Non-Violence in Early Christianity<\/strong><\/p>\n The Sermon on the Mount seems to call for total non-violence: an \u2018eye for an eye\u2019 (Leviticus 24:20<\/a>) is replaced by \u2018turn the other cheek\u2019 (Matthew 5:39<\/a>). That is not to say this call was always heeded though, as Jesus\u2019 apostles even turned towards violence at times, with Peter pulling a sword and cutting of the ear of one who sought to capture Christ (John 18:10<\/a>). Though, Christ rebuked him for it! The following generations of the church seem to mostly obey Christ\u2019s call, living lives oriented towards peace and non-violence. So, Athenagoras (115-190) echoes Christ, asserting that Christians have learned not \u201cto return blow for blow nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face, to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak\u201d (Athenagoras, Plea for Christians<\/a> 1). This new covenant theology, which prioritizes Christ\u2019s commands over the Old Testament allowances for violence and retribution, meant that military service was often condemned. Hippolytus (165-235), for instance, is explicit in the church\u2019s stance towards military service: \u201cIf a catechumen or a believer wishes to become a soldier they shall be rejected, because they have despised God\u201d (On the Apostolic Tradition<\/a><\/em>, 16.10).<\/p>\n Recently, a number of scholars have pointed out examples which seem to destabilize a portrait of unanimous pacifism in early Christianity though (ex. Larry Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods<\/a><\/em>; John F. Shean, Soldiering for God<\/a><\/em>). For instance, there are several examples of Christian soldiers in the late second century and many more in the third. Further, even the most vocal opponents of violence\u2014such as Tertullian (155-220) and Origen (185-253)\u2014support governmental military action for the sake of peace. So Daryl Charles writes, \u201cWhile some in the early church were opposed to soldiering and war on the basis of ideological pacifism, this was not universally the case\u201d (Charles, \u201cPacifists, Patriots, or Both?<\/a>,\u201d 43).<\/p>\n So how do we interpret this apparent inconsistency between the condemnation of violence and the acceptance of governmental military action, even the occasional participation in it? A popular way to explain this is to specify what exactly Christians are condemning: perhaps it is not military service nor violence itself, but the idolatry that is implicit in the life of a Roman soldier. And indeed, soldiers were expected to worship the emperor and Roman gods in this time (see: Knut Ruyter, \u201cPacifism and Military Service in the Early Church<\/a>,\u201d 59). That is to say, military service is condemned not on the grounds of \u2018turn the other cheek\u2019 (Matthew 5:39<\/a>) but on \u2018you shall have no other gods before me\u2019 (Exodus 20:3<\/a>). Another explanation, which seems to consider the evidence more holistically, has been offered up recently by Daniel Weiss. \u201cThrough a Levite-like dual-ethic approach, [early Christians] can endorse the emperor\u2019s military battles while simultaneously holding that Christians cannot legitimately engage in military bloodshed and killing\u201d (Weiss, \u201cChristians As Levites<\/a>,\u201d 493). In other words, Christians were committed to non-violence themselves but thought that God might employ violence through non-Christian governments to maintain order.<\/p>\n Whether one is persuaded by Weiss or other interpretations of the evidence, it is important to not lose the forest for the trees. Yes, there early Christians who joined the military and those who condemned military service. Yes, there are ancient Christians who denounced violence while praying for the military to maintain peace through violent action. But it is not as if those received equal emphasis: the overwhelming evidence is towards non-violence as the normative position in early Christianity, no matter the circumstances. In sum: God might be \u201con the side\u201d of those (governments) who use the sword, but Christians are not on the side of the sword\u2014they are not to encourage or participate in war.<\/p>\n Warring against Non-Violence? Augustine and Just War Theory<\/strong><\/p>\n While most of the early Christians seemed oriented towards non-violence in their actions and teachings, there is one who seems to provide the intellectual teeth to justify it: Augustine of Hippo (354-430), the supposed founder of \u2018just war theory\u2019. Just war theory essentially adjudicates when it might be morally permissible to enter into war (jus ad bellum) and how to conduct yourself when at war (jus in bello). Importantly, Augustine only hints at how to answer these specific questions\u2014it is the later development of his thought in medieval scholasticism that provides systematic clarity, here. But he does grapple more than any Christian before him on how to think about warfare, which might give the impression that he is finds violence acceptable (See: John Mark Mattox, Saint Augustine and the Theory of Just War<\/a><\/em>). Is Augustine breaking from those before him?