This article is the third of a series on the doctrine of nonresistance, which is based on Jesus’ command to do no violence. More specifically, nonresistance is the view that even when striving for justice, Christians, unlike earthly governments, must only employ methods other than violence.
This doctrine was so named by the Anabaptists, but it is based directly in Scripture and the historic teaching of the church. An examination of the earliest Christian teachings on violence will show that the church has historically taught that we should use only nonviolent methods of achieving justice and overcoming evil.
Let me emphasize that by no means should the doctrine of nonresistance be interpreted as against secular violence or Old Testament violence. It is against Christian involvement in violence—but recognizes that the government has a right to employ violence to maintain order, as did Old Testament Israel.
For an overall discussion of the doctrine of nonresistance, as well as answers to many objections to it, see the other articles in this series.
- The first article gives an overview of violence and Christianity. It defines key terms like “nonresistance” and “violence,” and shows how the Biblical and early Christian evidence fits together. It answers many general objections to the concept of nonresistance.
- The second article discusses what the Bible teaches on violence and shows that Scripture is in full support of nonresistance for Christians.
- The third article looks at evidence from the early church and shows that the consensus of early Christian leaders was against violence for Christians.
- The fourth article discusses the leading Christian worldview which states that violence is permissible in certain circumstances, and shows it to be impoverished and unable to stand up to Scripture or reason.
The confusion
Many have tried to describe the early Christian position on violence and have come to wildly divergent conclusions.1As you can see in this article. That’s because many are looking to find that Christians held to either complete pacifism or an unambiguous acceptance of war. If you use that lens, it’s not surprising that the results would be ambiguous.
In contrast, this article will propose a nuanced position that fits all the data. I will discuss both the teaching of church leaders and the practice of lay people, while putting the most weight on what church leaders taught. That is important, because what a church teaches depends not on what lay people are doing but on what the leaders say that they ought to do.
This article will demonstrate the following points:
- Before 313, Christian leaders consistently taught that Christians should not do violence in defense, retribution, war, or in general.
- The early Christian leaders do not leave any exceptions where Christians can do violence.
- Concerning the state, the early Christian leaders consistently teach that governments may use violence as part of carrying out their duties.
- While Christian leaders taught against joining the military, some converted soldiers remained and served nonviolently, with their permission, and others served violently.
These are points 2 through 5 of my overview article, respectively.
Before 313, Christian leaders consistently taught that Christians should not do violence in defense, retribution, war, or in general.
In this section, I include quotations from fifteen or so early Christian leaders and other writers which speak clearly on the early Christian attitude toward violence. They are arranged according to the type of violence they condemn. For the most part, these quotations speak for themselves. They leave little room for doubt on the early church’s position on Christian violence.
Against Retribution
The following quotations speak against retributive violence.
“And because we may not hate, and we please God more by rendering no return for wrong, we exhort you while you have the power, while there yet remains to you something of life, to make satisfaction to God, and to emerge from the abyss of darkling superstition into the bright light of true religion. We do not envy your comforts, nor do we conceal the divine benefits. We repay kindness for your hatred; and for the torments and penalties which are inflicted on us, we point out to you the ways of salvation.” (Cyprian, Treatise 5, Address to Demetrianus 25)
“for we have learned, not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak.” (Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians 1)
“If one attempt to provoke you by manual violence, the monition of the Lord is at hand: “To him,” He saith, “who smiteth thee on the face, turn the other cheek likewise.” Let outrageousness be wearied out by your patience. Whatever that blow may be, conjoined with pain and contumely, it shall receive a heavier one from the Lord. You wound that outrageous one more by enduring: for he will be beaten by Him for whose sake you endure.” (Tertullian, Of Patience 8)
“For he who endeavours to return an injury, desires to imitate that very person by whom he has been injured. Thus he who imitates a bad man can by no means be good. . . . Now if, when provoked by injury, he has begun to follow up his assailant with violence, he is overcome. But if he shall have repressed that emotion by reasoning, he altogether has command over himself: he is able to rule himself. And this restraining of oneself is rightly named patience, which single virtue is opposed to all vices and affections.” (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 6.18)
“Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins. For it is not those that abstain from wickedness from compulsion, but those that abstain from choice, that God crowns.” (Clement of Alexandria, fragment ANF)
“For he [Paul] does not merely instance the Gnostic [in context, the most perfect Christian] as characterized by suffering wrong rather than do wrong; but he teaches that he is not mindful of injuries, and does not allow him even to pray against the man who has done him wrong. For he knows that the Lord expressly enjoined “to pray for enemies.” To say, then, that the man who has been injured goes to law before the unrighteous, is nothing else than to say that he shows a wish to retaliate, and a desire to injure the second in return, which is also to do wrong likewise himself.” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7.14)
“And their oppressors they appease (lit: comfort) and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies;” (Aristides, Apology 15)
This last statement is listed with other definitive commands of Christianity.
