Foremost the Antichrist will employ violence for his evil ends.
The Apocalypse, the Book of the Revelation: 13.
Rv:13:
1 ¶ (12-18) And he stood upon the sand of the sea. (13-1) And I saw a beast [1] coming up out the sea, having seven heads and ten horns: and upon his horns, ten diadems: and upon his heads, names of blasphemy. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 11:7!; Dan.: 7:3; Rev.: 12:3; 17:3
2 And the beast which I saw was like to a leopard: and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his own strength and great power. … Scripture reference –
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were slain to death: and his death’s wound was healed. And all the earth was in admiration after the beast. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 13:12; 17:8
4 And they adored the dragon which gave power to the beast. And they adored the beast, saying: Who is like to the beast? And who shall be able to fight with him? … Scripture reference – Rev.: 13:12; 17:8
5 And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies: and power was given to him to do, two and forty months.
6 And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name and his tabernacle and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe and people and tongue and nation. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 11:7!; 12:17
8 And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb which was slain from the beginning of the world. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 17:8; 20:15!; 21:27; Ps.: 68:29!; Rev.: 14:12
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 2:7!
10 He that shall lead into captivity shall go into captivity: he that shall kill by the sword must be killed by the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. [2] … Scripture reference – Jer.: 43:11; Mt.: 26:52; Rev.: 14:12
Jer.: 43:11 And he shall come and strike the land of Egypt: such as are for death, to death: and such as are for captivity, to captivity: and such as are for the sword, to the sword.
Meaning: Those who lead into captivity will be lead into an even greater captivity that cannot be escaped and those who live by the sword will be killed by the sword. Christians are NOT called to this.
Blessedness of the Saints
Apocalypse 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints, who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 13:10; 2:13!; 12:17!; Sir.: 2:21 13 ¶ And I heard a voice from heaven, saying to me: Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. From henceforth [4] now, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours. For their works follow them. … Scripture reference – IV Esr.:7:35
The Justice of God: He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.
Luke 22:
35 When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, did you want anything?
36 But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword [machairan in Greek; which is unequivocally a sword].
Self defense and defense of our own property is allowed.
Serving a military or any agency which is employed in the wars of aggression of the Antichrist is NOT allowed.
Final word on the subject of military service from the Church Fathers is from Tertullian:
"But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith, even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments. There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters--God and Caesar. And yet Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action."
See below for those who would try to make their way around Our Lord's admonitions and for sources on what St. Polycarp actually said.
Faith Defenders | The Early Church and War
The Early Church and War
The early church’s beliefs about war have become a source of heated debate. Pacifists have dogmatically stated that all the Christian leaders before Constantine rejected war as immoral and renounced the military as an occupation for any Christian. For example, Roland Bainton in Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace stated, “All of the outstanding writers of the east and of the west repudiated participation in warfare for Christians.”1 This position has also been argued by Cadoux in The Early Christian Attitude to War.
On the other hand, Protestant church historians such as Philip Schaff, Harnack, McGiffert, Moffat, Lee, Frend, and archeologists such as Sir William Ramsey have also made a special study of the early church in this regard. They have come away convinced that the pacifists have overstated their case and ignored significant evidence that Christians were involved in the military from the apostolic period to Constantine.
Protestant historians have also noted that only two, or possibly three, Church Fathers were openly opposed to Christians participating in the military. Their grounds for rejecting military life is clearly the military’s involvement with idolatry. The military required an oath and certain garments of clothing, ceremonies and symbols which were idolatrous in nature.
Protestant historians such as Philip Schaff do not see any condemnation of war per se in the writings of the early Church Fathers. There is no indication that the Church Fathers rejected a nation’s right to go to war to protect its citizens. Harnack argued this position in his Militia Christi in 1905. The argument has been brought up to date by John Helgeland in Christians and the Roman Army, a.d. 173-337.2
Roman Catholic scholars have traditionally taken a position exactly opposite the pacifists. While pacifists claim all the early writers as pacifists, the Catholics do not see any of the early writers as pacifists. This is most ably argued by Ryan in “The Rejection of Military Service by the Early Church.”3
Methodology
Having surveyed the pacifist literature on the early church, it has become increasingly clear that the pacifists’ methodology in their historical research and presentation rests on several faulty assumptions.
First, they assume that the apostolic period began with pure pacifism and that the church remained pure until Constantine. During Constantine’s reign, the church “fell” from grace. The church suddenly abandoned its pacifism and pragmatically joined the military in order to support the first Christian emperor.
This argument includes several unwarranted assumptions and ignores some important facts. Since the New Testament never condemned war per se or the Christian’s participation in the military, the Christian Church did not begin with pacifism. The New Testament carried on the Old Testament ethic of the just use of force for personal or civil defense. The apostolic age began with Christians such as Cornelius remaining in the army.
For example, none of the earliest writers, such as Polycarp (a.d. 70-155) [See at bottom of article] , uttered one word against war or against Christians participating in the military. There is no evidence that the issue of war or the Christian’s participation in the army ever occurred to the Church Fathers. They assumed that believers would remain in whatever calling or occupation they were employed in when converted.
Second, the supposed “fall” of the church from pacifism to approval of war with Constantine is a convenient myth which has no historical justification whatsoever. If the early church was committed to pacifism in principle, if they viewed war as intrinsically immoral and in conflict with Christ’s teaching, to think that all of them would change their convictions simply because a Christian emperor came on the scene is quite unbelievable. We must remember that these are the same believers who went bravely to their deaths rather than deny what they believed. That they would change their pacifist beliefs and convictions for a Christian emperor is as plausible as believing that all modern-day pacifists will abandon their position once a Christian is elected President or Prime Minister. Just as modern pacifists would not change their conviction because of the arrival of Christian leadership, neither would the early pacifists have changed their convictions for the same reason.
The pacifists’ assumption that the church “fell” with Constantine actually militates against their own position. They teach that the church changed its beliefs because there was a change of circumstances. Christians like Tertullian, who were outspoken in their rejection of Christians participating in the military, objected not because they were against war in principle or against Christians being in the military in principle, but because of the idolatrous circumstances connected with military life. As soon as Constantine changed those idolatrous circumstances, there no longer remained any reason why Christians should hesitate to be in the army.
