In Hebrews 1 it says, “God spoke long ago to our fathers by the prophets. In these last days he has spoken to us through HIS SON…For this reason we must pay MUCH closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.”

In the Old Testament with the Old Covenent God told Israel to do certain things (such as go to war). Their job was to obey. In the New Testament God sends His Son with the New Covenent. With the New Covenent came a new set of instructions. For this reason, if there is ever an apperent contradiction between Jesus’ words and the Old T., or the New. T and the Old T., (based on Heb.1) we are to follow Jesus’ words, or our newest set of instructions (namely, the New T.). Our job is to obey.

This is what Jesus and the New Testament have to say on War, persecution, and self-defense:

2 Corinthians 10…Though we walk in the flesh, we are NOT waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of OUR warfare are not of the flesh but have DIVINE power to destroy strongholds.

Ephesians 6:11…Our battle is NOT with flesh and blood, but against the master spirits and powers who are the rulers of this present darkness.

Rom. 12:14…Bless those who persecute you, and do not curse them. Live in peace with one another. NEVER REPAY EVIL WITH EVIL. “Never avenge yourselves, for vengeance is mine alone,” To the contrary, if your ENEMY is hungry, feed him, if he is thirsty, give him drink. Overcome evil with good.

1 Peter 2:21…Christ suffered for you, leaving you an EXAMPLE, so you should follow in His footsteps. When He was abused and insulted, He did NOT abuse or offer insult in return; when He suffered, He made NO threats of retaliation; instead He trusted in Him Who judges fairly.

Matt.5:38…Jesus said, “You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury. BUT I SAY , ‘Do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on one side of your face, offer the other side as well. Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you! If you do that, you will be acting as true children of your Father in Heaven. If you love and are kind only to your friends, what reward is there for that? Even pagans do that!’ ”

Jesus COMMANDS us to love our enemies. 1 Corinthians 13 states that love is patient and kind. It does not envy or boast. Love is NOT proud, rude, self-seeking, or is easily angered. Love keeps no record of wrongs…Love endures all things. Is killing your enemy in War, or killing them in your own self-defense, or killing them at all, loving them? I mean sure, it saves your skin, but is it loving them?

The command Jesus gave goes AGAINST HUMAN NATURE ITSELF! Who wouldn’t have the impulse to protect their life and the lives of their friends and family? I would most definitely want to protect my family and friends (and myself!). But as Christians, His commands have to be obeyed.

And just like those of the Early Church of the first and second century, the fact that Jesus’ commands have to be obeyed may mean paying for them with our lives.

Is it worth it?

Again, in John 18 Jesus says specifically that his followers are not fighting his arrest, not that his followers do not fight. Again, this is exactly in line with what Jesus tells Peter. Also, he provides this as proof that he is not an insurrectionist. If he was attempting to overthrow the current government, his followers would have fought against his arrest.

I disagree that Jesus makes it clear that his followers WILL not fight, simply that they are currently not fighting. That’s all the text says there.

If this is combined with Jesus’ arrest, we can know that it is contrary to God’s plan in this instance to engage in bloodshed, as Jesus is supposed to be arrested. Importantly, if it were necessary, his followers WOULD have been fighting. Jesus never says that the violence is inherently wrong, but rather that it is pointless. I’m sorry, but I simply do not see it in this text. I only see him saying to not fight the arrest, because why would he try to escape the will of the Father?

Later he says that his followers are not fighting his arrest because his kingdom is not in peril due to his arrest, but that if his kingdom was on earth and in peril then his followers would be fighting. He then follows this up with a statement that this is why he was born, why he was on earth in the first place.

I understand the difficult nature of war, when it seems so horribly irredeemable. However, the fact that there is no explicit mention of it in the NT causes me to wonder. I don’t easily condone it, but it seems a stretch to me to find anti-war doctrine in the NT when none is overtly mentioned.

Later in John 18 Jesus says “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” This may not have been said directly to Peter but it seems to further explain Jesus’ reasoning when he spoke to Peter. Even in its context, Jesus makes clear that his followers will not fight. We are still part of that Kingdom today and we still will not fight. If one only took this verse then I think they might be reading too much into the text but when it is combined with the OT prophecies and the teachings and life of Jesus, then paul etc. we can see how it fits into the greater story of Scripture and thus the continuing life of God’s people.

As far as the similarities about war in ancient times and now, I think they are much deeper than you presume. We may try to dress it up with noble rhetoric, but I dont think war has changed much except that we can kill more people more quickly now. I think Shane Claiborne’s book “Jesus for President” deals with this in a fairly convincing way, albeit not in great depth.

I cant think of any instance when warfare is not sinful. I think there is always a non-violent witness that Christians can find and should try to live.

I grew up in a military family and certainly didnt think all war was wrong, that is until I started studying scripture. So at least in my case I didnt begin with these assumptions. I cant speak for others but that was the case for me. In fact I was resistant to this idea for a good while, but felt God pulling me that way.

Not to say that I agree, but I just have a feeling. You might also want to check out Hauerwas’ mentor/influence/friend John Howard Yoder, a Mennonite. If there’s anyone to look to in discussions like this, it’d be the Mennonites.

I think Tertullian is reading into the text a bit. In John 18:11,

“Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

Jesus gives, explicitly, his reasoning for telling Peter to put his sword away. To do otherwise would be attempting to shirk the responsibility put on him by the Father. There is no more said then this. Where does Tertullian find his support that Jesus has commanded all his believers to never raise arms? Jesus did say that his kingdom is not of this earth, but that was in response to questioning designed to frame him as an insurrectionist. To link the two seems to be reading into the text to find what one wants, not determining only what is there.