Against Retribution & Violence in General
The following quotations speak against retributive violence and also violence in general.
If, then, we are commanded to love our enemies (as I have remarked above), whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become just as bad ourselves. Who can suffer injury at our hands? (Tertullian, c. 197).
[Christians] do not attack their assailants in return, for it is not lawful for the innocent to kill even the guilty. (Cyprian, c. 250).
[We] have learned from [Christ’s] teaching and His laws that evil should not be repaid with evil. Rather, it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it. We would rather shed our own blood than to stain our hands and our conscience with that of another. (Arnobius, c. 305).
“For what difference is there between provoker and provoked, except that the former is detected as prior in evil-doing, but the latter as posterior? Yet each stands impeached of hurting a man in the eye of the Lord, who both prohibits and condemns every wickedness. In evil doing there is no account taken of order, nor does place separate what similarity conjoins. And the precept is absolute, that evil is not to be repaid with evil. Like deed involves like merit.” (Tertullian, Of Patience 10)
“not willingly to use force, nor to return force used against thee” (Commodianus, Instructions 48)
“Do no one an injury at any time, and provoke no one to anger. If an injury is done to you, look to Jesus Christ; and even as ye desire that He may remit your transgressions, do ye also forgive them theirs; and then also shall ye do away with all ill-will, and bruise the head of that ancient serpent, who is ever on the watch with all subtlety to undo your good works and your prosperous attainments.” (Theonas of Alexandria, To Lucianus 9)
“For since we, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another, an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature.” (Arnobius, Against the Heathen 1.6)
“If we are enjoined, then, to love our enemies, as I have remarked above, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become as bad ourselves: who can suffer injury at our hands? . . . We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you—cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum,—we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods. For what wars should we not be fit, not eager, even with unequal forces, we who so willingly yield ourselves to the sword, if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay?” (Tertullian, Apology 38)
Against Retribution & Defensive violence
The following quotations speak against both retributive and defensive violence.
[Jesus taught his disciples] “not only not to strike, but even, when themselves struck, to present the other cheek [to those that maltreated them]; and not only not to refuse to give up the property of others, but even if their own were taken away, not to demand it back again from those that took it; and not only not to injure their neighbours, nor to do them any evil, but also, when themselves wickedly dealt with, to be long-suffering, and to show kindness towards those [that injured them], and to pray for them, that by means of repentance they might be saved” (Irenaeus)
“For this reason it is that none of us, when he is apprehended, makes resistance, nor avenges himself against your unrighteous violence, although our people are numerous and plentiful. Our certainty of a vengeance to follow makes us patient. The innocent give place to the guilty; the harmless acquiesce in punishments and tortures, sure and confident that whatsoever we suffer will not remain unavenged, and that in proportion to the greatness of the injustice of our persecution so will be the justice and the severity of the vengeance exacted for those persecutions.” (Cyprian, Treatise 5, Address to Demetrianus 17)
“For we trust in the majesty of Him who has power to avenge contempt shown towards Himself, as also He has power to avenge the calamities and injuries inflicted on His servants. And therefore, when we suffer such impious things, we do not resist even in word; but we remit vengeance to God, not as they act who would have it appear that they are defenders of their gods, and rage without restraint against those who do not worship them.” (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 5.21)
Against Defensive Violence & Violence in General
The following quotations speak against defensive violence and also violence in general.
‘In like manner, as the statement is false . . . so also is this, “that in the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and became His followers;” for neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savours of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defence of the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked. For He did not deem it in keeping with such laws as His, which were derived from a divine source, to allow the killing of any individual whatever. Nor would the Christians, had they owed their origin to a rebellion, have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character as not to allow them, when it was their fate to be slain as sheep, on any occasion to resist their persecutors.’ (Origen, Against Celsus 3.7)
“Torture and piety are widely different; nor is it possible for truth to be united with violence, or justice with cruelty. . . . For religion is to be defended, not by putting to death, but by dying; not by cruelty, but by patient endurance; not by guilt, but by good faith: for the former belong to evils, but the latter to goods; and it is necessary for that which is good to have place in religion, and not that which is evil. For if you wish to defend religion by bloodshed, and by tortures, and by guilt, it will no longer be defended, but will be polluted and profaned. For nothing is so much a matter of free-will as religion; in which, if the mind of the worshipper is disinclined to it, religion is at once taken away, and ceases to exist. The right method therefore is, that you defend religion by patient endurance or by death; in which the preservation of the faith is both pleasing to God Himself, and adds authority to religion.” (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 5.20)
Since, therefore, he does injury to none, nor desires the property of others, and does not even defend his own if it is taken from him by violence, since he knows how even to bear with moderation an injury inflicted upon him, because he is endued with virtue; it is necessary that the just man should be subject to the unjust, and that the wise should be insulted by the foolish, that the one may sin because he is unjust, and the other may have virtue in himself because he is just. (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 5.23)
Against War
The following quotations speak against war.
