In America I’ve not found too many Christians who believe in the non-violent ways of Jesus. If anything our ethic on the issue has been that of the most men: Kill or be killed. And the above quote that I came across on Twitter the other day really spoke highly to me. Our society hears more about a non-violent ethic from fringe political groups than they do professing Christians. I feel we as Christians have a view of violence that is indistinguishable from the world. We have no distinct theological perspective or prophetic witness to offer. Which is really odd because Jesus said a lot of things about how we should respond to violence, which we happily ignore. Instead, we believe in the 2nd amendment as if it were a commandment of God and a line in the apostles creed. As the late Art Katz was fond of saying: “We are far too American.” (Check out my prior podcast on this: Christians, You Are Far Too American – Episode #14) My Personal Story I used to believe a lot of the typical things that most of my fellow conservative Evangelical Christian brothers believed on the topics of guns, violence, self-defense, and just war theory. I come from a large family that has had numerous members serve in every branch of the military, all the way from infantry positions to officer ranks. Many of my family members own guns. I’m comfortable around guns, and have shot them for fun. I used to believe in a lot of the typical theories behind self-defense and just war theory. In my Christian ethics class in Bible College, I even wrote an essay defending the issue. But after Bible College and Seminary, I started to feel more challenged by what I was reading in the Scriptures on the issue. And I realized I had been asking a lot of the wrong questions. Most my questions sounded like some variant of “If Hitler broke into your house to rape and kill your wife and children, what would you do?” The answer to such a question always seemed obvious, and ends up being answered the exact same way by almost everyone. Instead, I found myself asking better questions, like, “Who Is Jesus? What did He come to do? What did He teach us? And how has He called me to live?” So, in light of such things, I’d like to survey the Scriptures and see what we can learn. Please be sure to listen to this podcast episode, where I will spend a lot more time breaking down the passages below. …In The Beginning, It Was Not So When we examine the Scriptures from cover to cover, God did not initially permit violence in response to violence. Capital punishment wasn’t even permitted after Cain killed Able. Cain was worried someone would kill him. God actually forbade such. Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” So the Lord said to him, “Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him. Genesis 4:14-15 (NASB) It wasn’t until after the flood that God allowed man to kill other men in response to violence. Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. Genesis 9:6 (NASB) However, as we learn from the apostle Paul, all things regarding the Law were only temporary in nature. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions… until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Galatians 3:19 (NASB) Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc all had various commands given them. But, they were only given for but a season. They were given until the seed of promise (Jesus) should ultimately come. And now that Jesus has come, the Law and all that it demanded has been fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant. The Hope of the Prophets The Old Testament prophets ultimately looked forward to a world free from violence and war. Isaiah and Micah gave very similar prophecies regarding the Messianic kingdom and the impact that the reign of Christ would have on this world. They envisioned a world in which men responding to the teachings of Christ would ultimately beat their swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, and never again learn war. And while there is still a very real future sense to these prophecies, make no mistake about it, these prophecies are also applicable to the here and now. While we still away the fullness of the kingdom of God to come with Christ at His return, the kingdom He preached has long been established, and is in our midst. We may be living “in between the times” and the “already… but not yet” aspects of God’s kingdom. But that doesn’t mean it’s not present, and that doesn’t mean we are awaiting for the fullness of that kingdom to come at the return of Christ before we start living in light of the realities of that kingdom. The prophetic hope that the Hebrew prophets looked forward to has broken out in the present, and we are now called to live out our lives in light of such. The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the Lord Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths.” For the law will go forth from Zion And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war. Isaiah 2:1-4 (NASB) And Micah making the same prophecy in Micah 4:1-3 also added the following lines to his oracle: Each of them will sit under his vine And under his fig tree, With no one to make them afraid, For the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken. Though all the peoples walk Each in the name of his god, As for us, we will walk In the name of the Lord our God forever and ever. Micah 4:4-5 What The Gospels Say About Non-Violent Resistance Make no mistake about it whatsoever, Jesus taught and practiced non-violent resistance. We now live in a different age, in which the prophesied kingdom of God has finally come. A new age has dawned. The world is now different. The cosmos have changed. And if the coming of the coming of the kingdom of God hasn’t changed our views on guns, bloodshed, violence, and war, if I might be so frank… I don’t know what will. We aren’t simply waiting on Jesus to return before we start living kingdom lives in the present. Here are some verses to consider from the Gospel: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Mathew 5:9 (NASB) “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:38-48 (NASB) And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus *said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Matthew 26:51-52 (NASB) Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” John 18:36 (NASB) What The Apostles Taught About Non-Violent Resistance The apostles also taught the same thing Jesus taught about non-violence. And not only did the teach it, but they practiced it, and many gave their lives living out what they taught. