Early Church Views of Military Service

While there have been views promoted in the Church over the centuries both for and against military service, overall the attitude had been favorable — or at least not against it.  Several years ago I posted an article about war and killing, and you might look there for a good place to start on this topic.

The Religion Analysis Service puts out a quarterly apologetics letter, titled “The Discerner.”  The first issue this year (Vol.37/No.1) has a very good article about the teachings of early Christians and war, as they relate to the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and military service.  This current post is for highlighting early teachings of the Church as examined in “The Discerner.”

To begin with, I am going to heavily cite The Discerner’s article, Jehovah’s Witnesses, War, and Neutrality, Part 5, by Steve Lagoon, along with citations he provides from early Christian sources.  My intent is to demonstrate that military service in and of itself is not taught against by the Christian faith, nor is it against God to participate in military service.  Citations from Steve Lagoon will be in blue, while citations from early sources he cites will be in maroon.

As one would suspect, the actual picture of the early Christian view toward military service is much more complicated than the simplistic and misleading picture portrayed in Watchtower literature.

Certainly, there were many Christians in the early church that did indeed oppose military involvement.  However, their reasons for resisting military service were different from the Watchtower’s view, either because they were pacifists or because they rejected the idolatrous acts that were sometimes required of soldiers.

In neither of these cases is neutrality the issue, and in fact most Christians in the early church were patriotic toward the Roman Empire.

Further, despite the impression the Watchtower seeks to create, there were in fact many Christians in the early church who not only did not object to military service, but willingly served in the Roman military. . . . 

It will be most instructive to consider a fair and comprehensive summary of the early Christian view of military involvement by Church historian Louis Swift:

There were two sides to the issue.  The most vocal and the most articulate side was pacifist.  In this school Tertullian, Origen, and the early Lactantius stand out as the most reflective and persuasive writers…they leave no doubt that for them violence of any kind is incompatible with the demands of the Christian faith.  The other side is non-pacifist . . .  It appears, then, that these examples from Scripture were being cited by some as reasons for not following a strictly pacifist line of thought, and the very fact that Tertullian speaks at length about the moral dimension of military service is evidence that the whole issue had not been settled in the Christian community.  . . .

Swift provides a balanced assessment of Tertullian’s views on military service:

He [Tertullian] is the first Church writer to wrestle with the issue of military service in a concrete way, and his attitude toward Christian participation in war is anything but sympathetic.  It is fair to say that he is the first articulate spokesman for pacifism in the Christian Church . . . If he takes a rather trenchant position against Christian participation in war, he is not always consistent on this point.  Thus, in his Apology, which was written around 197 A.D. and which is a plea for fair treatment of the Christians, a certain amount of ambiguity is create by the pride he takes in the spread of Christianity even to the camps.  . . .

Swift then provides the most telling comment from Tertullian:

Thus we [Christians] live in the world sharing with you the forum, the market, the baths, the shops, the factories, the inns, the market days and all other commercial activities.  We, no less than you, sail the sea, serve in the army, farm the land, buy and sell (42.2-3).

Christians in the Early Church Did Serve in the Roman Military

One of the greatest Church historians, Philip Schaff, summarized the period this way:

In regard to military and civil offices under the heathen government, opinion was divided. Some, on the authority of such passages as Matt.5:39 and 26:52, condemn all war as unchristian and immoral; anticipating the views of the Mennonites and Friends.  Others appealed to the good centurion of Capernaum and Cornelius of Caesarea, and held the military life consistent with a Christian profession.  The traditions of the legio fulminatrix indicates that there were Christian soldiers in the Roman armies under Marcus Aurelius, and at the time of Diocletian the numbers of Christians at the court and in civil office was very considerable.

Another highly regarded church historian, Kenneth Scott Latourette stated:

Indeed, in its earliest days the Church seems to have regarded with complacency the baptism of soldiers and not to have required them to resign from the army.  Coolness towards the enlistment of its members in the army appears to have brought no very marked embarrassment to the Church . . .  To most Christians, however, at least in the first three centuries, the ethical problem involved in military service was not an issue.