<\/p>\n Importantly, the foundation of Augustine\u2019s meditations on this topic are in basic continuity with other ancient Christian thinkers\u2014he is, like most of the others, committed to non-violence. So, Robert Holmes summarizes: \u201cThat Augustine was almost certainly a personal pacifist may be granted. He denies that private individuals may kill even in self-defense. Short of assuming the duties of an official of the state or an agent thereof (as he understands soldiers to be), one not only need not but may not, on Augustine\u2019s view, engage in killing\u201d (Holmes, \u201cSt. Augustine and the Just War Theory<\/a>, 429). Essentially, he employs the same sort of framework as those who came before (if Weiss is correct): Christians may not use violence personally, but the government might be able to use it for peace.<\/p>\n Of course, there is a massive difference between the world that Augustine was living in from those before\u2014the Roman empire was now a Christian one. In this, he was forced to answer a question that Athenagoras didn\u2019t even have to pose: how might a Christian government use violence? Augustine recognizes the differences himself, claiming that the different periods in salvation history demand different ethical responses, even if the abiding principles remain. So, while \u201cGod commanded the prophets in old times to make war,\u201d he \u201cforbade the apostles\u201d (Against Faustus<\/a><\/em>, 23.77). This command was binding \u201cuntil<\/em> the prophetic predictions about the faith of kinds and nations were fulfilled\u201d (Letter<\/a> <\/em>185.23), and now the new reality of a Christian government created space for specific uses of force. In other words, the principles of peace and non-violence remains for Augustine, but a nation ruled by Christians cannot always avoid wartime violence, hence his reflection on this question.<\/p>\n While I could examine Augustine\u2019s various teachings on just war, perhaps it is more important to point out what undergirds his entire system: Augustine\u2019s reflections about the acceptable forms of violence are all steeped in a Christian theology of peace, a theology which is shared with those who preceded him. While he was forced to grapple with new questions about warfare, the foundations of Augustine\u2019s just war theory are predicated on assumptions of non-violence and peace.<\/p>\n Just War does not Justify War<\/strong><\/p>\n The early church clearly has a variety of perspectives on violence and soldiering\u2014with some rejecting all warfare and others accepting Christian military service. And while most all Christians were willing to pray for the military, only a few thought that Christians might participate in war. This is because there was a common assumption that peace and personal non-violence are normative for the Christian, and so military service was at best morally complicated. \u00a0So how might these early Christians respond to this debate?<\/p>\n With the Pope, they would condemn war mongering and those who call for violence. Even then, they would pray for peace and for the military that is to uphold it (see, for example, Origen\u2019s Against Celsus<\/a><\/em> 8.73), noting that if God is ruler and king over all, he uses governments to his end. With the Trump administration, they might note that just war theory (especially of Augustine) might allow for specific uses of violence in wartime. But, they would have serious critiques to offer to this latter group, especially in their rhetoric around the war in Iran.<\/p>\n First, early Christians would condemn military aggression, calling military powers to reorient themselves towards peace. Even if there is space for governmental military action and even if Christians are allowed to fight as soldiers, the goal and emphasis throughout early Christianity is on love, peace, and security. In this, we can learn from Augustine in particular: the assumptions of just war theory are fundamentally pacifistic, as this theory severely limits when to go to war and how to conduct themselves. Thus, actions which are cruel and inhumane are explicitly condemned, like bombing schools<\/a> or water treatment plants<\/a>. One cannot reach a just end through unjust means. Second, if our orientation is towards peace, they would also condemn rhetoric that intentionally praises violence and death. There has been a concerning fetishization of warfare and militant language by Pete Hegseth and others that is idolatrous in nature, which is completely foreign to those early Christians who allowed for military action. Even a \u2018just war\u2019 is something to be mourned, as precious human life is disrupted, displaced, and lost.<\/p>\n![\"Julius](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/168\/2026\/04\/IuliusVeteranul-222x300.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"Augustine](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/168\/2026\/04\/960px-Augustine_of_Hippo_Sandro_Botticelli-253x300.jpg\")
<\/a>