“we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ. For that saying, “The tongue has sworn but the mind is unsworn,” might be imitated by us in this matter. But if the soldiers enrolled by you, and who have taken the military oath, prefer their allegiance to their own life, and parents, and country, and all kindred, though you can offer them nothing incorruptible, it were verily ridiculous if we, who earnestly long for incorruption, should not endure all things, in order to obtain what we desire from Him who is able to grant it.” (Justin Martyr, Apology 1.39)
“Consider the roads blocked up by robbers, the seas beset with pirates, wars scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale.” (Cyprian, Letter 1.6)
Some further quotations appear in the section on whether Christians could become soldiers.
Against War & Defensive Violence
The following quotation speaks against both war and defensive violence.
“And the Lord shall save them in that day, even His people, like sheep; . . . No one gives the name of sheep to those who fall in battle with arms in hand, and while repelling force with force, but only to those who are slain, yielding themselves up in their own place of duty and with patience, rather than fighting in self-defence.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.39)
Against War & Violence in General
The following quotations speak against war and also violence in general.
“For we do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war; since we wish the men even to be peaceable.” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4.8)
“Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? . . .
Is the laurel of the triumph made of leaves, or of corpses? Is it adorned with ribbons, or with tombs? Is it bedewed with ointments, or with the tears of wives and mothers? It may be of some Christians too; for Christ is also among the barbarians.” (Tertullian, The Chaplet, 11-12)
Against Retribution, War & Violence in General
The following quotations speak against both retributive violence and war, and also violence in general.
but from the Lord’s advent, the new covenant which brings back peace, and the law which gives life, has gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and He shall rebuke many people; and they shall break down their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and they shall no longer learn to fight.” If therefore another law and word, going forth from Jerusalem, brought in such a [reign of] peace among the Gentiles which received it (the word), and convinced, through them, many a nation of its folly, then [only] it appears that the prophets spake of some other person. But if the law of liberty, that is, the word of God, preached by the apostles (who went forth from Jerusalem) throughout all the earth, caused such a change in the state of things, that these [nations] did form the swords and war-lances into ploughshares, and changed them into pruning-hooks for reaping the corn, [that is], into instruments used for peaceful purposes, and that they are now unaccustomed to fighting, but when smitten, offer also the other cheek, then the prophets have not spoken these things of any other person, but of Him who effected them. (Irenaeus 4.34.4)
“For when God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but He warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself, nor to accuse any one of a capital charge, because it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword, since it is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all; but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal.” (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 6.20)
Implying Nonviolence
The following quotation implies the mindset of nonresistance without stating the doctrine directly.
For I have received the manifestation of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are also pleased that I do not spare myself. . . . I have great knowledge in God, but I restrain myself, lest, I should perish through boasting. . . . I therefore have need of meekness, by which the prince of this world is brought to nought. (Ignatius, to Trallians 3-4)
The early Christian leaders do not leave any exceptions where Christians can do violence.
There are no straightforward statements by early Christian leaders that leave open any room for Christian violence. Those who try to argue that the early church allowed violence have two possible arguments:
- Arguing that, since the early church believed that the government could do violence, therefore they believed that Christians in government could do violence. Of course, this doesn’t follow. The same Christians who recognized the government’s right to violence recognized that Christians should not do violence (and hence should probably not be part of the government).
- Arguing that, since there were Christians in the Roman army, therefore church leaders taught that it was okay for Christians to fight. This doesn’t follow either. Later in this article, I have an entire section devoted to this objection, so I won’t cover it here.
Everywhere, Always, By All
The early Christian leaders taught very consistently against Christian violence. None of them ever, to my knowledge, taught that violence is ever permissible for Christians. Thus, we are justified in concluding that the consensus of the pre-Constantinian church was against violence.
In fact, we could apply Vincent of Lerins’ famous statement to nonresistance—nonresistance was taught “everywhere, always, by all” before any changes were made to the faith. This is the criterion that the Eastern Orthodox employ to understand what Christians ought to believe. It’s a criterion that I think is a good one, as I note in my article on the historic faith.
Here’s a syllogistic argument that lays out this point:
- If for the first few hundred years of the Church, many Christian leaders wrote that something is wrong for Christians to do, and if it was hundreds of years before any Christian leader wrote that it was ever appropriate for Christians to do that thing, we should consider it to be wrong for Christians to do that thing.