The second methodological problem with the pacifist position is that they take statements out of context and then misapply them. For example, Polycarp applied the Old and New Testament teaching against the use of violence for personal vengeance.4 Some have seized upon this as proof that Polycarp was a pacifist. But nowhere in the context of the passage does Polycarp bring up the subject of war, Christians in the military, or whether the state has the right to maintain an army or a police force. General statements such as “do not render evil for evil, cursing for cursing,” etc., should not be illegitimately applied to national defense when the author does not make the application himself. We must remember that in the Old Testament the prophets could preach against taking personal vengeance against one’s enemies and, at the same time, encourage the nation of Israel to destroy the enemies of God. There is no inherent contradiction between denying personal vengeance and approving participation in just wars.
The third problem with the pacifists’ methodology is that they try to prove more than the evidence they present can bear. For example, pacifists declare that governments should disarm and reject all warfare, even defensive wars. Therefore, they have to show that the early Christians believed that force was unjust in principle and that all governments should disarm and reject warfare.
When pacifists seek to prove their position, they frequently overstate their case, as they do with Origen. Origen did not want Christians to be in the military because of his spiritual and heavenly view of the Christian life. Yet he recorded this prayer of his for us:
For those fighting in a righteous cause, and for the King who reigns righteously, that whatsoever is opposed to those who act righteously be destroyed.5
The same can be said of Tertullian. While it is clear that he did not want Christians to participate in the army because they would become defiled with idolatry, nowhere did Tertullian condemn the state for having an army. Neither did he condemn nations for going to war. He declared:
Without ceasing, for all our emperors, we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies….6
If Origen or Tertullian were against the use of force in principle at any time, by anyone, including the state, they would hardly be found praying for those involved in righteous wars, that their soldiers would be brave in the destruction of their enemies.
When modern pacifists seek to prove their position by stating that the early church taught pure pacifism, they are overstating the case. Nowhere did the early Fathers teach that the use of force is intrinsically and morally wrong. The most the pacifists can come up with is an argument that some Christians did not believe they could, for conscience sake, because of idolatry, be involved in the military.
The Evidence
Church historians claiming that Christians were indeed involved in military life before Constantine have drawn their evidence from several different sources.
First, we have archeological evidence found on Christian tombstone inscriptions which identify the person buried as a Christian who was in the military. At least eight of these inscriptions are clearly pre-Constantine.7
If the church was totally pacifistic, condemning all participation in military life, it seems very unlikely that the relatives of a Christian would have gone to extra work to place his rank and legion on the tombstone. If being a soldier was a mark of shame and church discipline, we would not find a Christian’s rank and the name of his legion on the tombstone.
Also, the physical presence of such Christian tombstones is undeniable evidence that Christians were involved in the army before Constantine. Sir William Ramsey, in his book Luke the Physician, comments on an inscription for a Christian soldier from Lycaonia. He argues that in a.d. 303, “it is certain that the armies of the eastern empire were largely composed of Christians.”8
The second line of evidence is found in the list of military martyrs prior to Constantine. In the very first church history, Eusebius recorded the history of many Christian soldiers who died for the faith.9
Eusebius’s list of martyrs has been expanded by Musurillo in his book The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. While some of this material is clearly questionable, most of the martyrs in the military who died before Constantine have clear historical evidence behind them.
The third source of evidence is the history of the Christian Church in Armenia. Thaddeus, one of the seventy disciples whom Jesus sent out, was the first to preach the gospel in Armenia. Later the Apostle Bartholomew himself preached there.
Under the influence of Saint Gregory, Armenia became the first Christian nation in a.d. 303. When Maxminus tried to force the Armenians to renounce Christianity in a.d. 312, the Armenians took up arms and defended their faith and freedom. They defeated the Roman army.10
Throughout Armenian history, the Christian Church has never been pacifist. They have always defended their faith with the utmost courage and steadfastness.
The fourth source of evidence is the Thundering Legion (a.d. 173). Eusebius relates that soldiers in the Melitine Legion would kneel and pray before going into battle, as was the custom of Christians.11 In a particular battle with Germans, the legion was in dire thirst. Due to the prayers of the Christian soldiers, God sent rain to refresh them while he sent lightning to confuse their enemies. The legion went on to triumph against their enemies due to the influence of the Christian soldiers.
Most pacifists simply ignore this incident or dismiss it as legendary. The defense of the historicity of the Thundering Legion has been stated by Phillip Schaff,12 J. B. Lightfoot,13 and by Frend.14
Since pagan Roman historians recount the same incident, it seems unlikely that Eusebius invented the story of the Thundering Legion.
The fifth line of argument comes from the apocryphal gospels. If the Christian Church was thoroughly pacifist in its view of Christ and the Christian life, why do we find so many accounts in the apocryphal gospels of Jesus using force to punish evildoers? For example, in The Gospel of Thomas,15 Jesus is pictured as striking people dead.16
These stories are clearly fictitious; nevertheless, their presence in the popular literature of the early church reveals that believers did not view Jesus as a pacifist.
Or again, in the apocryphal Acts of Paul, written in a.d. 185, we read of Christian soldiers who were martyred for the faith while Paul was still living in Rome.17 Christians living in a.d. 185 did not have any problems with believers being in the army. Such apocryphal works as Acts of Paul were widely read and enjoyed. This would never have happened if they were all pacifists.
Our last source of evidence is drawn from the theological writings of the early Church Fathers.
The pacifists have not been able to present one sentence from St. Clement (a.d. 30-100), Mathetes (a.d. 130), Polycarp (a.d. 155), Ignatius (a.d. 30-107), Papias (a.d. 70-155), Justin Martyr (a.d. 110-165), the epistles of Barnabus (a.d. 100), Ireneas (a.d. 120-202), the Shepherd of Hermas (a.d. 160), Tatian (a.d. 110-172), Athenagoras (a.d. 177), or Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 153-217), which in their respective contexts discuss whether war is justifiable or whether Christians can be involved in war.
The Fathers said many things dealing with personal ethics. When these statements are examined in their context, it is clear that the Father was not discussing war or the Christian’s attitude toward the military. None of the above Fathers has anything to say about war per se.
When we study the early Fathers, we find they clearly taught that Christians could be found in all walks of life, including the military life.
Clement of Alexandria wrote:
Practice husbandry, we say, if you are a husbandman; but while you till the fields, know God. Sail the sea, you who are devoted to navigation, yet call the whilst on the heavenly pilot. Has (saving) knowledge taken hold of you while engaged in military service? Listen to the commander who orders what is right. (II:200)18
If early Christians were pacifists, they surely would have stuck out in a society which used force. But the early Christian Fathers boasted that believers were not different in any way from their neighbors. In the Mathetes’ letter to Diognetus, we find:
Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity … inhabiting Greek as well as Barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has been determined and following the customs of the nations in respect of clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct. (I:26)
Since Clement assumed that Christians were in the army when he dealt with the Christian’s attitude toward various articles of clothing such as shoes, he commented:
For a man bare feet are quite in keeping, except when he is on military service. (II:267)
Before he became a heretic, Tertullian argued that Christians functioned in every level of Roman society, including the military:
We sail with you and fight with you, and till the ground with you; and in like manner we unite with you in your traffickings. (III:49)
When he was orthodox, Tertullian could pray for the armies of Rome to be brave in their protection of the empire (III:42).
