Steve Ridgell posed an interesting question to me. Could the situation of military men in the New Testament be similar to that of slaves and slave owners? Could it be a case of “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called” (1 Corinthians 7:20)?
I need the input of some of you who know church history. I know that the early church did not advocate the elimination of slavery, but do you suppose Christians felt free to buy slaves?
Some thought questions for the weekend.
One other New Testament point against pacifism needs to be examined. What about the positive references to soldiers? Why would Paul compare Christian life to soldiering if being a soldier was inherently sinful? Why encourage Timothy to endure hardship as a “good soldier of Christ Jesus” if being a soldier were unthinkable?
It could be pointed out that the New Testament does use bad people to teach lessons: the unjust steward in Luke 16, the corrupt judge in Luke 18, the idea of Jesus coming as a “thief in the night.” But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Christians aren’t told to imitate any of those men, yet Timothy is told to be like a soldier.
I think we have proof yet again that military life was not repugnant to the early church. This seems to fit with the Book of Acts, where Paul and others seemingly showed courtesy and respect to military men. (Though it should be pointed out that respect was shown to all men; Jesus and His followers only showed anger and condemnation toward those who pretended to be religious but had ungodly hearts)
This is a far cry, however, from Christians choosing to become soldiers. As I pointed out in the comments on Tuesday, pagan worship was an integral part of Roman public life. There was no separation of church and state. Ritual sacrifices were a regular occurrence in military life. It would have been extremely difficult for a Christian to be part of the army without being pressured to be a part of those pagan activities. Rome’s triumphs were victories for Rome’s gods; could Christians contribute to that?
My understanding of 2 Timothy 2:4 prevents me from considering a military life, even as it refers to soldiers. (!) How can I, as an ambassador of the Kingdom of Heaven, pledge my loyalty to an earthly kingdom? How can I get involved in “civilian affairs” while I’m serving as a soldier of Christ? I don’t see how I can serve two masters, being a soldier of Christ and a soldier of a human nation.
Could what we see in the New Testament possibly be the path for us: respect for those who serve, yet separation for ourselves? That’s the path I feel called to at present. I’ll present more of the whys next week.
[The artwork is of Sabbas Stratelates, 3rd century Christian who became a general in the Roman army, then was martyred upon refusing to renounce his faith. Taken from Wikimedia Commons]
Since I’ve discussed Romans 13 at length in the past, I don’t really see the need to go back over that passage. So let’s turn our attention to the Book of Revelation. When seeking to refute pacifistic ideas, many look to Revelation 19. There we see Jesus in a robe dipped in blood, killing His enemies with a sword.
The word “dipped” can throw us off here, for, in Revelation, the martyrs have previously washed their robes in blood, but it wasn’t the blood of their enemies. It was the blood of the Lamb, the blood that won the victory over Satan. However, in Chapter 19, Jesus is “trampling the grapes of wrath.” In Chapter 14, when these grapes were harvested, it was said that the blood flowed as deep as the horses’ bridles. Whose blood? Probably a reference to God’s enemies, though that’s never made clear.
But no matter where the blood on His robe came from, Jesus’ intentions are clear. He is there to “strike down the nations.” This is a time for vengeance.
So there we have it. Christians are called to exact vengeance on God’s enemies. Or are they?
Let’s back up. Revelation is written to a group of Christians who are about to undergo persecution. The message to them is that they are to patiently endure, overcoming by being faithful witnesses. There’s a reason why the Greek word for “witness” became the English word “martyr,” for Jesus is held up as the example of what a faithful witness is. The mighty Lion of Judah turns out to be a lamb that was slain. He conquered on the cross, by dying for His faith. Now He calls His followers to be unafraid to risk the same.
The promise is that God will exact vengeance on their tormenters. Just as Second Thessalonians promises that those who persecute the Christians will be punished by God, so Revelation emphasizes that Christians are not to seek to bring about “justice” by their own hand, but they are to leave vengeance to God.
(By the way, did you notice what sword Jesus is using to strike down the nations? The sword which proceeds from His mouth. It doesn’t take much knowledge of apocalyptic symbolism to see that the judgment against the nations will be exacted by the Word of God. The scene is that of ultimate judgment, the final defeat of evil. The weapons are spiritual ones, just as the armies are heavenly armies and not earthly ones.)
So how did early Christians read Revelation? Did they see in it a call to arms, a summons to exact justice on the Romans via the sword? No. They saw it as a reminder that they were to submit to the authorities, honor the king, and leave vengeance to God. To get Revelation to say something else, you have to strip it from its original context.