- For the first few hundred years of the Church, many Christian leaders wrote that Christians should not use violence, and it was hundreds of years before any wrote that it was ever appropriate for a Christian to do violence.
- Therefore, we should consider it wrong for Christians to do violence.
It’s hard to see how the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches can claim the early Christians as their spiritual heritage. Those same Christian leaders clearly condemned something that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have been complicit in and which these churches today believe to be entirely appropriate.
The early Christian leaders consistently teach that governments may use violence as part of carrying out their duties.
Though Christians must not participate in violence, Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 show that God permits the state to do violence. This premise is not typically called into question, but I will include a few quotations to show that the early Christians agree.
For since man, by departing from God, reached such a pitch of fury as even to look upon his brother as his enemy, and engaged without fear in every kind of restless conduct, and murder, and avarice; God imposed upon mankind the fear of man, as they did not acknowledge the fear of God, in order that, being subjected to the authority of men, and kept under restraint by their laws, they might attain to some degree of justice, and exercise mutual forbearance through dread of the sword suspended full in their view, as the apostle says: “For he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, the avenger for wrath upon him who does evil.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.24.2)
And again, in reference to them he says, “For he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, the avenger for wrath to him who does evil.” Now, that he spake these words, not in regard to angelical powers, nor of invisible rulers— as some venture to expound the passage—but of those of actual human authorities, [he shows when] he says, “For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, doing service for this very thing.” (Irenaeus)
The vengeance which is inflicted among men upon the homicide is really as great as that which is imposed by nature. Who would not prefer the justice of the world, which, as the apostle himself testifies, “beareth not the sword in vain,” and which is an institute of religion when it severely avenges in defence of human life? (Tertullian)
It should go without saying that this function of the state means that Christians should be careful not to become too involved with the state’s activities.
Christians in the Roman Army
This consensus of church leaders is quite clear. However, the fact that there were Christians who served in the Roman army seems to complicate the early Christian position. In this section, we’ll look at the historical data surrounding Christian military service and see what it suggests for Christian nonresistance.
We’ll find that the evidence is not enough to overturn the consensus of Christian leaders which I’ve shown to have existed. The data specifically relating to Christians in the Roman army is consistent with multiple possible views, including nonresistance and some other views presented in my main article.
Since the data is consistent with multiple views, it cannot be used as an argument for any particular view. Instead, we must go by the clear, direct teaching of the church leaders when understanding what the church taught.
Here are the historical facts that each view needs to explain. In the following sections, I’ll provide evidence, typically sources, for each fact.
- There were a significant number of Christians in the Roman Army.
- Some Christians did do violence in war.
- No Christian leaders spoke favorably of military service for Christians.
- More than one Christian leader condemned joining the military.
- Many Christians abandoned military service, apparently for the reason of nonresistance.
- According to a common Christian practice, soldiers who converted to Christianity were allowed to remain in the army, but were not allowed to do violence.
- One could not easily leave the Roman army at will without incurring the death penalty.
- Not all functions of the military were violent in nature.
- Not all soldiers would have seen battle, since during this period the Roman Empire had relative peace.
There were a significant number of Christians in the Roman Army.
During the pre-Nicene period, there were enough Christians in the Roman Army that emperors took note. For example, in the early 300s, Diocletian attempted to purge the Roman Army of Christians. Of course, this incident suggests that Christians must have made up only a small minority of the army, or he would have been unlikely to do so. But it does mean that there were enough Christians in the army that he thought they were having a deleterious effect.
Eusebius writes of a legion that was known for the Christians in it:
It is reported that Marcus Aurelius Cæsar, brother of Antoninus, being about to engage in battle with the Germans and Sarmatians, was in great trouble on account of his army suffering from thirst. But the soldiers of the so-called Melitene legion, through the faith which has given strength from that time to the present, when they were drawn up before the enemy, kneeled on the ground, as is our custom in prayer, and engaged in supplications to God.
This was indeed a strange sight to the enemy, but it is reported that a stranger thing immediately followed. The lightning drove the enemy to flight and destruction, but a shower refreshed the army of those who had called on God, all of whom had been on the point of perishing with thirst.
This story is related by non-Christian writers who have been pleased to treat the times referred to, and it has also been recorded by our own people. By those historians who were strangers to the faith, the marvel is mentioned, but it is not acknowledged as an answer to our prayers. But by our own people, as friends of the truth, the occurrence is related in a simple and artless manner.
Among these is Apolinarius, who says that from that time the legion through whose prayers the wonder took place received from the emperor a title appropriate to the event, being called in the language of the Romans the Thundering Legion. (Church History 5.5)
Apparently, if this story is true, there were multiple soldiers in a particular Roman legion who were Christians and prayed to God for deliverance, and God delivered them nonviolently. It’s unclear how many Christians were in this legion, but Eusebius seems to think it was a significant number.