Since the earliest Fathers never condemned Christians for being in the military, and they never rebuked the state for maintaining an army or a police force, the early church never condemned the use of force per se. It is no wonder that we cannot find a single instance in the early church where a Christian was refused membership or communion because he was a soldier. Nowhere do we find the teaching that Christians should desert their post.
Some view Tertullian’s and Origen’s writings as strong evidence of pacifism in the early church. Let’s take a closer look at these two men and what they wrote.
Tertullian (a.d. 160-215)
At the beginning of his ministry, Tertullian was quite orthodox in his theology. During this time he accepted the need for armies to fight righteous wars and recognized the presence of Christians in those armies (III:42, 49). After Tertullian joined the Montanist heretical movement with its ascetic view of life, Tertullian came to regard any contact with Rome as compromise with idolatry. The secular/sacred dichotomy can be found throughout Tertullian’s later works.
Fourteen years after writing the apology where he approves of Christians participating in all of life, including the military, Tertullian wrote De Corona Militis.
In De Corona Militis, Tertullian exhorted Christians to withdraw from political and military life because the clothing, wreaths, oaths, and symbols of office had their origin in idolatry. Christians were expected to withdraw from all “secular” occupations and to give themselves to spiritual works (III:93-101).
In his book on idolatry (III:73), Tertullian explains why he felt that a Christian could not be involved with Rome at any point. He preached that a Christian could not hold any public office whatsoever. It did not matter if he were the mayor of a small village or a soldier in the army. Any association with Rome was an association with Satan himself. Not once in this work or any other work does Tertullian state that war per se is evil or that governments do not have the right to maintain armies and to exercise force to protect its citizens. He is not attacking soldiers specifically. He is bitterly denouncing Christians who were involved with Rome at any point. Tertullian withdrew to a secluded monastery in Egypt and established one of the first pacifist communities.
Origen (a.d. 185-254)
Origen represented the earliest attempt to create a blend between Christianity and pagan philosophy. His many unorthodox views, such as the preexistence of the soul, led to his subsequent condemnation as a heretic by church councils.
In his reply to Celsus’ demand that Christians should fight for the emperor regardless of what idolatry may be involved, Origen answered that Christians do in fact fight for the emperor but on a heavenly and spiritual plane (IV:667, 668).
While Christians could pray and fight spiritually for the empire,
To those enemies of our faith who require us to bear arms for the Commonwealth, and to slay men, we cannot. (IV:668)
Origen believed that Christians were on a spiritual plane and should not become involved in such secular activities as war. He believed, nevertheless, that some wars were perfectly just and that it was the duty of Christians to pray that enemies of righteousness would be destroyed in such a war (IV:268). It is clear from his statements, that Origen was not a pacifist in principle because he did not believe that the use of force per se was evil.
As to Hippolytus, who said that Christians should not bear arms (V:256, Canon 14; 257, Canon 14), he did not explain why Christians should avoid military service. When he picks up the subject in his apostolic tradition (16; 10-22), he deals with it in the context of idolatry and immorality. We are not explicitly told why he felt Christians should not be involved in the military.
Cyprian made one reference that has been seized upon as proof he was a pacifist. He stated:
The hand spotted with the sword and blood should not receive communion. (V:488)
When we turn to the context for his statement concerning hands spotted with blood, we find that he was dealing with “adultery, fraud, and manslaughter.” He was discussing murder, not military service per se, or killing someone in self-defense or in a war situation.
The Councils of Arles (a.d. 314) and Nice (a.d. 325) not only produced some of the great creeds of the church such as the Nicean Creed, but they both upheld the Christian’s right to be involved in the military. They saw no controversy with believers being soldiers except when this necessarily involved idolatrous oaths or ceremonies.
St. Basil stated in a.d. 370:
Our fathers did not think that killing in war was murder. (XIV:605)
While he did not see any biblical reason or apostolic tradition for cautioning taking communion after killing in a war situation, he went on to say that perhaps it would be good for a short period to avoid communion after killing in war.
Conclusion
We have surveyed the archeological and literary evidence concerning whether Christians participated in the military before Constantine, whether or not they condemned war in principle and the state’s use of force in particular. The evidence demonstrates that Christians entered all areas of life from the beginning of the New Testament period. They did this because they viewed all areas of life as under the lordship of Christ. Christians could be found in every honorable profession from the military to that of sailors or farmers.
Only after the pagan philosophic idea of dividing life into a secular and sacred dichotomy invaded the Christian Church did we find a few writers who exhorted Christians to abandon all “secular” occupations. They felt Christians should avoid political and military life because of possible association with idolatrous practices.
Did any early Church Fathers set forth that it is intrinsically wrong for nations to use force to protect its citizens? When we turn to the evidence to see if any took this position, we find nothing. Not once is Rome called upon to disarm. Not once did Church Fathers urge nonresistance as a national policy.
Because of the idolatrous elements in the Roman army, some early Christians had a great struggle serving in the military. But once Constantine removed those idolatrous elements from military life, we do not find any other problems for Christians who desired to enter political or military professions.
This is an excerpt of When is it Right to Fight? by Robert Morey
St. Polycarp of Smyrna
The Gethsemane Blog: Tertullian on Military Service & Weapons
.jpg)
To even be involved in an organization such as the military is not acceptable for that ties a person to Caesar's kingdom and Caesar's ways instead of Christ's kingdom and ways. In the eyes of the founder of Western Theology, either one is supporting Christ's kingdom or one is supporting Caesar's kingdom in their decision to align or abstain from aligning themselves with armed state organizations such as the military.
The Apocalypse, the Book of the Revelation: 13.
Rv:13:
1 ¶ (12-18) And he stood upon the sand of the sea. (13-1) And I saw a beast [1] coming up out the sea, having seven heads and ten horns: and upon his horns, ten diadems: and upon his heads, names of blasphemy. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 11:7!; Dan.: 7:3; Rev.: 12:3; 17:3
2 And the beast which I saw was like to a leopard: and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his own strength and great power. … Scripture reference –
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were slain to death: and his death’s wound was healed. And all the earth was in admiration after the beast. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 13:12; 17:8
4 And they adored the dragon which gave power to the beast. And they adored the beast, saying: Who is like to the beast? And who shall be able to fight with him? … Scripture reference – Rev.: 13:12; 17:8
5 And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies: and power was given to him to do, two and forty months.
6 And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name and his tabernacle and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe and people and tongue and nation. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 11:7!; 12:17
8 And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb which was slain from the beginning of the world. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 17:8; 20:15!; 21:27; Ps.: 68:29!; Rev.: 14:12
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 2:7!