It seems that the major problem with military service during the first few centuries was the frequent requirement for Caesar worship.  In this case the individual would end up either resigning from the military (if possible) or was executed for his faith.  Steve Lagoon’s article gives two such examples:

Marinus, who was beheaded ca. 260 AD, had been in service for long enough to warrant promotion to the rank of Centurion.  The eve before his promotion a rival denounced him as being unfit for promotion due to his Christian faith.  Marinus was given the chance to recant his faith, but he refused.

Julius, another veteran legionnaire in 303 or 304 AD, was confronted with new orders from the emperor that all troops must sacrifice to pagan deities.  In a long dialogue with the prefect Maximus, Julius defended his loyalty without the need to sacrifice to idols, having served for 27 years in seven campaigns and was considered an excellent warrior, with never a fault found in him by his commanding officer.  Since Julius refused to deny his God, and refused to participate in the idol sacrifices, he was beheaded.

The point of this article is two-fold: (1) to demonstrate that the early church did not see serving in the military to be against the Christian faith, and (2) to demonstrate that the Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be trusted when it comes to teaching about military service — any more than they can be trusted with any other teachings about the Christian faith!

Some Random Good Stuff

Excellent article demonstrating biblical reasons that the sign gifts ceased with the end of apostolic age, and the damage caused by teaching otherwise.

Animated map shows the spread of Christianity and Islam over the centuries.

I’ve been fighting the idea of “races” for decades.  There is only ONE race — the HUMAN race.  This article really nails the truth of “races” to the wall.

Christians and war.

Good article to put in your “ammunition box” for rebutting skeptics and atheists.
(A reader told me this link was having problems - it was working when I posted this. If it still isn't working, try this link to archive.)

Should Christians Expose Error?

And, finally, good Christmas time apologetics.

War and Killing

Before you read this article, know that I am not opening up this topic for discussion because it can get really skewed and heated (been there, done that) and I don’t want to spend the time debating it.  I am posting this article to demonstrate what I believe Scripture says about the topics of war and killing, and to provide information for those who are berated for believing what I express here.  People disagree, but please understand that it is not an issue of apostasy or heresy to disagree on this subject.  That being said, I hope you will thoughtfully consider what I present here.

The 10 Commandments says, in KJV, “Thou shalt not kill.”   This brings the following questions:

1.  Does this mean capital punishment is wrong?

2.  Does this mean all killing is wrong?

3.  What about war?

Although the KJV translates the Hebrew word here as “kill,” the Hebrew word does not mean “kill” in general, but specifically means to “murder,” i.e., to kill someone with malicious intent with no justification.  It does not mean to kill as punishment, nor does it mean killing animals, nor does it mean killing in self-defense.  It only means “murder.”  God does not contradict Himself, and in the same law where this command was given He gives instructions for capital punishment as well as for killing animals.  Also, God leads His people into war throughout the O.T., so this could not be included in the term “kill” unless God contradicts Himself, which we know is impossible.

Capital punishment was ordained by God before the Old Covenant with Moses was established.  He established this with Noah (Gen. 9:6) and all his descendants (which means everyone on earth).  At that time the punishment of execution was reserved for murder.  In the Law given to Israel through Moses, God prescribed execution for various heinous sins as a means of purifying the nation.   These sins for which execution was mandated were in addition to the crime of murder.   All the world, as descendants of Noah, still had that command of execution for murderers.  

There is no place in the New Testament that removes or voids this command.  In Rom. 13 Paul specifically states that the government’s duty is to be the servant of God bearing His wrath of punishment on wrong-doers, and then he states that government does not bear the sword for nothing.  One final thought; although God ordained capital punishment, He also permitted grace to exempt those guilty of capital crimes.  He even had mercy on David’s adultery and murder and allowed him to live.  So, while execution is moral and legitimate as a form of punishment for murder, mercy  may be warranted for extenuating circumstances.