(Do I really have to address the numbers question? Probably, because it always seems to come up. “Christians didn’t fight back because there weren’t enough of them. Had they had a chance of winning, God would have told them to fight.” Should you be clinging to that idea, might I suggest a quick perusal of the Old Testament? Stories like Gideon, Samson, David vs. Goliath, Jonathan and his armor bearer vs. the whole Philistine army… God doesn’t need numbers to win a battle. If violent resistance had been the answer, God was more than capable of enabling His people to triumph.)
I’d like to hear your thoughts, comments, questions and suggestions.
So what do we do with the positive examples of soldiers in the New Testament? Doesn’t the existence of men like Cornelius mean that soldiering is not inherently sinful? To the dismay of hardline pacifists everywhere, I’d say yes. It does show that soldiers can be pleasing to God.
Just to try and anger everyone, let me point out that the text doesn’t tell us whether Christians becoming soldiers is pleasing to God. Since we don’t see that in the New Testament, we can’t argue either way from these examples. Did these men continue soldiering after becoming Christian? Did they limit their participation in any way? Those questions go unanswered.
But I find the soldiers in Luke 3 fascinating. Who are these guys? It’s extremely unlikely that these were Jews who had joined the Roman army. They might be Romans who had become Jews, though it’s more likely they were god-fearers at best. Still, it’s an incredible sight to see these representatives of Rome coming to a crazy Jewish prophet for spiritual guidance.
And the guidance John gives reminds us that, at that moment any way, these soldiers were performing police duties, rather than fighting on the front lines. But he doesn’t say “Resign,” nor does he rebuke them for their position.
The centurion with great faith (Matthew 8) is another important character. He gets nothing but praise from Jesus. No “Go and sin no more.” No “Sell all your weapons and give the money to the poor.” Nothing but “Go! It will be done just as you believed it would.”
Cornelius was a man pleasing to God. His example upsets the theology of many, especially with the text’s emphasis on the role of Cornelius’ good works in his being chosen by God. Good works done while serving as a Roman officer.
Some thoughts on these examples:
While the examples of soldiers in the New Testament doesn’t settle any issues, it does remind us that pacifists need to be careful not to overstate their case.
OK, let’s start looking at some of the passages we brought up from the New Testament. One of the most popular passages given to support Christians bearing arms is Luke 22:36-38—
“He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”” (Luke 22:36-38)
If we apply the famous hermeneutic of “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it,” then the matter seems to be settled. But, alas, it doesn’t seem to be that simple.
Ben Witherington has offered a short analysis of verse 38, arguing that Jesus is rejecting the idea of sword carrying. But the passage is ambivalent enough that I think we should give it a deeper look. Linguistically, Jesus could be arguing for or against swords; what else can we find here?
In this context, what would the swords be used for? The passage Jesus quotes in verse 37 relates the instructions here to his impending arrest. Is Jesus anticipating a rise in the number of wild animals or an increase in crime following his betrayal? That seems absurd. Persecution by the Roman government? That would come eventually, but it was still decades away. No, the increased danger which Jesus was foreshadowing would come from the Jews, and it would be religiously motivated.
I’ve heard Christians argue that the teachings about loving enemies and turning the other cheek only applies to those who would persecute us. If so, this passage would seem to contradict that teaching. If Jesus is literally telling his disciples to procure weapons, it is to defend themselves against the Jews.
I would also argue that if that was Jesus’ meaning, his teachings were completely ignored. We read multiple times of the Jews persecuting Christians in the Book of Acts, and the Christians seemed to use two means of defense: prayer and flight. Fighting isn’t in there.
Patrick Mead admits to using Acts 23 in arguments against what he calls “neo-pacifists.” If Paul didn’t believe in swords being used for protection, why did he tell his nephew to inform the Romans about the plot to kill him? But that’s missing the bigger point: why didn’t Paul tell his nephew to go tell the church?
How many Christians were there in Jerusalem at that time? A conservative figure would be 10,000. Those who take Jesus literally in Luke 22 argue that Jesus approves of the ratio of one weapon for every six believers. So there should have been at least 1600 armed Christians, having purchased swords for the express purpose of protecting believers from the Jews. This was their moment! Now was the time. They knew who, they know what, they knew when. Send out those Christian special forces to do the very thing that Jesus commanded: use swords against the Jews.
So why did Paul have to tell the Romans? Surely it’s obvious. Living in a militarized society, twenty centuries after the fact, we can read Luke 22 and imagine that Jesus wanted Christians to be armed. But those living in the decades following his death understood the exact opposite. Jesus is not telling his disciples to arm themselves. He’s pointing to the impending violence which will soon lash out at the church.
That’s my theory. Feel free to punch holes in it.