10 He that shall lead into captivity shall go into captivity: he that shall kill by the sword must be killed by the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. [2] … Scripture reference – Jer.: 43:11; Mt.: 26:52; Rev.: 14:12
Jer.: 43:11 And he shall come and strike the land of Egypt: such as are for death, to death: and such as are for captivity, to captivity: and such as are for the sword, to the sword.
Meaning: Those who lead into captivity will be lead into an even greater captivity that cannot be escaped and those who live by the sword will be killed by the sword. Christians are NOT called to this.
Blessedness of the Saints
Apocalypse 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints, who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 13:10; 2:13!; 12:17!; Sir.: 2:21 13 ¶ And I heard a voice from heaven, saying to me: Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. From henceforth [4] now, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours. For their works follow them. … Scripture reference – IV Esr.:7:35
The Justice of God: He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.
Luke 22:
35 When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, did you want anything?
36 But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword [machairan in Greek; which is unequivocally a sword].
Self defense and defense of our own property is allowed.
Serving a military or any agency which is employed in the wars of aggression of the Antichrist is NOT allowed.
Final word on the subject of military service from the Church Fathers is from Tertullian:
"But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith, even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments. There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters--God and Caesar. And yet Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action."
See below for those who would try to make their way around Our Lord's admonitions and for sources on what St. Polycarp actually said.
Faith Defenders | The Early Church and War
The Early Church and War
The early church’s beliefs about war have become a source of heated debate. Pacifists have dogmatically stated that all the Christian leaders before Constantine rejected war as immoral and renounced the military as an occupation for any Christian. For example, Roland Bainton in Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace stated, “All of the outstanding writers of the east and of the west repudiated participation in warfare for Christians.”1 This position has also been argued by Cadoux in The Early Christian Attitude to War.
On the other hand, Protestant church historians such as Philip Schaff, Harnack, McGiffert, Moffat, Lee, Frend, and archeologists such as Sir William Ramsey have also made a special study of the early church in this regard. They have come away convinced that the pacifists have overstated their case and ignored significant evidence that Christians were involved in the military from the apostolic period to Constantine.
Protestant historians have also noted that only two, or possibly three, Church Fathers were openly opposed to Christians participating in the military. Their grounds for rejecting military life is clearly the military’s involvement with idolatry. The military required an oath and certain garments of clothing, ceremonies and symbols which were idolatrous in nature.
Protestant historians such as Philip Schaff do not see any condemnation of war per se in the writings of the early Church Fathers. There is no indication that the Church Fathers rejected a nation’s right to go to war to protect its citizens. Harnack argued this position in his Militia Christi in 1905. The argument has been brought up to date by John Helgeland in Christians and the Roman Army, a.d. 173-337.2
Roman Catholic scholars have traditionally taken a position exactly opposite the pacifists. While pacifists claim all the early writers as pacifists, the Catholics do not see any of the early writers as pacifists. This is most ably argued by Ryan in “The Rejection of Military Service by the Early Church.”3
Methodology
Having surveyed the pacifist literature on the early church, it has become increasingly clear that the pacifists’ methodology in their historical research and presentation rests on several faulty assumptions.
First, they assume that the apostolic period began with pure pacifism and that the church remained pure until Constantine. During Constantine’s reign, the church “fell” from grace. The church suddenly abandoned its pacifism and pragmatically joined the military in order to support the first Christian emperor.
This argument includes several unwarranted assumptions and ignores some important facts. Since the New Testament never condemned war per se or the Christian’s participation in the military, the Christian Church did not begin with pacifism. The New Testament carried on the Old Testament ethic of the just use of force for personal or civil defense. The apostolic age began with Christians such as Cornelius remaining in the army.
For example, none of the earliest writers, such as Polycarp (a.d. 70-155) [See at bottom of article] , uttered one word against war or against Christians participating in the military. There is no evidence that the issue of war or the Christian’s participation in the army ever occurred to the Church Fathers. They assumed that believers would remain in whatever calling or occupation they were employed in when converted.
Second, the supposed “fall” of the church from pacifism to approval of war with Constantine is a convenient myth which has no historical justification whatsoever. If the early church was committed to pacifism in principle, if they viewed war as intrinsically immoral and in conflict with Christ’s teaching, to think that all of them would change their convictions simply because a Christian emperor came on the scene is quite unbelievable. We must remember that these are the same believers who went bravely to their deaths rather than deny what they believed. That they would change their pacifist beliefs and convictions for a Christian emperor is as plausible as believing that all modern-day pacifists will abandon their position once a Christian is elected President or Prime Minister. Just as modern pacifists would not change their conviction because of the arrival of Christian leadership, neither would the early pacifists have changed their convictions for the same reason.
The pacifists’ assumption that the church “fell” with Constantine actually militates against their own position. They teach that the church changed its beliefs because there was a change of circumstances. Christians like Tertullian, who were outspoken in their rejection of Christians participating in the military, objected not because they were against war in principle or against Christians being in the military in principle, but because of the idolatrous circumstances connected with military life. As soon as Constantine changed those idolatrous circumstances, there no longer remained any reason why Christians should hesitate to be in the army.
The second methodological problem with the pacifist position is that they take statements out of context and then misapply them. For example, Polycarp applied the Old and New Testament teaching against the use of violence for personal vengeance.4 Some have seized upon this as proof that Polycarp was a pacifist. But nowhere in the context of the passage does Polycarp bring up the subject of war, Christians in the military, or whether the state has the right to maintain an army or a police force. General statements such as “do not render evil for evil, cursing for cursing,” etc., should not be illegitimately applied to national defense when the author does not make the application himself. We must remember that in the Old Testament the prophets could preach against taking personal vengeance against one’s enemies and, at the same time, encourage the nation of Israel to destroy the enemies of God. There is no inherent contradiction between denying personal vengeance and approving participation in just wars.
The third problem with the pacifists’ methodology is that they try to prove more than the evidence they present can bear. For example, pacifists declare that governments should disarm and reject all warfare, even defensive wars. Therefore, they have to show that the early Christians believed that force was unjust in principle and that all governments should disarm and reject warfare.