So there were a lot of Christians in the army. However, we shouldn’t overestimate the number. Christians in the military were probably over-reported, since the army was a place where clashes between the authorities and Christianity were bound to happen. Pretty much all of the individual soldiers whose stories are recorded were martyrs.
Conclusion: Absent any kind of reflection or context, this fact would seem to provide evidence against nonresistance. However, we will withhold judgment until some contexualizing facts are in.
Some Christians did do violence in war.
There are almost no pre-Nicene examples of Christians who actually did violence in war. However, there is at least one. Julius the Veteran was a Christian soldier who was executed for not sacrificing to the Roman gods. In his defense, he said,
In all the twenty-seven years in which I made the mistake, so it appears, to serve foolishly in the army, I was never brought before a magistrate either as a criminal or a trouble-maker. I went on seven military campaigns, and never hid behind anyone nor was I the inferior of any man in battle. My chief never found me at fault.2Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972, 261, https://archive.org/details/actsofchristianm0000musu/
Clearly Julius is proud of having been a good fighter in battle. This shows that at least one, and probably more than one, Christian did violence in war.
Of course, this is entirely consistent with nonresistance, since lay Christians have disobeyed Christian doctrine from the very beginning. One should always side with the leaders who knew the ins and outs of Scripture and tradition, rather than with a lay person who may not have been properly catechized or might be in disobedience.
Conclusion: This is consistent with all views on the subject, including nonresistance.
More than one Christian leader condemned joining the military.
Given the early Christian attitude toward violence, including war, it is only to be expected that the early Christian leaders would have taught that Christians must not join the military. And in fact, this is what we find:
“¹⁹If a catechumen or a believer seeks to become a soldier, they must be rejected, for they have despised God.” (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 16)
“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 Cæsar. . . . 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.” (Tertullian, On Idolatry 19)
Origen, in his dialogue with Celsus, did not precisely condemn joining the military, but he does so obliquely by defending the Christians for refusing to join the military.
In the next place, Celsus urges us “to help the king with all our might, and to labour with him in the maintenance of justice, to fight for him; and if he requires it, to fight under him, or lead an army along with him.” To this our answer is, that we do, when occasion requires, give help to kings, and that, so to say, a divine help, “putting on the whole armour of God.” And this we do in obedience to the injunction of the apostle, “I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority;” and the more any one excels in piety, the more effective help does he render to kings, even more than is given by soldiers, who go forth to fight and slay as many of the enemy as they can. And to those enemies of our faith who require us to bear arms for the commonwealth, and to slay men, we can reply: “Do not those who are priests at certain shrines, and those who attend on certain gods, as you account them, keep their hands free from blood, that they may with hands unstained and free from human blood offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods; and even when war is upon you, you never enlist the priests in the army. If that, then, is a laudable custom, how much more so, that while others are engaged in battle, these too should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their hands pure, and wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are fighting in a righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously, that whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be destroyed!” And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them. And we do take our part in public affairs, when along with righteous prayers we join self-denying exercises and meditations, which teach us to despise pleasures, and not to be led away by them. And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight under him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army—an army of piety—by offering our prayers to God.” (Origen, Against Celsus 8.73)
Was the Christian concern about violence?
As an objection to this point, some have argued that the early Christian condemnation of war was not a concern about violence. They claim that Christians were concerned about the risk of being required to worship false gods.
It’s indeed true that the early Christians were concerned about worshiping false gods. But it would be fallacious to assert that, just because that was one of their concerns, it must have been their only concern.
I have bolded several statements in the quotations above that show that violence was indeed a concern. Furthermore, in multiple subsections above, I quoted early Christian leaders who condemned the violence of war.
Conclusion: Consistent with nonresistance. This point is not really consistent with most other positions; however, poses the same problem for the other views that previous sections have already posed, so I will pass over this point.
No Christian leaders spoke favorably of military service for Christians.
Some have argued that the way Christian leaders discussed military service meant that they were okay with violence in war. Is that the case? Let’s see the relevant quotes below:
“But for a man bare feet are quite in keeping, except when he is on military service.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 2.12)
Practise husbandry, we say, if you are a husbandman; but while you till your fields, know God. Sail the sea, you who are devoted to navigation, yet call the whilst on the heavenly Pilot. Has knowledge taken hold of you while engaged in military service? Listen to the commander [in context, God], who orders what is right. (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 10)
Since military violence never comes up in these quotes, they don’t help us in understanding the Christian attitude toward violence. The best that can be said for them is that they don’t specifically argue that Christian men should not be in the military. Such ambiguous quotes certainly can’t outweigh the clear and direct evidence I’ve already provided.