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, “For Your sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. Romans 8:35-37 (NASB) Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:17-21 (NASB) For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 (NASB) The Resurrection Changes Everything The belief that Jesus resurrection should change our perspective on death. Since death has been conquered we should no longer fear it, nor use lethal force as a tool to save our lives, but we should conquer it in hope of our own bodily resurrection even as Jesus did. Instead of being a people who love their lives, we need to be a people who are willing to lay down their lives for the sake of the peace the gospel came to bring. We need to stop holding onto this world and this life as if that is all there is. For the resurrection of Jesus should free us from the fear that causes us to do everything we can to protect our lives. Instead, we live in hope that though we may lose our lives that God will one day raise us from the dead, even as He raised Jesus Christ. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night. “And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. Revelation 12:10-11 (NASB) But, What About Romans 13? Whatever role government may be authorized by God to use violence as “an avenging angel” that “bears the sword” is something that is ultimately a description of God’s “use” of a pagan government to carry out his will in this world, and is ultimately the prerogative unique to God to exact vengeance, something which we as Christians do not have the right to carry out on God’s behalf. We are ambassadors for Christ, and agents of reconciliation, not agents of His wrath. And this passage is sandwiched between a lot of text immediately before it in Romans 12 (cited above), and after it in the closing of Romans 13, that teaches us to sacrificially love our enemies and to not repay evil for evil, but rather, to love them even as we do our neighbor. Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Romans 13:1-10 (NASB) Originally published at Jimmy's Table Podcast, used with permission https://jimmystable.com/why-i-dont-own-a-gun-and-would-never-kill-someone-episode-22/

I have hesitated to write this post for some time now. Military service holds a special place of honor in American society. Veterans are our heroes, and everyone who joins the military gives up their life. Some sacrifice their lives unto death, while the rest forsake their homes, their families, their friends, and a “normal” life within society. I would expect that almost everyone joins for noble reasons—for the protection of the weak and innocent and to secure the future of freedom in this world. I can also expect that many Christians resonate with these feelings of patriotism. I have many friends, Christian and otherwise, who have served in the military and who have fought overseas. I cannot stress enough how thankful I am for their sacrifices, and how fortunate I am to know them or to have known them. I must confess that I don’t know the answer to my own question, and I don’t believe that even a long blog post could handle all of the complexities and nuances of this issue. Here, I simply want to offer the forgotten perspective of the early Church Fathers. I have been wrestling with the idea of Christian non-violence and if a Christian should serve in the military for a while now. It started with my reading of Preston Sprinkle’s Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence (now, Nonviolence: The Revolutionary Way of Jesus). It provides a compelling case, complete with a biblical theology of non-violence and a whole section devoted to the tricky “What ifs?” (Like, what if someone breaks into my house to kill me?) But the thing that really struck me was his section on the theology and practice of the early Church Fathers. Was he really suggesting that not one single Church Father approved of killing or military service before the Edict of Milan? (That’s the decree by Constantine in 313AD that made Christianity legal; Nicene Christianity didn’t become the official religion until 380AD with the Edict of Thessalonica). It must be hyperbole. I had to find out for myself. What makes the conversation of Christian non-violence in the early church so difficult is that there is no straightforward treatise on it. Theologians spent more time battling various heresies and developing orthodox doctrine. Periodic persecutions also hampered systematic treatises from being produced like we have today. It is not as simple as googling “What did so and so think about military service?” This means that readers must piece together various strands of argument and exhortation, from different writers and texts to form a composite picture of the theology. However, one should not paint the picture of the case for Christian non-violence too thin and bleak. There are approximately 60 to 90 different texts (depending on how you count them) that address the questions and dispositions to warfare, violence, and