Program / Course 22: Christian Ethics / Lesson 4.1
What you will learn
- Describe what the New Testament says about soldiers, violence and the use of the sword.
- Summarize the evidence from Christian writers of the second and third centuries on military service.
- Explain why scholars disagree about the reasons early Christians avoided or accepted soldiering.
- Describe how Constantine’s conversion and the fourth century changed the question.
The big idea
The earliest Christians left little direct teaching on whether a believer may serve as a soldier. The New Testament shows soldiers who come to faith but does not tell them to leave the army, and it also teaches love of enemies and nonretaliation. In the second and third centuries several writers, such as Tertullian and Origen, opposed Christian military service, while Christians were also found in the army. Scholars debate whether the objection was to bloodshed or to idolatry, and the evidence supports both sides of the argument.
Key terms
- Centurion
- A Roman army officer commanding about eighty to one hundred men. Several centurions appear favorably in the New Testament.
- Sacramentum
- The Latin word for the soldier’s oath of loyalty to the emperor, which the church later applied to its own rites. Some Christians objected to its religious character.
- Imperial cult
- Worship or honors given to the Roman emperor, often part of military ritual.
- Apostolic Tradition
- A church order traditionally attributed to Hippolytus of Rome, from about the early third century, containing rules for candidates for baptism, including soldiers.
- Conscientious objection
- Refusal to take part in military service on grounds of conscience.
- Constantinian shift
- A phrase for the change in the church’s position when the emperor Constantine favored Christianity in the early fourth century.
- Martyr
- A Christian who dies for the faith, from the Greek word for witness.
Background
The New Testament does not directly answer whether a Christian may be a soldier. John the Baptist tells soldiers to do no violence, accuse no one falsely and be content with their wages (Luke 3:14), but does not tell them to leave their profession. Jesus praises the faith of a centurion (Matthew 8:5-13), and Peter baptizes the centurion Cornelius (Acts 10). Yet Jesus also tells Peter to put away his sword (Matthew 26:52), teaches love of enemies (Matthew 5:44) and says that his kingdom is not of this world, or his servants would fight (John 18:36). Paul says that the ruler does not bear the sword in vain (Romans 13:4).
After the New Testament period, the church was a small, sometimes persecuted minority within the Roman Empire. The evidence about its attitude to the army is sparse and mixed. Historians use scattered statements by Christian writers, church rules, inscriptions and the stories of martyrs. They reach different conclusions, and the question has been a major point of dispute between pacifist and just war thinkers, each of whom claims the early church. The lesson sets out the evidence and the main interpretations without settling the debate.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Writers who opposed military service
Several second and third century writers speak against Christian soldiering. Justin Martyr speaks of Christians turning swords into plowshares, quoting Isaiah 2:4. Tertullian, writing around 200, argues in On Idolatry and On the Crown that a Christian may not take the sword, since the Lord disarmed Peter and, in his words, in disarming Peter ungirded every soldier. He also objects to military oaths, wreaths and standards because of their idolatrous associations. Origen, around 248, replies to the pagan critic Celsus that Christians do not fight for the emperor but pray for him, and that they serve the emperor better by prayer. Lactantius, around 310, wrote that it is never lawful for a righteous man to kill.
The Apostolic Tradition, a church order attributed to Hippolytus, says that a soldier who comes for instruction must not kill, and must refuse to do so if ordered, or else be rejected. A Christian who wishes to become a soldier is to be rejected, since he has despised God. The text survives in several versions and its date and author are debated, but it is a significant witness.
Step 2: Evidence of Christians in the army
Other evidence shows Christians serving. Tertullian himself, in the Apology, writes that Christians are found in the camps, and in On the Crown he argues against a Christian soldier who refused a wreath, which shows that such soldiers existed. Inscriptions and accounts show Christian soldiers in the third century. Eusebius reports that Marcus Aurelius’s army was saved by rain in answer to the prayers of Christian soldiers, in a story known as the Thundering Legion, whose historicity is doubted. Martyr accounts, such as that of Marinus in the third century and Maximilian of Tebessa in 295, record Christians who refused to serve or to accept military marks, but also Christians who served until persecution came.
