Early Church writers on Christians being in the Military...

I post this, in response to someone asking me about what I think about Christians serving in the military. I submit material on this site to challenge us to think through our manner of living, look at the gospels, study Jesus and hopefully bring our lives into alignment with the truth and way of Jesus. Each of us as to figure out that path for ourselves. I am trying to do that...and I don't have all the answers...but I am searching. In that search, I need to be willing to read and study historical positions, contrary opinions and the testimonies of those who are in the military, have served or have chosen not to join. It's not an easy endeavor...avoiding it would save me a lot of trouble. But I feel a particular purpose in it all that I cannot escape...so I continue to press on and attempt to live into the message of peace. I know posts like this will either help or hurt...I only hope that the Spirit will guide that process for His own purposes and glory.


-ARNOBIUS (300 A.D.)
"Addressing himself to the pagans, he says: "Since We...(christians) have received (it) from his (Christ’s) teachings and laws, that evil ought not to be repaid with evil, that it is better to endure a wrong than to inflict (it), to shed one’s own (blood) rather than to stain one’s hands and conscience with the blood of another, the ungrateful world has long been receiving a benefit from Christ...But if absolutely all...were willing to lend an ear for a little while to his healthful and peaceful decrees, and would not, swollen with pride and arrogance, trust to their own senses rather than to his admonitions, the whole world would long ago have turned the uses of iron to milder works and be living in the softest tranquillity, and would have come together in healthy concord...’

CYPRIANUS (250 A.D.):
"Homicide is a crime when individuals commit it, (but) it is called a virtue, when it is carried on publicly.

IRENAEUS (180 A.D.)
"For the Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight

JUSTINUS (150 A.D.)
"Justinus told the Emperors that the Christians were the best allies and helpers they had in promoting peace, on the ground that their belief in future punishment and in the omniscience of God provided a stronger deterrent from wrongdoing than any laws could do." "We who hated and slew one another, and because of (differences in) customs would not share a common hearth with those who were not of our tribe, now, after the appearance of Christ, have become sociable, and pray for our enemies, and try to persuade those who hate (us) unjustly, in order that they, living according to the good suggestions of Christ, may share our hope of obtaining the same (reward) from God who is Master of all." "And we who formerly slew one another not only do not make war against our enemies, but, for the sake of not telling lies or deceiving those who examine us, we gladly die confessing Christ."

JUSTIN MARTYR (150 A.D.)
"That the prophecy is fulfilled, you have good reason to believe, for we, who in times past killed one another, do not now fight with our enemies."26 "We, who had been filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have each one-all the world over-changed the instruments of war, the swords into plows and the spears into farming implements, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, love for men, faith, (and) the hope which is from Father Himself through the Crucified One."

LACTANTIUS (300 A.D.)
"Lactantius also, in his Divine Institutes, again and again alludes to the prevalence of war as one of the greatest blots on the history and morals of humanity. Speaking of the Romans, he says: ‘Truly, the more men they have afflicted, despoiled, (and) slain, the more noble and renowned do they think themselves; and, captured by the appearance of empty glory, they give the name of excellence of their crimes...If any one has slain a single man, he is regarded as contaminated and wicked, nor do they think I right that he should be admitted to this earthly dwelling of the gods. But he who has slaughtered endless thousands of men, deluged the fields with blood, (and) infected rivers (with it), is admitted not only to a temple, but even to heaven.’ "In criticizing the definition of virtue as that which puts first the advantages of one’s own country, (he says): ‘All which things are certainly not virtues, but the overthrowing of virtues. For, in the first place, the connection of human society is taken away; for justice cannot bear the cutting asunder of the human race, and wherever arms glitter, she must be put to flight and banished...For how can he be just, who injures, hates, despoils, kills? And those who strive to be of advantage to their country (in this way) do all these things.’ "If God alone were worshipped, there would not be dissentions and wars; for men would know that they are sons of the one God, and so joined together by the sacred and inviolable bond of divine kinship; there would be no plots, for they would know what sort of punishments God has prepared for those who kill living beings."28 "And so it will not be lawful for a just man to serve as a soldier-for justice itself is his military service-... And so, in this it is always wrong to kill a man whom God has wished to be a sacrosanct creature."29 "There cannot be a thousand exceptions to God’s commandments: Thou shalt not kill. No arm save truth should be carried by Christians."