military service in the church. These writings come from 10 named authors such as Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Lactantius, and a few anonymous authors who wrote the Didache, Epistle to Diognetus, and Apostolic Traditions (often attributed to Hippolytus). These works vary in terms of genre and audience; some are a defense of Christianity and written to a Roman official (usually the emperor), and others feel more pastoral as they are addressed to Christians. I found another great book on the subject by Wheaton professor George Kalantzis, called Caesar and the Lamb: Early Christian Attitudes on War and Military Service. What made this book so powerful was that he simply introduces each Church Father and lets the excerpts speak for themselves. And there were a lot of excerpts. Here are just a few that were the most shocking to me: “For what kind of war would we not be fit and ready, despite our inferior numbers, we who willingly submit to the sword, if it were not for the fact that according to our rule of life we are given the freedom to be killed rather than to kill?” – Tertulian, Apology 37.4-5. “It is as when the blaring trumpet sounds and calls the troops together, and proclaims war. Will not Christ, who has blared a song of peace to the very ends of the earth, gather together his own soldiers of peace? Indeed, O people, he did assemble a bloodless army by his blood and his word, and to them he entrusted the kingdom of heaven.” – Clement of Alexandria, Exhortations to the Greeks 11.116. “For when we, so large a number as we are, have learned from His teachings and His laws that it is not right to repay evil for evil; that it is better to suffer wrong than be its cause, to pour forth one’s own blood rather than to stain our hands and conscience with the blood of another.” -Arnobius of Sicca, Against the Pagans 1.6.1-3 “It is not right for those who are striving to stay on the path of virtue to become associated with this kind of wholesale slaughter or to take part in it. For when God forbids killing, he is not only ordering us to avoid armed robbery, which is contrary even to public law, but he is forbidding what men regard as ethical. Thus, it is not right for a just man to serve in the army since justice itself is his form of service. Nor is it right for a just man to charge someone with a capital crime. It does not matter where you kill a man with the sword or with a word since it is killing itself that is prohibited. And so there must be no exception to this command of God. Killing a human being whom God willed to be a sacred creature, is always wrong”. – Lactantius, Divine Institutes 6.20.15-17 “The Lord, by taking away Peter’s sword, disarmed every soldier thereafter.” – Tertulian, OnIdolatry 19.1-3 “But because for us even watching a man being slain is next to killing him, we have forbidden watching such spectacles [Gladiatorial Games]. How, then, can we, who do not even look on, lest guilt and pollution rubs off on us, put people to death?” – Athenagoras, responding to the charge that Christians are cannibals, Plea on Behalf of the Christians 35.5. And these are just the tip of the iceberg. After doing a little more digging, I decided to catalog these references and see if there was a pattern. Why was this aversion to killing, war, and military service so unanimous among the early Church Fathers? Here are a few things that I found: No early Church Father approved of killing in any context. This belief was rooted in Jesus’ command to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:39-44) as it is frequently alluded to or quoted. It was both Jesus’ teaching and his example of the cross that provided the foundation for this nonviolent ethic of enemy-love. The nonviolent response of Christians to persecution and defamation was seen as a fulfillment of prophecy and a major identity marker of following Jesus. (“We came in accordance with the commands of Jesus to beat the spiritual swords that fight and insult us into ploughshares, and to transform the spears that formerly fought against us in pruning-hooks.” Origen, Against Celsus 5.33). The nonviolent response of Christians to persecution and defamation was often given as evidence of the value of Christianity to the Roman empire. It was argued that Christianity was making Rome more just and virtuous. This means that the enemy-love ethic had become a widespread way of living for Christians. If not, the arguments would fall flat in the face of opposing evidence. The aversion to Christian military service is primarily a result of its commitment to enemy-love rather than a focus on idolatry. While the idolatry infused in the Roman military constituted by mandated sacrifices and the taking of a public oath (Sacramentum, the same word used for the Christian mystery and the sacraments), was a concern in the writings of the early Church, it was not the Violence was the main source of contention as both issues are almost always addressed together. (To my knowledge, there are only two explicit instances, Tertullian The Crown 12.1 and Clement of Alexandria Commentary on 1 Cor. 26.98, which deal with Idolatry only. Various accounts of martyrdoms occurring in the military, especially Marcellus and Julius the Veteran, also only address the issue of idolatry.) Military and war imagery within the Old and New Testaments were reused and reimagined by the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between the Church and the Empire. The early Christian community really did wage war, even on behalf of the emperor, but it was done in accordance to Scripture, like Ephesians 6:11-17. Armed with the word of God, prayer, and their nonviolent enemy-love, the Church fought against the spiritual forces of evil that were the source of violence and warfare. The imagery was retained, but