In past discussions about Christians participating in the affairs of earthly kingdoms, I’ve pondered at times the situation of Roman soldiers, like Cornelius in Acts 10, who became Christians. I’ve long known that the church was strongly pacifistic during the first four centuries of its existence, but I also knew that military men in the New Testament became Christians. The Bible doesn’t give us much of a hint as to what they were instructed to do.
Not long ago, I ran across a quote from the third century, about 220 A.D., from a Christian named Hippolytus. In a discussion on dealing with converts, he stated the following: “A military constable must be forbidden to kill, neither may he swear; if he is not willing to follow these instructions, he must be rejected by the community. A procounsul or magistrate who wears the purple and governs by the sword shall give it up or be rejected. Anyone taking or already baptized who wants to become a soldier shall be sent away, for he has despised God.“*
Hippolytus was not inspired, at least as far as I know, so I certainly don’t take his views as Scripture. But it is interesting to have this insight into how early Christians dealt with the topic of military service.
What do you think of Mr. Hippolytus’ words?
I’m not sure we can compare the Roman Empire with today’s military. This seems to be more of a commentary against using unnecessary force or force for conquest. I think there is a big difference between advancing the Roman machine and defending against it.
SP4 Palmore
U. S. Army Chemical Corp
Interesting viewpoint, Brad. If we look in the Bible, I think we’re taught how to defend against the Roman machine, rather specifically. That’s what the book of Revelation is about.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Seems those who want nothing to do with military can find their pacifist passages (some of them wrested from the context) and those who are in support of a Christian serving in the military (or police departments) can find their verses to support that view (some of them wrested from the context) . Personally, I am very supportive of our military, fire, and police personnel and I have my verses to back me up! I guess it comes down to what a person chooses to believe. I’ve not known anyone to convince someone of the other perspective to change their minds. I would hate to leave my security up to a constable who is forbidden to kill.
Greg,
I think the whole issue of Christians and the military requires a lot of study and prayer. I also think that emotions run too high for those of us here in the States to be able to discuss it well in a public forum. I may get my nerve up and try it, but I’m rather pessimistic about the results. (as you seem to be)
It’s interesting that the first two comments have jumped immediately to modern day applications. I’ve wondered how the ancient church balanced the overwhelming pacifism that was practiced (unless someone knows of any pre-Constantine writings that encourage Christians to join the military) with the obvious fact that some military men became Christians. This quote helps me to see how that might have been practiced.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Greg, the UK police force used to be unarmed on the beat. i am not sure if they still are.
Is this a truly pacifist message from someone who rejects all violence, or a message about not taking positions in militaries and governments that actively persecute Christians? it seems like straight pacifism, but more context would be most helpful.
If it were about persecution, do you think they would allow converts to continue to hold their posts as long as they promise not to kill? That makes no sense.
Also, the point about not “swearing” refers to taking an oath of allegiance. The issue of divided loyalty seems to come into play.
Grace and peace,
Tim
I must respectfully disagree with you, Mr Archer. I believe the issue of swearing has less to do with divided loyalty and more to do with Jesus’ command to “swear not at all”.
James,
That is a possibility. Do you think it is wrong for Christians to take oaths today?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Interesting discussion. Someone with my name participated, that’s how I discovered it. I think that people, Christians included, generally come down on the side of the military question depending on their family, background, experience, etc. Jesus is on all sides, and at the Judgment we will find out more…
I know Jesus and have personally come to a generally anti-military position over time (I guess because of the destruction and misery that war brings to people (women, children, civilians as well as military) animals and the earth, God’s Creation. I know that I am but human and cannot hope to understand things from God’s perspective Certainly many soldiers and military officers are with Jesus. Heaven will be a very different than this, Thanks be to God. Blessings forever
Andy Pratt
No Christian can justify joining an organization where the primary job is to kill and destroy.
Is the military’s primary job to kill and destroy? Or rather to defend and protect? If it is going against God to join the military, why does the Bible even use the term soldier to describe how we should be as Christians?
I have to admit…im in the military and dealing with this issue quite a bit. The question you raised about cornelius in Acts 10 is one ive been specifically pondering. I would really really like to know myself how the early Christian church dealt with military service and the commands given to those in the military who converted. I guess I just want answers. This is keeping me up at night.
Joe,
I’ll keep you in my prayers.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Pingback: Onward Christian soldiers? | TimothyArcher.com/Kitchen