Church councils began to address the matter. The Council of Arles in 314 has a canon whose wording on those who throw away their weapons in peacetime is unclear and is read differently. The Council of Nicaea in 325 has a canon concerning those who returned to the army after conversion, which suggests that some Christians were in military service and that the church was already concerned about the issue.
Step 3: Why did early Christians object?
The central scholarly question is why some Christians avoided the army. One view, defended by the historian Roland Bainton and many pacifist scholars, holds that the main reason was the prohibition of killing and the teaching of love of enemies. On this view, the early church was largely pacifist, and its change came with Constantine. A second view, defended by scholars such as John Helgeland, holds that the main concern was idolatry: the army was tied to emperor worship, sacrifices and oaths, and a Christian’s problem was participation in pagan religion. On this view, objection was less to killing as such and more to the cult. A third view holds that both motives were present at different times and places.
The evidence for each is mixed. Tertullian and Origen give both reasons. The Apostolic Tradition forbids killing. Christians who served in times of peace may have avoided the problem of killing and the cult for long periods. Historians such as David Hunter and Alan Kreider have written about this evidence, and cautious scholars stress that the early church was diverse and that no single policy held everywhere.
Step 4: The fourth century
Constantine, after his victory at the Milvian Bridge in 312, favored Christianity, and the Edict of Milan of 313 granted toleration. Within a few decades Christians served in the army and the church’s thought changed. Eusebius, the church historian, praised Constantine. Athanasius, around 350, wrote that killing in war is lawful and praiseworthy, though not to be taken lightly. Basil of Caesarea, in a letter, advised that soldiers who had killed in war should abstain from communion for three years, which shows that the older concern remained. Martin of Tours, a soldier turned monk, said to Julian the Apostate, according to his biographer, that he was a soldier of Christ and could not fight.
Augustine, at the end of the fourth century and into the fifth, gave the church a developed approach, which later lessons discuss. Whether this development was a faithful application of Christ’s teaching to a new situation, or a departure from it, is the question dividing pacifists and just war thinkers today.
- What does the evidence actually say, and what does it leave unsaid?
- Is the writer objecting to killing, to idolatry or to both?
- Is the text describing practice or prescribing it?
- How representative is the source, given the variety of the early church?
- What changed in the fourth century, and what stayed the same?
- Does the early church’s practice settle what Christians should do now?
Examples
A soldier converts
A centurion asks to be baptized in the early third century. The teacher, following the Apostolic Tradition, tells him that he must not kill, and that if ordered to do so he must refuse. The centurion asks what that means for his duties. The text does not answer, which is part of the difficulty historians face. (A constructed example based on the text.)
Maximilian of Tebessa
According to the surviving record of his trial in 295, Maximilian, a young man of a family of soldiers, refused to accept the military mark and told the proconsul that he could not serve because he was a Christian. He was executed. Some read the case as pacifism, others as objection to the oath and the cult. The record can support either reading.
Basil’s letter
Basil of Caesarea advised that men who had killed in war should abstain from communion for three years. This suggests that, even after Christians were serving, the church thought that killing needed repentance. Scholars read this as respect for the old teaching and as an early sign of the later just war approach.
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic writers generally hold that the early church’s reserve about military service reflected the special circumstances of persecution and idolatry, and that the New Testament and the later tradition allow Christians to serve as soldiers in a just cause. The Catechism teaches that public authorities have the right and duty to impose the obligations of defense. The church honors the early martyrs who refused to compromise the faith, and also holds up soldiers such as Sebastian and Martin of Tours as saints.
Orthodox
Orthodox tradition has a calendar of soldier saints, such as George and Demetrios, and has generally accepted the lawful use of force in defense, while holding that war is always a result of sin and that those who kill in war need repentance. The canon of Basil on penance after killing is cited as showing this attitude. Some Orthodox writers, in recent decades, have stressed the peaceful witness of the early church.