it was clear that the Militi Christi was made of martyrs and those who prayed fervently for peace. Now, I know that some may want to draw a distinction between the modern military and the Roman military. I think we can all agree that there are a great number of differences. For example, there are many people who serve in the military who never see combat, who never fire their weapon at another individual, and will never have to serve in a potentially morally-compromising way (according to the Church Fathers). I think it is more than fair to point this out, for then, the military can be treated just like any other occupation. What if we were to reframe our question to “Should a Christian serve in a non-combatant division of the military?” I believe the Church Fathers’ opinions would vary because some would see that the military and the Church are still competing for a Christian’s allegiance. But still, it’s a good point to make. Another distinction that should be made between ancient and modern warfare is the increased effectiveness of military weapons, training, and tactics, as well as the greater risk of non-combatant causalities. Even excluding nuclear devices, our modern weapons have the capability of decimating landscapes and cities. This means that wars waged today have the likelihood of causing more deaths, innocent and otherwise, than it did in first 3 centuries. Let us again limit and reframe our original question to this, “Should a Christian fight in military combat during wartime?” According to the early Church Fathers, the answer is a unanimous, NO Now, I am a Protestant, and I must hold that the God-inspired, God-embodied, and God-illumined Scripture is my ultimate source of authority. I follow first and foremost the Bible. But, is it shocking that the early Church was so vehemently opposed to violence and serving in the military? I don’t think we necessarily have to follow the Fathers in everything, but we at least should be aware of when we are breaking ranks with them, especially on a topic in which there didn’t seem to be much disagreement. In addition, they were not just spouting things off the top of their heads. No, the Church Fathers were serious readers of Scripture who took following Jesus’ non-violent ethic of enemy-love seriously. Many of these writers suffered persecution for their beliefs, some even demonstrated it in martyrdom. We cannot so easily dismiss them or their reading of Scripture simply because they don’t live in the modern world. We also cannot make the cry that this theology is impractical today, dismissing by simply asking, “We can’t all be nonviolent, right?” First, we don’t follow Jesus because its practical, we follow Jesus because He is the Lord and King, and as Christians, he is our Lord and King. Second, Rome made that same argument about how impractical Christianity and their nonviolent ethic was, and Tertullian responded, “The blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church” (Apology 50.13). Non-violence worked. In the first three centuries, the Kingdom of God did not require Christians to serve in physical combat, but in spiritual warfare. They were conscripted to love and serve their Lord, Jesus Christ, and reflect his non-violent ethic of enemy-love to the world. And it worked! Like a virus, the Christian faith spread throughout the Roman empire, thus conquering their persecutors through love, not war. Make no mistake, an ethic of nonviolence is not the gospel, but according to the early Church Fathers, it was the natural outworking of the gospel of peace. “and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths . . . . . . and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:3-4) “And that it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.” (Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 39) Originally published at The Two Cities, used with permission. https://www.thetwocities.com/culture/christian-culture/should-christians-join-the-military-a-forgotten-perspective/

Question: I am considering a job offer from a company whose parent company is involved in the weapons industry. This obviously raised some questions for me as a Christian. On the one hand, Jesus' teaching and lifestyle were in general pacifistic (e.g. Matt 5:38-48 -- which includes prohibition of killing). On the other hand, Peter and Paul identify official authority as instituted by God to protect "good" and punish "evil" (Rom 13:3-4; 1 Pet 2:13-14). Further, Jesus allows his disciples to bear and even to use the sword (Luke 22:36; John 18:10), at least for self defense (Luke 22:36; John 18:10). He also cleansed the temple of traders and animals by means of a whip (John 2:15). So my provisional conclusion: God teaches me to be a total pacifist on a relationship level (social life), but on the state level He allows me the use of power to protect the innocent and to combat evil. What do you say? Whether the Lord deals with us on two levels remains to be demonstrated, yet overall I agree: you are right to think hard before making your decision. In my opinion, we need to keep our distance from weapons manufacturing. If my professional contributions were directly financing warfare, I'd resign. (I'm not normally a squeamish or particularly sentimental person, but I cannot imagine Jesus creating mines, chemical weapons, bioweapons, or nuclear devices and many going ahead to buy guns & ammo from Palmetto Armory to be used against my brothers and sisters -- let alone on those who are not ready to meet the Lord.) But if they weren’t directly supporting war, I would probably try to remain. Further thoughts: Peter and Paul identify official authority as instituted by God to protect good and punish evil, yet this has nothing to do with whether Christians may resort to violence. Peter and Paul are referring