the Old Testament wars are about God’s judgment rather than guidelines for modern nations; what parts of that claim feel persuasive to you, and what parts feel like they create new problems you don’t know how to solve?
Another way to ask: Dean says the Old Testament wars show God’s judgment, not rules for today’s nations. What about that seems convincing to you, and what new questions does it leave you stuck with?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Based on the transcript, the persuasive part is Dean’s insistence that Scripture never presents a general “just war” framework for modern nations; instead, the Old Testament wars function as specific acts of God’s judgment and require precise obedience to God’s voice. The unresolved problems the transcript leaves include how to apply this to modern state responsibility and how Christians should live within nations that still use force.
- Dean states repeatedly: “There is no just war teaching in the Old Testament… none… period.”
- He says the closest text is Deuteronomy 20, but claims it would be “embarrassingly” misused as a modern just-war guide.
- He frames OT wars as “the judgment of God being brought down upon a certain group of people,” teaching about “the character of God and… judgment.”
- He adds: “There is no just war teaching in the New Testament… [and] no just war teachings for 300 years… until… Augustine.”
- He uses Saul as an example of OT emphasis: obedience to God’s specific command (“he did not execute everyone… he was supposed to”).