“We sail [navigamus] with you, and fight [militamus] with you, and till the ground [rusticamur] with you; and in like manner we unite with you in your traffickings [mercatus]—even in the various arts [artes] we make public property of our works for your benefit.” (Tertullian, Apology 42, Latin here)
From what I can tell, the word translated “fight” simply means “serve as soldier, perform military service, serve in the army.”3From here Furthermore, we know that in other places Tertullian speaks against military violence. It’s quite possible that Tertullian didn’t mind his precise meaning for the term being ambiguous, since he was writing to the Roman authorities in order to encourage them not to judge Christians. If he could technically say that they performed military service, that would look good for the Christians, even though he quietly knew that they never encouraged anyone to do so and would have condemned any violent military service.
I conclude that none of these Christian leaders encouraged military service; they simply made use of the fact that there were Christians in the military to make the points they wanted to make. I am aware of no pre-Constantinian Christian leader who was in favor of Christians joining the military.
Conclusion: Consistent with nonresistance. But this is also consistent with other views, since there were other reasons not to be a soldier besides nonresistance.
Many Christians abandoned military service, apparently for the reason of nonresistance.
Tertullian says that “many” soldiers who became Christians abandoned the military:
Of course, if faith comes later, and finds any preoccupied with military service, their case is different, as in the instance of those whom John used to receive for baptism, and of those most faithful centurions, I mean the centurion whom Christ approves, and the centurion whom Peter instructs; yet, at the same time, when a man has become a believer, and faith has been sealed, there must be either an immediate abandonment of it, which has been the course with many; or all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to in order to avoid offending God, and that is not allowed even outside of military service; or, last of all, for God the fate must be endured which a citizen-faith has been no less ready to accept. (Tertullian, The Chaplet 11)
Another early Christian document records the story of soldiers who became Christians and abandoned the military:
“And those soldiers were filled with wonder and admiration at the grandeur of the man’s piety and munificence, and were struck with amazement, and felt the force of this example of pity; so that very many of them were added to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, and threw off the belt of military service, while others withdrew to their camp, taking scarcely a fourth part of the ransom, and the rest made their departure without receiving even so much as would defray the expenses of the way.” (Disputation of Archelaus and Manes 1)
There are also the cases of at least three individual martyrs who seem to have left the military ultimately because of nonresistance. The next sections will discuss their stories.
Marinus
In the mid-200s, a soldier named Marinus was to be recognized for his military deeds, but was accused of being a Christian. The judge allowed him three hours for reflection, after which he would be put to death for not sacrificing to the emperors.
When he came out from the tribunal, Theotecnus, the bishop there, took him aside and conversed with him, and taking his hand led him into the church. And standing with him within, in the sanctuary, he raised his cloak a little, and pointed to the sword that hung by his side; and at the same time he placed before him the Scripture of the divine Gospels, and told him to choose which of the two he wished. And without hesitation he reached forth his right hand, and took the divine Scripture. “Hold fast then,” says Theotecnus to him, “hold fast to God, and strengthened by him mayest thou obtain what thou hast chosen, and go in peace.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.15)
Note that a lay Christian was comfortable killing soldiers in battle, but a bishop “conversed with him” and had him choose between the sword and Scripture. It is interesting that the bishop didn’t pose the contradiction as being between sacrificing to the emperors (which Marinus was condemned for not doing) and Scripture, but between the sword and Scripture. This may indicate that the bishop helped Marinus to understand that violence was wrong for a Christian and that he could no longer serve actively in the military—thereby sealing his doom. It is not perfectly clear, but in any case, this passage seems more to be expected given nonresistance than otherwise.
Maximilian
One Christian, who was drafted into the Roman military, refused even to join. He repeatedly said that he couldn’t serve in the military because he was a Christian. He didn’t say precisely what his reason was, but gave what could be a hint that violence was a factor:
‘What wrong do they commit,’ said Dion [the proconsul], ‘who serve in the army?’
Maximilian replied: ‘Why, you know what they do.’4Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972, 245–249, https://archive.org/details/actsofchristianm0000musu/
Of course, the whole point of what soldiers do is commit violence. Still, it is possible Maximilian didn’t intend to be condemning violence.
Marcellus
The intention of the martyr Marcellus is a little more clear. He was a centurion who publicly threw down his military belt at a pagan festival, declaring that he could not serve the emperor or worship false gods. When on trial he was asked whether he threw down his weapons. He replied,
Yes, I did. For it is not fitting that a Christian, who fights for Christ his Lord, should fight for the armies of this world.5Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972, 250–259, https://archive.org/details/actsofchristianm0000musu/
Note that other versions exist, one of which in particular makes it even stronger: “it was not seemly that a Christian man, who renders military service to the Lord Christ, should render it (also) by (inflicting) earthly injuries” (ECAW 152, quoting from Ruinart 344)
Conclusion: Consistent with nonresistance. But this is also consistent with other views, since there were other reasons not to be a soldier besides nonresistance.