When pacifists seek to prove their position, they frequently overstate their case, as they do with Origen. Origen did not want Christians to be in the military because of his spiritual and heavenly view of the Christian life. Yet he recorded this prayer of his for us:
For those fighting in a righteous cause, and for the King who reigns righteously, that whatsoever is opposed to those who act righteously be destroyed.5
The same can be said of Tertullian. While it is clear that he did not want Christians to participate in the army because they would become defiled with idolatry, nowhere did Tertullian condemn the state for having an army. Neither did he condemn nations for going to war. He declared:
Without ceasing, for all our emperors, we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies….6
If Origen or Tertullian were against the use of force in principle at any time, by anyone, including the state, they would hardly be found praying for those involved in righteous wars, that their soldiers would be brave in the destruction of their enemies.
When modern pacifists seek to prove their position by stating that the early church taught pure pacifism, they are overstating the case. Nowhere did the early Fathers teach that the use of force is intrinsically and morally wrong. The most the pacifists can come up with is an argument that some Christians did not believe they could, for conscience sake, because of idolatry, be involved in the military.
The Evidence
Church historians claiming that Christians were indeed involved in military life before Constantine have drawn their evidence from several different sources.
First, we have archeological evidence found on Christian tombstone inscriptions which identify the person buried as a Christian who was in the military. At least eight of these inscriptions are clearly pre-Constantine.7
If the church was totally pacifistic, condemning all participation in military life, it seems very unlikely that the relatives of a Christian would have gone to extra work to place his rank and legion on the tombstone. If being a soldier was a mark of shame and church discipline, we would not find a Christian’s rank and the name of his legion on the tombstone.
Also, the physical presence of such Christian tombstones is undeniable evidence that Christians were involved in the army before Constantine. Sir William Ramsey, in his book Luke the Physician, comments on an inscription for a Christian soldier from Lycaonia. He argues that in a.d. 303, “it is certain that the armies of the eastern empire were largely composed of Christians.”8
The second line of evidence is found in the list of military martyrs prior to Constantine. In the very first church history, Eusebius recorded the history of many Christian soldiers who died for the faith.9
Eusebius’s list of martyrs has been expanded by Musurillo in his book The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. While some of this material is clearly questionable, most of the martyrs in the military who died before Constantine have clear historical evidence behind them.
The third source of evidence is the history of the Christian Church in Armenia. Thaddeus, one of the seventy disciples whom Jesus sent out, was the first to preach the gospel in Armenia. Later the Apostle Bartholomew himself preached there.
Under the influence of Saint Gregory, Armenia became the first Christian nation in a.d. 303. When Maxminus tried to force the Armenians to renounce Christianity in a.d. 312, the Armenians took up arms and defended their faith and freedom. They defeated the Roman army.10
Throughout Armenian history, the Christian Church has never been pacifist. They have always defended their faith with the utmost courage and steadfastness.
The fourth source of evidence is the Thundering Legion (a.d. 173). Eusebius relates that soldiers in the Melitine Legion would kneel and pray before going into battle, as was the custom of Christians.11 In a particular battle with Germans, the legion was in dire thirst. Due to the prayers of the Christian soldiers, God sent rain to refresh them while he sent lightning to confuse their enemies. The legion went on to triumph against their enemies due to the influence of the Christian soldiers.
Most pacifists simply ignore this incident or dismiss it as legendary. The defense of the historicity of the Thundering Legion has been stated by Phillip Schaff,12 J. B. Lightfoot,13 and by Frend.14
Since pagan Roman historians recount the same incident, it seems unlikely that Eusebius invented the story of the Thundering Legion.
The fifth line of argument comes from the apocryphal gospels. If the Christian Church was thoroughly pacifist in its view of Christ and the Christian life, why do we find so many accounts in the apocryphal gospels of Jesus using force to punish evildoers? For example, in The Gospel of Thomas,15 Jesus is pictured as striking people dead.16
These stories are clearly fictitious; nevertheless, their presence in the popular literature of the early church reveals that believers did not view Jesus as a pacifist.
Or again, in the apocryphal Acts of Paul, written in a.d. 185, we read of Christian soldiers who were martyred for the faith while Paul was still living in Rome.17 Christians living in a.d. 185 did not have any problems with believers being in the army. Such apocryphal works as Acts of Paul were widely read and enjoyed. This would never have happened if they were all pacifists.
Our last source of evidence is drawn from the theological writings of the early Church Fathers.
The pacifists have not been able to present one sentence from St. Clement (a.d. 30-100), Mathetes (a.d. 130), Polycarp (a.d. 155), Ignatius (a.d. 30-107), Papias (a.d. 70-155), Justin Martyr (a.d. 110-165), the epistles of Barnabus (a.d. 100), Ireneas (a.d. 120-202), the Shepherd of Hermas (a.d. 160), Tatian (a.d. 110-172), Athenagoras (a.d. 177), or Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 153-217), which in their respective contexts discuss whether war is justifiable or whether Christians can be involved in war.
The Fathers said many things dealing with personal ethics. When these statements are examined in their context, it is clear that the Father was not discussing war or the Christian’s attitude toward the military. None of the above Fathers has anything to say about war per se.
When we study the early Fathers, we find they clearly taught that Christians could be found in all walks of life, including the military life.
Clement of Alexandria wrote:
Practice husbandry, we say, if you are a husbandman; but while you till the fields, know God. Sail the sea, you who are devoted to navigation, yet call the whilst on the heavenly pilot. Has (saving) knowledge taken hold of you while engaged in military service? Listen to the commander who orders what is right. (II:200)18
If early Christians were pacifists, they surely would have stuck out in a society which used force. But the early Christian Fathers boasted that believers were not different in any way from their neighbors. In the Mathetes’ letter to Diognetus, we find:
Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity … inhabiting Greek as well as Barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has been determined and following the customs of the nations in respect of clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct. (I:26)
Since Clement assumed that Christians were in the army when he dealt with the Christian’s attitude toward various articles of clothing such as shoes, he commented:
For a man bare feet are quite in keeping, except when he is on military service. (II:267)
Before he became a heretic, Tertullian argued that Christians functioned in every level of Roman society, including the military:
We sail with you and fight with you, and till the ground with you; and in like manner we unite with you in your traffickings. (III:49)
When he was orthodox, Tertullian could pray for the armies of Rome to be brave in their protection of the empire (III:42).
Since the earliest Fathers never condemned Christians for being in the military, and they never rebuked the state for maintaining an army or a police force, the early church never condemned the use of force per se. It is no wonder that we cannot find a single instance in the early church where a Christian was refused membership or communion because he was a soldier. Nowhere do we find the teaching that Christians should desert their post.