What about self-defense?  It was validated by God in the Law (Exod. 21:13; 22:2; Num. 35:22ff), but it was not commanded.  Self-defense is when life - not material - is in jeopardy.  Christ implied the disciples were to practice self-defense when he had them buy swords if they didn’t have them already (Luke 22:36-38).  Although some people use Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” to claim we are not to defend ourselves, the real meaning of this is for non-defense of personal insult or non-life-threatening attacks.  This “turning of the other cheek” can also be seen in Rom. 12:17-21 and 1 Pet. 3:9, and in 1 Corin. 6 in the discussion about lawsuits.

Theologians J.P. Moreland and Norman Geisler tell us that “to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong.  To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil.  To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable.  In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission.  Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.”

Now we come to the issue of war.  God used war often in the Old Testament, leading his people to war against infidels to cleanse the land.  He also used other nations to war against Israel as punishment.  In Revelation we see God using war also.  So there is not an inherent problem with the use of war; the problem becomes what it is used for.  Again, Rom. 13:1-7, as well as 1 Pet. 2:13-14, point out that the government was given the sword by God to punish wrong-doers.  On the occasions the N.T. mentions military officials they all appear favorable (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 3:14; Acts 10:1ff).  No one told the soldiers to “go and sin no more,” but in Luke and Acts instructions were given on how to do right and to be acceptable to God in their military service.

Christians have historically been on both sides of the debate.  However, in the 5^th century the theory of a “just war” was developed, and this was refined in the 13^th century.  The just war theory of the 13^th century had these requirements:

1.  Must have been declared by a legitimate authority.

2.  Have a just and grave cause, proportioned to the evils it brings about.

3.  Only be undertaken after all means of peaceful solution of the conflict have been exhausted without success.

4.  Have serious chances of success.

5.  Be carried out with a right intention.

Later Christians added the following requirements:

1.  Limited objectives

2.  Proportionate means

3.  Noncombatant immunity.

In his book, “Biblical Ethics,” Robertson McQuilkin has the following to say:  

“So we have in the New Testament the combined affirmation of government force and the lack of condemnation of those exercising that authority, supporting the overall biblical distinction between government and the private individual and the legitimate response of each to evil.  Government has a responsibility for restraining evil, protecting its citizens, and maintaining their welfare.  If it has a responsibility to protect its citizens from criminals, does it not also have the responsibility to protect them from criminal nations?  Christ’s teaching of nonresistance, if it is to be harmonized with the rest of biblical teaching on human authority, was not given to nations, police, or parents in their official capacities.  Though the data of the New Testament on the issue of the Christian’s participation in war is not direct nor abundant, the basic principles are clear: To be godlike is to make a sacrificial, loving response to maintain a no vindictive, nonresistant attitude in all personal relationships when one’s own rights are at stake; and human government is responsible, with accountability to God, to use force when necessary to assure righteous behavior for its citizenry.”

We see from Scripture that war is not inherently wrong, but that it is a responsibility given to the government for protecting against evil.

What about the use of force?  The following is from The Dust of Death by Os Guinness, which explains very well what should be the Christian point of view:

“Provided that there is a legitimate basis for its use and a vigilant precaution against its overreaction in practice, a qualified use of force is not only necessary but justifiable....Force...is the controlling discipline of truth, justice, and authority in action.  Violence...can come from one of three directions - from the maintenance of authority without a legitimate basis, from the contravention of a legitimate authority, or from the injustice of a legitimate authority overreacting as it deals with opposition or violation.... 

[O]utside the Christian framework no such distinction can be better than arbitrary.... The ideal of justice within law can only be pursued with this distinction between force and violence kept carefully in mind.  Without such distinction there can be no legitimate justification for authority or discipline of any kind, whether on a parental or on a presidential level.... There must be a legitimate basis for and a legitimate exercise of force.  No force that does not issue from justice and that is not restrained by justice can achieve justice. Outside of this there is only violence.”