Protestant
Protestants differ. Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican traditions have held that Christians may serve as soldiers and that the early church’s reluctance reflected its situation. Anabaptist, Mennonite, Quaker and Brethren traditions hold that the early church was largely pacifist and that its change came with Constantine, and so they see the early period as normative. Many modern evangelical scholars stress the diversity of early practice.
Scholarly
Historians such as Bainton, Cadoux and Hornus have argued that early Christianity was largely pacifist. Others, such as Helgeland and Harnack in part, have stressed that Christians served in the army and that the issue was idolatry. Contemporary scholars often hold a mixed view, noting that the evidence is thin, that practice varied, and that the objections included both bloodshed and the cult.
Why it matters
Both pacifists and just war thinkers appeal to the early church. A student who knows the evidence can see why neither side can claim it simply, and can read later debates with more care. The question also shows how the church’s moral teaching has developed in response to changed circumstances, and invites reflection on whether such developments are faithful.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: The early church was unanimously pacifist.
Correction: Some writers opposed military service, but Christians also served in the army, and the church was not uniform. The reasons given for objection varied.
Misunderstanding: The early church accepted war without question until it opposed it.
Correction: The evidence of the Apostolic Tradition, Tertullian, Origen and Lactantius shows serious resistance to Christian soldiering. Even after Constantine, Basil’s penitential advice shows continued unease.
Misunderstanding: Constantine invented Christian soldiering.
Correction: There were Christians in the army before him. Constantine’s conversion made the situation much easier and changed the church’s circumstances, but the question predates him.
Misunderstanding: The New Testament clearly allows or forbids Christian soldiers.
Correction: It does not give a direct ruling. It shows soldiers who come to faith and are not told to leave, and also teaches love of enemies, and the traditions have read these together in different ways.
Knowledge check
What do the Gospels and Acts say that bears on soldiers?
John the Baptist tells soldiers not to extort and to be content with their wages. Jesus praises a centurion’s faith, and Peter baptizes Cornelius. These texts do not tell soldiers to leave the army. Jesus also teaches love of enemies and tells Peter to put away the sword, and the two sets of texts are read together in different ways.
Which early writers opposed Christian military service, and on what grounds?
Tertullian and Origen objected, as did Lactantius and the Apostolic Tradition. Their grounds included the prohibition of killing, love of enemies, and the idolatrous character of the oath and military cult. Scholars debate which reason was primary.
What evidence shows that Christians served in the army?
Tertullian says that Christians are in the camps, inscriptions record Christian soldiers, and councils such as Arles and Nicaea address the situation of soldiers. Accounts of martyrs include soldiers who were Christians. This shows that practice varied and that the church was concerned.
How did the fourth century change the discussion?
Constantine’s favor for Christianity and the end of persecution made it possible for Christians to serve without the problem of idolatry and made the church responsible for public order. Writers such as Athanasius accepted lawful war, while Basil kept penitential advice for killing. Augustine later developed a systematic approach.
Think it through
- Why might it matter whether the early Christians objected to killing or to idolatry?
- Does the church’s practice in the second century settle what Christians should do now?
- How should a Christian read Luke 3:14 and Matthew 5:44 together?
- What does Basil’s advice about penance after war suggest about how to hold both views?
Independent assignment
Weighing the early evidence
In your notebook, write 400 to 600 words. Choose three pieces of evidence from this lesson, for example a New Testament text, a statement of Tertullian or Origen, and the case of Maximilian or Basil’s letter. For each, say what it shows, what it does not show, and how a pacifist and a just war thinker would each use it. Do not send this to anyone or post it anywhere.
Further study
- Augustine of Hippo, The City of God Read Book 19 for the shift to a developed theory of just war.
- Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics Read selectively for Tertullian’s way of arguing about church teaching.
- Justin Martyr, The First Apology Read for how second-century Christians described their conduct to the empire.
- Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity Read the chapters on the early church and Constantine.
- Luke 3:14 John the Baptist instructs soldiers.
- Matthew 26:52 Put up again thy sword.
- Acts 10:1 Cornelius the centurion.
- John 18:36 My kingdom is not of this world.