Some view Tertullian’s and Origen’s writings as strong evidence of pacifism in the early church. Let’s take a closer look at these two men and what they wrote.
Tertullian (a.d. 160-215)
At the beginning of his ministry, Tertullian was quite orthodox in his theology. During this time he accepted the need for armies to fight righteous wars and recognized the presence of Christians in those armies (III:42, 49). After Tertullian joined the Montanist heretical movement with its ascetic view of life, Tertullian came to regard any contact with Rome as compromise with idolatry. The secular/sacred dichotomy can be found throughout Tertullian’s later works.
Fourteen years after writing the apology where he approves of Christians participating in all of life, including the military, Tertullian wrote De Corona Militis.
In De Corona Militis, Tertullian exhorted Christians to withdraw from political and military life because the clothing, wreaths, oaths, and symbols of office had their origin in idolatry. Christians were expected to withdraw from all “secular” occupations and to give themselves to spiritual works (III:93-101).
In his book on idolatry (III:73), Tertullian explains why he felt that a Christian could not be involved with Rome at any point. He preached that a Christian could not hold any public office whatsoever. It did not matter if he were the mayor of a small village or a soldier in the army. Any association with Rome was an association with Satan himself. Not once in this work or any other work does Tertullian state that war per se is evil or that governments do not have the right to maintain armies and to exercise force to protect its citizens. He is not attacking soldiers specifically. He is bitterly denouncing Christians who were involved with Rome at any point. Tertullian withdrew to a secluded monastery in Egypt and established one of the first pacifist communities.
Origen (a.d. 185-254)
Origen represented the earliest attempt to create a blend between Christianity and pagan philosophy. His many unorthodox views, such as the preexistence of the soul, led to his subsequent condemnation as a heretic by church councils.
In his reply to Celsus’ demand that Christians should fight for the emperor regardless of what idolatry may be involved, Origen answered that Christians do in fact fight for the emperor but on a heavenly and spiritual plane (IV:667, 668).
While Christians could pray and fight spiritually for the empire,
To those enemies of our faith who require us to bear arms for the Commonwealth, and to slay men, we cannot. (IV:668)
Origen believed that Christians were on a spiritual plane and should not become involved in such secular activities as war. He believed, nevertheless, that some wars were perfectly just and that it was the duty of Christians to pray that enemies of righteousness would be destroyed in such a war (IV:268). It is clear from his statements, that Origen was not a pacifist in principle because he did not believe that the use of force per se was evil.
As to Hippolytus, who said that Christians should not bear arms (V:256, Canon 14; 257, Canon 14), he did not explain why Christians should avoid military service. When he picks up the subject in his apostolic tradition (16; 10-22), he deals with it in the context of idolatry and immorality. We are not explicitly told why he felt Christians should not be involved in the military.
Cyprian made one reference that has been seized upon as proof he was a pacifist. He stated:
The hand spotted with the sword and blood should not receive communion. (V:488)
When we turn to the context for his statement concerning hands spotted with blood, we find that he was dealing with “adultery, fraud, and manslaughter.” He was discussing murder, not military service per se, or killing someone in self-defense or in a war situation.
The Councils of Arles (a.d. 314) and Nice (a.d. 325) not only produced some of the great creeds of the church such as the Nicean Creed, but they both upheld the Christian’s right to be involved in the military. They saw no controversy with believers being soldiers except when this necessarily involved idolatrous oaths or ceremonies.
St. Basil stated in a.d. 370:
Our fathers did not think that killing in war was murder. (XIV:605)
While he did not see any biblical reason or apostolic tradition for cautioning taking communion after killing in a war situation, he went on to say that perhaps it would be good for a short period to avoid communion after killing in war.
Conclusion
We have surveyed the archeological and literary evidence concerning whether Christians participated in the military before Constantine, whether or not they condemned war in principle and the state’s use of force in particular. The evidence demonstrates that Christians entered all areas of life from the beginning of the New Testament period. They did this because they viewed all areas of life as under the lordship of Christ. Christians could be found in every honorable profession from the military to that of sailors or farmers.
Only after the pagan philosophic idea of dividing life into a secular and sacred dichotomy invaded the Christian Church did we find a few writers who exhorted Christians to abandon all “secular” occupations. They felt Christians should avoid political and military life because of possible association with idolatrous practices.
Did any early Church Fathers set forth that it is intrinsically wrong for nations to use force to protect its citizens? When we turn to the evidence to see if any took this position, we find nothing. Not once is Rome called upon to disarm. Not once did Church Fathers urge nonresistance as a national policy.
Because of the idolatrous elements in the Roman army, some early Christians had a great struggle serving in the military. But once Constantine removed those idolatrous elements from military life, we do not find any other problems for Christians who desired to enter political or military professions.
This is an excerpt of When is it Right to Fight? by Robert Morey
St. Polycarp of Smyrna
Estimated Range of Dating: 110-140 A.D.
Discuss this text on the Early Writings forum.
Text
- English Translation by J.B. Lightfoot
- English Translation by Kirsopp Lake
- Roberts-Donaldson English Translation
Resources
- Kirsopp Lake's Introduction
- Roberts-Donaldson Introduction
- The Ecole Glossary: Polycarp of Smyrna
- Handbook of Patrology: St. Polycarp and the Acts of His Martyrdom
- Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Polycarp
Offsite Links
- Greek Text of Polycarp to the Philippians from J. B. Lightfoot
- Alban Butler: St. Polycarp
- Glenn Davis: Polycarp of Smyrna
- Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
Books
- Blomfield Jackson, St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (Church History 2001)
- C. P. S. Clarke, St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp (Church History 2001)
- W. F. Adeney, Ignatius and Polycarp (Church History 2001)
- A. F. Muir, Ignatius and Polycarp: Last Links with the Apostolic Age (Church History 2001)
- J. Quasten, Didache, the Epistle of Barnabus, the Epistle and Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, the Fragments of Papius, the Epistle of Diogentus (Paulist Press 1985)
Information on Polycarp
Polycarp resided in Asia Minor as bishop of Smyrna and sent an epistle to the Philippians c. 120-140 CE. Polycarp was martyred c. 155 CE.
In Adv. Haer. V.33.4, Irenaeus describes Papias as "the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp."
Irenaeus mentions Polycarp in Adv. Haer., III.3.4.
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time, a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles, that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me? "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
Irenaeus also mentions Polycarp in his letter to Florinus.