According to a common Christian practice, soldiers who converted to Christianity were allowed to remain in the army, but were not allowed to do violence.
Hippolytus records an earlier Christian practice of allowing converted soldiers to remain in the army, as long as they refused to kill or take oaths:
“¹⁷A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath; if he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected. ¹⁸A military commander or civic magistrate that wears the purple must resign or be rejected. ¹⁹If a catechumen or a believer seeks to become a soldier, they must be rejected, for they have despised God.” (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 16)
Tertullian also expresses acceptance for converted soldiers who remained in the army, though he pointed out that “all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to in order to avoid offending God,” and that their martyrdom was fairly likely.
Of course, if faith comes later, and finds any preoccupied with military service, their case is different, as in the instance of those whom John used to receive for baptism, and of those most faithful centurions, I mean the centurion whom Christ approves, and the centurion whom Peter instructs; yet, at the same time, when a man has become a believer, and faith has been sealed, there must be either an immediate abandonment of it, which has been the course with many; or all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to in order to avoid offending God, and that is not allowed even outside of military service; or, last of all, for God the fate must be endured which a citizen-faith has been no less ready to accept. Neither does military service hold out escape from punishment of sins, or exemption from martyrdom. Nowhere does the Christian change his character.” (Tertullian, The Chaplet 11)
Clement of Alexandria, in the following quotation, seems to assume that if a soldier was a Christian, he must have become so after having joined the military, not before:
Practise husbandry, we say, if you are a husbandman; but while you till your fields, know God. Sail the sea, you who are devoted to navigation, yet call the whilst on the heavenly Pilot. Has knowledge taken hold of you while engaged in military service? Listen to the commander [in context, God], who orders what is right. (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 10)
Conclusion: Consistent with nonresistance. But this is also consistent with other views, since there were other reasons not to be a soldier besides nonresistance.
One could not easily leave the Roman army at will without incurring the death penalty.
Although I am not familiar with the primary source evidence on this point, it seems generally agreed that it was very difficult to leave the Roman army at will. Soldiers who deserted, not intending to return, were put to death.6https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2016/07/the-crime-of-desertion-in-roman-law/, https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/article/legal-status-recruitment-service-relations-of-soldiers-in-roman-army/
As far as I can tell, the only ways that one could leave the army without incurring the death penalty were
- To be a general
- To have served 25 years
- If the emperor ordered you to leave, such as in the time of Diocletian
Thus, most Christians would not have been able to leave without being executed; their best chance would have been to stay in the army as long as possible without disobeying Christ.
Conclusion: Of course, this is consistent with all views. It is important to note, however, that this point, as well as the next one, makes the fact of Christians in the military consistent with nonresistance.
Not all functions of the military were violent in nature.
The military was not just an organ of war, but did quite a few other activities as well. Many Roman soldiers would have filled roles such as cleaning camp, constructing and repairing buildings, supervising mines, building roads, improving land, filling out paperwork, carrying messages, policing, supervising traffic and collecting tolls.7Davies, R. W. (1967) Peace-time routine in the Roman army. Doctoral thesis, Durham University, pp. 183, 445–461, 467, 522, 540, 542. This source discusses the primary source evidence. Also see https://historycooperative.org/the-roman-army/
This suggests that some converted soldiers would have been able to serve in noncombatant roles.
Conclusion: Of course, this is consistent with all views. It is important to note, however, that this point, as well as the previous one, makes the fact of Christians in the military consistent with nonresistance.
Not all soldiers would have seen battle, since during this period the Roman Empire had relative peace.
It seems generally agreed that not all Roman soldiers would have needed to fight in battle. However, although I hunted for primary source evidence on this point, I was unable to find any.
“There were many times when a soldier must have joined his legion or auxiliary cohort or ala and seen little if any warfare during his quarter of a century in the armed forces; the history of Britain, for example, in the second century is very turbulent, but literature, epigraphy, and archaeology show little evidence for large scale fighting after the Severan reorganisation.”8Davies, R. W. (1967) Peace-time routine in the Roman army. Doctoral thesis, Durham University.
[S]erving in the army involved the possibility of warfare, though the likelihood of a soldier experiencing violence varied—some border provinces along the Rhine and Danube were always ripe for violence, while troops stationed in Egypt or Africa might have enjoyed relatively peaceful careers for much of the imperial era.9 https://ancientromelive.org/christians-the-roman-army/
I welcome primary source evidence on this point, if you know of any, since it seems to be a fairly significant point.