ORIGENES (240 A.D.)
This great Alexandrian scholar took occasion to defend early Christian pacifism in his rebuttal to "A True Discourse," which was a attack on he Christian community by the heathen philosopher Celsus, written in 178 A.D. Arguments of Celsus: "Towards the close of his treatise, Celsus dealt with the customary refusal of the Christians to serve in the Imperial legions and to hold public office. He was concerned for the safety of the Empire in the face of the attacks of the barbarian tribes of central Europe. And, indignant though he was at what he regarded as the selfish lack of patriotism on the part of the Christians, he mingled appeals with his reproaches, and begged them to abandon their fanaticism and take their share in the common task of defending the civilization of the Empire from destruction."32 "(Celsus) not only exhorts the Christians to take part in civil government, but ‘urges us to help the Emperor with all (our) strength, and to labor with him (in maintaining) justice, and to fight for him and serve as soldiers with him, if he requires (it), and to share military command (with him).’" Reply to Celsus by Origenes. First, in replying to the objection that, if all did the same as the Christians, the Emperor would be deserted, and the Empire would fall a prey to the barbarians, Origenes says: "On this supposition" (that all did the same as himself and took no part in war...) "the Emperor would not be left alone or deserted, nor would the world’s affairs fall into the hands of the most lawless and savage barbarians. For if, as Celsus says, a; ; were to do the same as I do, clearly the barbarians also, coming to the Word of God, would be most law-abiding and mild; and every religious worship would be abolished, and that alone of the Christians would hold sway, the Word ever taking possession of more (and more) souls." "How much more (reasonable it is that), when others are serving in the army, these (Christians) should do their military service as priests and servants of God...And we, (in) putting down by our prayers all demons-those who stir up warlike feelings...and disturb the peace-help the Emperors more than those, who, to all appearance, serve as soldiers. We labor with (him) in the public affairs-(we) who offer up prayers with righteousness...And we fight for the Emperor more (than others do:) we do serve as soldiers on his behalf, training a private army of piety by means of intercessions to the Deity."33 "It is noteworthy that both Celsus and Origenes write here as if the refusal to serve in the army was not the universal attitude of the Christians. We know that this was not quite the case...(after 170 A.D.). Still the language of these two writers is significant as showing what, at both their dates (178 and 248 A.D.) was understood by well-informed persons to be the normal Christian view and practice."34 "Origenes happily lays great stress on the positive service which he claims is diviner, more needful, and more effective than that of the soldier or magistrate...Of this service, he specifies two forms: (a) Intercessory prayer, which he rightly regards as exceedingly effective when coming from Christians: this prayer is that the Emperor and those associated with him may be successful in their efforts , in so far as their purposes are righteous. (b) Influence for good over other by the activities of the Church and the power of Christian life, ‘educating the citizens and teaching them to be devout towards...God’... and working effectually for their moral and spiritual salvation."35 "To those who ask us whence we have come or whom we have (for) a leader, we say that we have come in accordance with the counsels of Jesus to cut down our warlike and arrogant swords of argument into plowshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no longer take ‘sword against a nation,’ nor do we learn any more to make war, having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of (following) the ancestral (customs)." "He points out that God united he warring nations of the earth under the rule of Augustus, in order that by he suppression of war the spread of the gospel might be facilitated: for ‘how’ he asks, ‘would it have been possible for this peaceful teaching, which does not allow (its adherents) even to defend themselves against (their) enemies, to prevail, unless at the coming of Jesus the (affairs) of the world had everywhere changed into a milder (state)?’ Later he says: ‘If a revolt had been the cause of the Christians’ combining, and if they had derived their origin from the Jews, to whom it was allowed to take arms on behalf of their families and to destroy their enemies, the Lawgiver of (the) Christians would not have altogether forbidden (the) destruction of man, teaching that the deed of daring (on the part) of his own disciples against a man, however unrighteous he be, is never right-for he did not deem it becoming to his own divine legislation to allow the destruction of any man whatever.’"36 "And the reason why Christians avoid the public services of earthly life is not because they want to evade them, but because they are reserving themselves for the more Divine ad more needful service of the Church of God, taking the lead-at once needfully and righteously-in the salvation of men, and being concerned for all men..."37