The use of warfare in the time of the early church is vastly different then today. As much as there may be similarities, they are generally superficial. Rome was the military power of the day, and employed it’s might to further it’s imperialism and occasionally combat Christianity.

It is no surprise to me that early Christians would reject such an institution, one that twists force to its own corrupted ends. Though some modern wars have been greedy in nature, there are also wars that have been entered into to combat such greed and imperialism.

Declaring all warfare to be criminal and sinful seems to be much akin to declaring all work on the Sabbath to be sinful. Usually right, but there are notable exceptions.

And yes, the early fathers were closer to the original apostles, but this still does not make them infallible. It is quite reasonable that they saw war, and the life of the soldier, for what it was in their time and assumed that it would stay that way. If war stayed the same, then they would be correct in saying that Christians shouldn’t support it. So of course, at the time, they would be universally united in their opposition. This does not mean that they foresaw where all war would lead, and decided that it was unfit too.

It seem far more likely that they saw something that was horrific, and found scripture that seemed to support that. If you begin by assuming that violence and war is wrong, then you can say that Jesus disarming Peter is demonstrative of him disarming all Christians.

If you don’t, he simply tells Peter to stop fighting God’s will. It seems like saying that riding boats is bad because God almost sank that one that Jonah was on, instead of being on the road to Nineveh.

Also, several writers/theologians including Greg Boyd and Stanley Hauerwas have written on reconciling the violence in the OT with the teachings on peace from Jesus. There are some convincing arguments but I havent delved into them very extensively yet. Ultimately though, we believe Jesus is the full revelation of God and therefore we seek to live as he lived and taught.

Certainly some of these church fathers were proponents of heresies, mostly later in their lives. However the fact that this one particular thing is universal in the early church has to say a great deal. There is no dissenting opinion in the first couple centuries of the church on this point.

The reason I think Tertullian is right in the statement that all Christians were disarmed is because Jesus taught his disciples that His Kingdom was not of this world, and that his followers would not fight. That means all of his followers.

I would disagree about saying that we shouldnt give more authority to the comments of these men because they were in direct contact with the apostles or only removed by a few generations. We can find much of their reasoning hashed out in their writings and the writings of non-Christian writers of the time, who also gave similar accounts of the early church. Therefore they received purer teaching or at least didn’t have to dig through a couple thousand years of Christian thought. Not only this but they wrote/spoke on behalf of the entire church on these matters as we understand historically that this was the accepted position of all of the early church from the apostles on to the time of Constantine.

Sorry I miscommunicated about my friend. He is on the tail end of his masters and has started his study towards his Ph.D on his own, but is not yet a Ph.D candidate. However he knows more about the early church than some professors out there since he has been reading works from these folks since we were in high school. Either way, I will ask him about this and see if he will post something here.

I agree that the Old Testament must be viewed in the light of the complete revelation which we have been given. Many things in the Old Testament are supplemented by Christ’s resurrection.

I guess the question should be, does Christ’s resurrection significantly alter the reasons why God lead his people to war? If it does not, then anti-war doctrine must be reconciled with that fact that God has declared wars, and commanded his people to fight them.

Also, although I have a great deal of respect for early church leaders, they were no where near infallible. Justin Martyr and Tertullian, for example, heavily endorsed Pelagianism. Something that another early church father, Augustine of Hippo, opposed.

Though these men are indeed leaders of those times, I don’t think we can ascribe any more special weight to their comments then we can someone of these times, especially without knowing their reasoning.

I’d be interested to hear what rogueminister’s PhD-candidate friend has to say on the reasons why these church fathers were so anti-war.

I’ve thought a great deal about the Christian and War. As I said, you’re quotes are pretty representative of some early church thought on the subject. I wonder though, if their view of war was impacted by the role that war played in ancient societies. Though I will readily admit that I am not a scholar of the period, most of the wars that I’ve read about find their cause in greed, expansionism, or pacification. Did war, and the life of the soldier, simply seem to be lending support to a corrupt and sinful government?

If so, I can easily see why early Christians would be so adamantly opposed to it.

Also, what about truly ancient scripture? There are loads of cases in the Old Testament where God commands his people to go to war, and to do so without reservation or quarter.

If God has commanded people to go to war in the Old Testament, then how can the Devil be the author of all war, as Justin Martyr claims? Should David be barred from the Church, as he accepted and promised to slay Goliath, and also a fair number of Philistines?

Tertullian claims that Jesus disarmed every Christian when he disarmed Peter, but I don’t see his reasoning for this. Is it not far more likely that Jesus prevented a blood-bath that would be without meaning? Perhaps the lesson we should draw from the disarming in the olive trees is that it is foolish to fight that which God has ordained.

Granted, all the men you’ve quoted are much more knowledgeable then I am, but I can not reconcile the fact that God Himself has commanded people to wage war and to kill with the statement that there is now no reason to ever wage war.

I will not say that I disagree with you, or the wisdom of the early church leaders that you have quoted, but I will say that I do not understand how it can be so.

Hmmmm…. Q&A, I could give that a shot. I wouldnt say I am an expert or anything but I would be willing to research and find a sufficient answer.

Mike Cope, does this mean you are from the coC?

Also, I am working on a Prop 8 post, but I know how sensitive of a subject it is so I want to make sure to cover my bases and write in such a way that I am as clear as possible.

Have you ever thought of doing a question and answer series on your blog? Where someone can ask a question anonymously related to the Bible/ Christian life and you answer it? I just wanted to suggest it to you!

I suggested it to Mike Cope on his blog but I guess he’s too busy, which is understandable. I have questions I would like to ask a minister but don’t feel comfortable asking my own minister,you know? If you’re not up to it, I understand