Conclusion: Of course, this is consistent with all views. It is important to note, however, that this point, as well as the previous two, makes the fact of Christians in the military consistent with nonresistance.
Conclusion
I conclude that, given the evidence as a whole, nonresistance is consistent with the historical evidence about Christians in the Roman army. The evidence on this particular point is also consistent with other views, so one can’t argue from this data to any particular view.
Thus, when trying to understand the early Christian view of violence, we will need to look at the teachings of church leaders, which are much more clear and consistent. We can’t go by the historical evidence surrounding the Roman army.
Explaining the Shift
The evidence for the pre-Constantinian Christian view of violence is quite clear. The doctrine of nonresistance best explains the facts surrounding Christian teaching and practice. However, in this section I’ll discuss a possible problem with nonresistance.
Perhaps the most surprising fact about nonresistance in the early church was that it ceased to be taught. For hundreds of years, it was considered an essential element of Christianity. But in the A.D. 300s, the doctrine faded away relatively quickly.
If we knew of no reasons for the apparent shift that happened in Christianity, we might wonder whether nonresistance was actually a central belief of the apostolic faith. Of course, the evidence is so strong as to leave virtually no room for doubt—even if we had no understanding of how or why the Christian view changed, we could know that it did change. Still, such a large change would seem strange without knowing how or why it came about.
In this section, I will suggest how we can answer the how and why question. I’ll lay out the steps that the church took so that they could preach one thing before Constantine and quite another thing after him.
- The powerful (and violent) Roman Empire changed from being the worst enemy of Christianity to being its best friend. This set Christian leaders up to be okay with fudging a few things in order to remain supported rather than persecuted. As another article argues, we would expect certain changes to occur.
- It would not be surprising to find that, because of the pressure to conform to the Empire, Christian leaders became quiet on the subject of violence for a while. First they would stop actively teaching that soldiers couldn’t fight, but at first they wouldn’t immediately encourage war. This seems borne out by the sources I’ve seen so far.
- Since Christians had always believed that God ordains the state to do violence (as I’ve shown above), that particular belief wouldn’t have needed to change. In order to become good Romans, Christians merely needed to reason that they were simply helping their country do its proper function. Jesus would surely be okay with that.
- Christian leaders could then start to distinguish between war and murder, a distinction not present before in Christianity, and say that “good” wars were okay.10Cf. Basil: “Homicide in war is not reckoned by our Fathers as homicide; I presume from their wish to make concession to men fighting on behalf of chastity and true religion. Perhaps, however, it is well to counsel that those whose hands are not clean only abstain from communion for three years.” (Letter 188.13) Note that even so, soldiers had to refrain from communion for three years after killing someone.
- In this milieu of change, there would still be a few Christians who held to the original teaching, and they wouldn’t be treated as harshly, because the nonresistant mindset had not yet completely vanished. A good example of this is (St.) Martin, who left the Roman army because he was conscientiously opposed to violence.
Each step of this progression builds on the previous one. Historical data can be found to support some of these steps and the others make sense from what we know of history. Even after these steps took place there were strands of nonresistance in the church. Thus, this shift makes quite a bit of sense from what we know of history. Incredulity as to the idea that such a change could happen is not a compelling argument against nonresistance, since the data cited here provides no evidence against our view and some supporting evidence for it.
Nonresistance is the consensus of the early church.
I conclude that the universal consensus of the pre-Constantinian church was the doctrine of nonresistance. The evidence is incontrovertible. All the evidence supports this view, and none of the other views on violence can explain all the evidence. The consensus of the early church was that violence is never permissible for Christians.
- 1As you can see in this article.
- 2Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972, 261, https://archive.org/details/actsofchristianm0000musu/
- 3
- 4Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972, 245–249, https://archive.org/details/actsofchristianm0000musu/
- 5Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972, 250–259, https://archive.org/details/actsofchristianm0000musu/
Note that other versions exist, one of which in particular makes it even stronger: “it was not seemly that a Christian man, who renders military service to the Lord Christ, should render it (also) by (inflicting) earthly injuries” (ECAW 152, quoting from Ruinart 344) - 6
- 7Davies, R. W. (1967) Peace-time routine in the Roman army. Doctoral thesis, Durham University, pp. 183, 445–461, 467, 522, 540, 542. This source discusses the primary source evidence. Also see https://historycooperative.org/the-roman-army/
- 8Davies, R. W. (1967) Peace-time routine in the Roman army. Doctoral thesis, Durham University.
- 9
- 10Cf. Basil: “Homicide in war is not reckoned by our Fathers as homicide; I presume from their wish to make concession to men fighting on behalf of chastity and true religion. Perhaps, however, it is well to counsel that those whose hands are not clean only abstain from communion for three years.” (Letter 188.13) Note that even so, soldiers had to refrain from communion for three years after killing someone.