These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak in mild terms, are not of sound doctrine; these opinions are not consonant to the Church, and involve their votaries in the utmost impiety; these opinions, even the heretics beyond the Church's pale have never ventured to broach; these opinions, those presbyters who preceded us, and who were conversant with the apostles, did not hand down to thee. For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing thyself in the royal court, and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse-his going out, too, and his coming in-his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. And I can bear witness before God, that if that blessed and apostolical presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, exclaiming as he was wont to do: "O good God, for what times hast Thou reserved me, that I should endure these things? "And he would have fled from the very spot where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. This fact, too, can be made clear, from his Epistles which he despatched, whether to the neighbouring Churches to confirm them, or to certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.
Irenaeus also mentions Polycarp in his letter to Pope Victor.
For the controversy is not merely as regards the day, but also as regards the form itself of the fast. For some consider themselves hound to fast one day, others two days, others still more, while others [do so during] forty: the diurnal and the nocturnal hours they measure out together as their [fasting] day. And this variety among the observers [of the fasts] had not its origin in our time, but long before in that of our predecessors, some of whom probably, being not very accurate in their observance of it, handed down to posterity the custom as it had, through simplicity or private fancy, been [introduced among them]. And yet nevertheless all these lived in peace one with another, and we also keep peace together. Thus, in fact, the difference [in observing] the fast establishes the harmony of [our common] faith. And the presbyters preceding Sorer in the government of the Church which thou dost now rule-I mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus, and Sixtus-did neither themselves observe it [after that fashion], nor permit those with them to do so. Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way] were peacefully disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which it was [so] observed (although such observance was [felt] in more decided contrariety [as presented] to those who did not fall in with it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church] for this matter. On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded thee, and who did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses who did observe it. And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.
Jerome provides the following summary in Illustrious Men 17.
Polycarp disciple of the apostle John and by him ordained bishop of Smyrna was chief of all Asia, where he saw and had as teachers some of the apostles and of those who had seen the Lord. He, on account of certain questions concerning the day of the Passover, went to Rome in the time of the emperor Antoninus Pius while Anicetus ruled the church in that city. There he led back to the faith many of the believers who had been deceived through the persuasion of Marcion and Valentinus, and when. Marcion met him by chance and said "Do you know us" he replied, "I know the firstborn of the devil." Afterwards during the reign of Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus in the fourth persecution after Nero, in the presence of the proconsul holding court at Smyrna and all the people crying out against him in the Amphitheater, he was burned. He wrote a very valuable Epistle to the Philippians which is read to the present day in the meetings in Asia.
The Gethsemane Blog: Tertullian on Military Service & Weapons
Tertullian on Military Service & Weapons
Tertullian (160-225 AD) is an early Christian church father from Carthage. He wrote many great works that were embraced by the Church. He is most known for being the first Christian to create a plethora of Christian writings in Latin and was given the title Father of Latin Christianity as a result. He is also well known for his apologies, writings against heresies, and his teachings on the trinity. As a result of all this he was given the title Founder of Western Theology. Though he was first rejected as a heretic the church later admitted his teachings to be orthodox.
In his writing entitled On Idolatry, Tertullian spends time discussing what type of clothing is appropriate for Christians. He teaches that certain adornments (or uniforms) that are connected to the state authorities are not appropriate for Christians because of their connection with idolatry. From this discussion he moves into the subject of military service.
"But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith, even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments. There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters--God and Caesar. And yet Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action."
What is most interesting about this quote is not the disapproval of military service for Christians, for this was a position shared by several influential early church leaders, but the reasoning for such a position. It is often taught that these leaders did not approve of military service for only two reasons. The first is it's connection to idolatry (sacrifices). The second is the demand for murderous action (capital punishments). However, Tertullian mentions that military service is forbidden for Christians even if they are serving in the military in such a way as to be disconnected from the idolatrous practices and the commands for killing. Tertullian does not allow these two factors to be his sole foundation for the teaching that military service is off limits to Christ followers.
Instead, the Founder of Western Theology states that there is more reason to abstain from military service. His central point in this exert is that a person must serve God and not Caesar. A result of this siding with God over Caesar is that a Christian can not pick up the sword for Caesar and thus military service is not appropriate. More interesting is that he assumes the arguments against his case and points them out.
Tertullian points out the argument that Moses carried a rod, Aaron wore a buckle, John the Baptizer wore leather, Joshua led a military command, and Israel went to war several times. In other words, there is violence and military action by God's people throughout the Old Testament. Tertullian admits this is true and says it's a line of argument if one really wants it to be but then he goes on to make little of it by stating that a Christian can not war or serve in military, even for the sake of peace, because Christians are not allowed weapons according to Christ. This is the third reasoning for Tertullian; Christians can't use weapons.
At this point in his argument Tertullian has not yet made clear how the Lord has taken away weapons from the Christians. He shall revisit this with detailed support momentarily.
Having entertained the argument that God's people have taken up arms before, Tertullian then enters the second argument that is often given in such a discussion. He points out the argument that John and Jesus both encountered military personnel and did not command them to step down from their office. To conquer this argument he states, while this is a true historic fact, another true historic fact is that Christ disarmed Peter after those encounters and in so doing he disarmed all believers. One could say that this argument could be teaching that it wasn't yet time for such disarming commands when all of these above mentioned things occurred in scripture. This is why violence existed in the Old Testament; the time had not yet come for God's followers to be fully disarmed outright.
While Tertullian is not necessarily arguing what I've presented above, that there was an appointed time for God's people to lay down arms, he has unmistakably argued that the rebuke of Peter came about after the interactions with the military personnel and thus there is more merit in this rebuke than in the lack thereof in the previous interactions and Christians would be wise to follow under this rebuke.
Though there are many arguments in this discussion as to why the lack of such a command to step down from military office exists, Tertullian simply rests upon the fact that Jesus' words to Peter are to be held higher than the instances in scripture which show a different attitude or strategy, for they came after the other interactions. Perhaps, within this reasoning exists the notion that Jesus is speaking to one of his followers and not a Gentile or someone who was not a serious disciple of Christ. If this is the case then Tertullian's argument gains weight.
Regardless, Tertullian is arguing , it would seem, that the later the teaching from God, the more relevant it is to the believer. This line of argument would say that if something is commanded in the Old Testament but is taught differently by Jesus then one must side with Jesus since he is the most recent revelation of God. Perhaps Tertullian is working in this vein and if this is true then it is also possible he is attempting to argue that if Jesus seems to have made room for a certain action at one point in his ministry and then taken away the room for that action later in his ministry, due to a late teaching, then one must side with the result of the later teaching.