TERTULLIANUS (210 A.D.)
"You must confess that the prophecy has been accomplished, as far as the practice of every individual is concerned, to whom I is applicable."38 "...the new law pointed to clemency, and changed the former savagery of swords and lances into tranquillity, and refashioned the former infliction of war upon rivals and foes of the law into the peaceful acts of plow and cultivating the earth. And so...the new law...has shown forth in acts of peaceful obedience." Dealing specifically with the question of military service, Tertullianus writes (in his Apology:) "(The question) also concerning military service, which is concerned both with rank and power, might seem (to have been) definitely settled in that (last) chapter. But now the question is asked on what (very point), whether a believer may turn to military service, and whether the military-at least the rank and file, or (say) all the inferior (grades), who are under no necessity of (offering) sacrifices or (padding) capital sentences-may be admitted to the faith. There is no congruity between the divine and human ‘sacramentum,’ the sign of Christ and the sign of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness: one soul cannot be owed to two, God and Caesar. And (yet, some Christians say), Moses carried a rod, and Aaron (wore) a buckle, and John was girt with a leather belt (the allusions are to various items in the Roman soldier’s equipment), and Joshua...led a line of march, and the people waged war-if it is your pleasure to sport (with the subject). But how will (a Christian) make war-nay, how will he serve as a soldier in peace (time) -without the sword which the Lord has taken away? For, although soldiers had come to John and received the form of a rule, although also a centurion had believed, (yet) the Lord afterwards, in disarming Peter, ungirded every soldier. No dress is lawful among us which is assigned to an unlawful action." (The military oath asks too much of a man who owes his allegiance to Christ.)39 In other work, (De Corona Militis) , written in 211 A.D., Tertullianus writes: "Do we believe that...(a Christian) may (give a promise in) answer to another master after Christ...? Will it be lawful for him to occupy himself with the sword, when the Lord declares that he who uses the sword will perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace, for whom it will be unfitting even to go to law, be engaged in a battle? and shall he, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs, administer chains and imprisonment and tortures and executions? Shall he now go on guard for another more than for Christ, or (shall he do it) on the Lord’s Day, when (he does) not (do it even) for Christ? And shall he keep watch before temples, which he has renounced? And shall he carry a flag, too, that is a rival to Christ? And shall he ask for a watchword from his chief, when he has already received one from God? And (when he is) dead, shall he be disturbed by the bugler’s trumpet-he who expects to be roused by the trumpet of the Angel?...(and) how many other sins can be seen (to belong) to the functions of camp (life) -(sins) which must be explained as transgressions (of God’s law)...If the faith comes subsequently to any (who are) already occupied in military service...when faith has been accepted and signed, either the service must be left at once, as has been done by many, or else to resolve to endure death for God...Faith knows not the meaning of the word ‘compulsion.’"40 Commenting on these forceful views of Tertullianus, Cadoux says: "It is a mistake to regard Tertullianus as an individual dissenter from the Church as a whole on this question of whether Christians ought to serve in the army or not...When we consider these views...agree with the testimony of Origenes and the oldest Church-Orders as to the normal Christian practice in the earliest part of the third century, and were apparently endorsed by so representative a churchman as his own fellow countrymen and admirer Cyprianus, we shall hardly be inclined to believe that at this time he was voicing the opinion of a minority of Christians, still less that he represented the views of a mere handful of fanatical extremists."

"There were certain features of military life which could not have failed to thrust themselves on a Christian’s notice as presenting, to say the least, great ethical difficulty. The shedding of blood on the battlefield, the passing of death sentences by officers and the execution of them by common soldiers, the judicial infliction of scourging, torture, and crucifixion, the unconditional military oath...the average behavior of soldiers in peacetime, and other idolatrous and offensive customs-all of these would constitute in combination an exceedingly powerful deterrent against any Christian joining the army on his own initiative."43