to the government. (There is no such thing as a Christian government, since governments rely on coercion, and disciples of Christ are not allowed to coerce anyone -- even their enemies.) As for bearing the sword for self-defense, Jesus rebuked Peter for drawing the sword, even when Peter was attempting to protect an innocent person (Jesus)! Further, if he was advocating bearing arms, two swords would be way too few for the Twelve! A likely reason Jesus told the disciples to get swords was so that they would become the “transgressors” among whom he would be counted, and thus fulfill Scripture (Luke 22:36-38). Jesus was not happy when Peter used the sword. Or he may have beensaying something like “From now on, you will be in danger.” When his disciples took him literally, he said “Enough!” (They did often misunderstand the Lord when they took him literally, didn't they?) Jesus did cleanse the temple by means of a whip, yet there's no indication he attacked people. Nor that he hurt anyone. This was not a Roman cat-o'-nine tails (used for scourging). The text in John 2:15 indicates that the whip was readied for sheep and cattle only. Jesus' action of wielding the whip may have scared the humans away, however. God could be teaching pacifism on a relationship level (social life), yet not on an official or state level, only if the teaching of Martin Luther is correct. He taught that each Christian is really two persons, one standing before God as a follower of Christ's commands, the other a representative of the state, who is not required to follow Jesus' teaching in Matt 5 and elsewhere. But biblically we are only one person. If the government tells you to assassinate someone, or to sleep with a double-agents’s wife in order to extract state secrets, or torture its enemies, you must refuse — as did the early church (unanimously) until the 4th century. God could be teaching pacifism on a relationship level (social life), yet not on an official or state level, only if the teaching of Martin Luther is correct. He taught that each Christian is really two persons, one standing before God as a follower of Christ's commands, the other a representative of the state, who is not required to follow Jesus' teaching in Matt 5 and elsewhere There is a secondary problem with Christians fighting: "Which side to fight on?” God has supported “righteous” nations against the “unrighteous” (Israel against Canaan), just as he has supported the “wicked” against the “less wicked” (Babylon against Israel). Since God has given no modern nation a covenant commitment to fight a holy war, we would end up with disciples slaying disciples -- on both sides! The church's position on military service was simple: No idolatry, no oaths (like swearing to the genius of Caesar), and no killing. Otherwise one had to resign—even if it meant execution. National service may not be required in the U.S., but as you know it is required in many nations. As long as one can serve without sinning (immorality, profanity, killing, drunkenness…) there is no biblical problem. Along these lines, someone already serving in the military, or as a police officer, or other armed profession, need not resign as long as he / she is determined to obey God. This also explains, I think, why a fellow like Cornelius wasn’t told to resign when he heard the gospel (Acts 10). I think it doubtful he was killing, or in charge off killing, at the time Peter met him. The Roman army did occasionally fight, but during the Pax Romana (which includes the 1st and 2nd centuries) it was more a peacekeeping (police) force, whose primary duties included building roads. It is clear from church history when the church sanctioned violence. The change began with Constantine (d.337) — violence among church people steadily increasing until Augustine and Ambrose formulated “Just War Theory” to legitimize violence (which itself implies that military violence was a novelty). God's people under the new covenant had been unanimously pacifist for their first 300 years. It is only in the 4th century that we find Christians permitting killing. Note: Pacifism, working for peace by modeling the behavior of Christ (loving service, reconciliation, prayer, and so forth) should not be confused with passivism, which is selfishly doing nothing. Sadly, the disastrous fourth century saw peaceful disciples turn into persons of violence; the persecuted became the persecutor (!). Within a few generations, Christians were participating in riots, vandalism, lawsuits, killing, and dozens other behaviors that discredited the gospel and dishonored Christ. originally posted from Douglas Jacoby, used with permission. https://www.douglasjacoby.com/qa-1461-should-i-work-for-a-company-producing-weapons/

I agree about how we are to treat our enemies as Christians. I suppose the whole concept of "freedom" from oppression or bondage means one experiences some violence of some sort. But how would Christian Europe protect or rid itself of Nazism if not by violence? Is it practical to do a "Gandhi" in all cases? What if the other cheek is "crushed" -- do we turn to the other to get "crushed" also? I do wrestle with this issue. We cannot be certain a "Gandhi" would have worked against Hitler. However, what governments do is very different to what individual Christians do. (You and I are not states, are we?) The ancient church believed that their prayers were of far greater value against the enemy than killing. So, even if all true Christians refused to kill Nazis, that doesn't mean Hitler would have won. Almost the same number of people would still have fought on the Allied side. But the war might have been shorter! (What a thought!) originally posted from Douglas Jacoby, used with permission. https://www.douglasjacoby.com/q-a-1121-pacifism-would-have-empowered-hitler/