In the mentioning of Peter being rebuked by Jesus, Tertullian has given evidence to when the Lord took the weapons away from his people. Weapons were removed from God's people in the very rebuke of Peter upon the arrest of Jesus. Tertullian writes, ". . .still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier." Clearly, Tertullian believes that this is a command not only aimed at Peter but at all believers. This is not a time or situation locked rebuke in the eyes of Tertullian but an instruction to be lived out from this moment forward by Peter and all who seek to follow the Christ who allows himself to be taken to the cross.
Even though the Father of Latin Christianity does not refer to any other scripture in this argument for his position it is difficult to see his argument clearly and not simultaneously connect it to the scriptures John 18:36 and 2 Corinthians 10:3-4.
In John 18:36 it is written, "Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.'” This scripture seems like a strong connection solely because it, like the passage out of the Gospels being referenced by Tertullian, is also within the context of Jesus needing to be arrested. Jesus' rebuke of Peter is largely existent because Peter was stopping Jesus from drinking the cup that had been given him by the Father.
.jpg)
Both of these passages can be viewed in the light that shows the purpose in the original context as well as the purpose for future context. Both can be read as true in there initial and limited context and meaning as well as in their ongoing and permanent context and meaning. In other words, what was true for Peter in that moment is also true for all believers for the rest of time. All this is grounded in the power of Christ's revelation.This is not an uncommon practice to see Old Testament scriptures used in a new light, taken from their original context and applied to an ongoing context, by the New Testament authors. It makes sense then that other early church leaders would point to teachings of Jesus and his Apostles and do the same. It seems that Tertullian may be employing this very practice.
The passage in John is worthwhile, as shall be mentioned later, but it is more plausible that Tertullian is referencing the account given in Luke's Gospel which shows Jesus boldly rebuking Peter without mention of the cup out of which he must drink. Luke 22:49-51 states, "And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, 'Lord, shall we strike with the sword?' And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, 'No more of this!' And he touched his ear and healed him." This is a high possibility since Tertullian says the Lord disarmed Peter and this passage reveals Jesus vehemently stating "No more of this!"
For Tertullian, it seems, this statement is not a command that is only momentarily relevant or applicable to Peter alone but rather a cosmic declaration for all believers. This church father is making the case that such a rebuke is for any person who would seek to arm themselves with a weapon in order to come against another person. It may be that Tertullian also had the account found in Matthew in his mind when writing these words since it records the same happening.
Matthew 26:51-53 states, "And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear.Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?" This account also contains within it a rebuke in the form of a teaching. Jesus tells Peter to put his sword back in it's sheath because everyone who takes up the sword will perish by it. This sounds close to what Tertullian is communicating.
The notion that Jesus' statement "No more of this" is a cosmic command gains legitimacy with this account from Matthew for this account contains within it a teaching that is specifically against the use of weapons. It can be debated whether Jesus is delivering a mere proverb (words of wisdom) or an actual reasoning for a cosmic command but both are plausible. This helps Tertullian's position a great, deal for now Jesus is seen to rebuke Peter's violent action by healing the enemy, saying "no more of this!", and teaching that those who take up the sword shall perish by it. By adding this final teaching, which is aimed at all humanity and not Peter and his situation alone, the Gospel's provide fertile ground for a position such as Tertullian's.
The final words of this passage are intriguing for in them Jesus mentions his lack of need for earthly weapons due to the fact that he has at his disposal a heavenly legion of angels. If it is true that Jesus has no need for earthly weapons then perhaps it is true that his followers have no true need for earthly weapons. It is possible that this is a part of Tertullian's thinking as well even though he never makes it a part of his short argument.
Tertullian makes the case that the kingdom of Caesar and the Kingdom of Christ are in opposition. In the Gospel accounts of Jesus' arrest it can be seen that the Roman soldiers who have come for Jesus came with earthly weapons in hand, to which Jesus rebukes them as well since the weapons are unnecessary.
It may be that Tertullian is trying to create a contrast in his argument that is seen in the gospel narrative but never given an explanation. In the narratives, Jesus rebukes weapons and heals while Caesar's men bring weapons. The contrast is present though not pointed out. The way of Jesus seems to be one that is weapon free while the way of Caesar seems to be to carry weapons even if they are not needed. Tertullian seems to be using this unspoken contrast in his argument. This leads to the conclusion that the entire episode of Jesus' arrest is vital to Tertullian's line of thinking, as opposed to Jesus' short rebukes alone being important to Tertullian's reasoning.
Along with this line of thinking which comes out of the gGospel witness is a statement made by Paul. 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 states, "For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds"
Just as Jesus mentions his lack of need for earthly weapons due to his legion of angels, ready to fight for his cause, so now Paul makes a similar contrast by teaching that the war being fought by Christians is not a fleshly one. Since the war is not fleshly the weapons are also not fleshly but rather they are divine. The parallelism is nigh impossible to miss, which is why it seems possible that Tertullian had this type of teaching in mind when penning his words.
It would make sense for Tertullian to say that Jesus disarmed Peter, in part, because Peter's mind was unable to grasp what the real war looked like and thus found himself using the wrong weapons in his ignorance. Jesus had previously commanded him to pray in the garden so that he would not be seduced by temptation later. Paul goes on to mention prayer as a spiritual weapon. It's not at all far fetched to think that Peter should have been waging war in the garden with prayer as opposed to against the soldiers with his blade. Tertullian never gives this explanation for his position but it seems highly likely that, had he desired to give a more in depth teaching on the matter of disarmament, he would have included this sort of thought-train since it matches his contrasts.
These scripture (Matthew 26:53 and 2 Corinthians 10:3-4) match up well with John 18:36 which was mentioned earlier. John records Jesus claiming, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." While this speaks volumes to the fact that Jesus needed to be arrested it also speaks volumes to the fact that there is a deep contrast between the ways of the world and the ways of Christ's kingdom and the way that both engage in battle. This theme of contrast in regards to war, weapons, and kingdoms is hard to overlook when one takes a strong look at Tertullian's argument and the thread in the Gospels which contain the rebuke he references for his argument.
In conclusion, for Tertullian, it seems that military office is not off limits solely because of idolatry and murderous action but because it is an organization that supports armed service and Christ has commanded his people to fall into a disarmed service of love. The two are therefore in opposition to one another for one is fighting a fleshly war with fleshly weapons and one recognizes that such a war and such means are misguided. This makes sense as to why Tertullian uses such strong contrasts in his writing between Caesar's kingdom and Christ's kingdom; the two are truly opposites.
No comments:
Post a Comment