Hi, I'm David Bercot, and tonight we're going to talk about what the early Christians believed about war. Of all the evils that plague mankind, war is perhaps the greatest. In fact, in the last century alone, war claimed over 70 million lives. And so today, more and more thinking committed Christians are asking themselves, how should a Christian view war? Well, to shed some light on this subject, this message is going to focus on how the primitive Christians viewed war.
And I think it sheds considerable light on how perhaps we should view war today. But let's start off by looking at the Scriptures briefly. Now, in the Old Testament, we find that God not only permitted war, He often commanded His people, the Israelites, to engage in war. Yet at the same time, I think we have to recognize that these were not mere earthly wars.
God often gave supernatural assistance to the Israelites in their battles: giant hailstorms falling down, confusion where the enemy fought each other, or where the enemy heard sounds and fled thinking a large army was coming, things like that. In fact, sometimes God fought the entire battle for the Israelites without their having to ever even lift a sword. And at the same time, I think we have to recognize that even in the Old Testament, God specifically taught the Israelites to rely upon Him for protection.
And He punished them severely when they relied upon the strength of their armies or upon military alliances with other kingdoms. And if we go a step further, we find that even in the Old Testament, God indicated that participation in war was not His ultimate purpose for His people. In fact, through Isaiah and Micah, He foretold of a time when He would judge between the nations, and they would beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and would train for war no more.
In fact, God prohibited David from building the temple because He told David, "You are a man of war." 1 Chronicles 28:3, we read God saying, "You shall not build a house for my name because you have been a man of war and have shed blood." Now, I think we all recognize, moving to the New Testament, that God allowed the Old Testament Israelites to engage in many practices that were against His ultimate will for humans. For example, He permitted polygamy.
He permitted divorce in the Old Testament, even though those practices were contrary to His ultimate will for mankind, even though later He would forbid them to His people. It would seem that war falls into this same category. For example, Jesus told His followers, "You have heard that it has been said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," which is right out of the Old Testament.
"But I say unto you that you do not resist evil, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." And again, He went on to say, "You have heard that it has been said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." It's from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:38-44. Now, of course, those were revolutionary teachings. They were the opposite of what most Jews expected to hear from the Messiah.
I mean, they were expecting a Messiah who would come and lead them in a victorious war of liberation against the Romans. And so for Jesus to come and claim He was the Messiah and yet to tell them to love their enemies, to not resist evil, to turn the other cheek, well, this was a lot more than most Jews were willing to accept. Yet through the teachings of Jesus and also His apostles, God breathed a new spirit of life and gentleness into mankind.
I don't mean that most humans accepted this new spirit, but He introduced it into mankind through His people. Jesus not only taught against violence, He lived what He taught. He never used physical violence to defend Himself or His disciples. You may remember when He was about to be arrested, and we're going to talk a little bit more about that later, He told Peter to put his sword back, saying, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword," Matthew 26:52.
And the apostles taught very similarly to Jesus. For example, Paul wrote the Corinthians, "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal," 2 Corinthians 10:3-4. He also told the Ephesians, "We do not wrestle against flesh and blood," Ephesians 6:12. And in his letter to the Romans, Paul taught Christians to bless those who persecute you, repay no one evil for evil, have regard for good things in the sight of all men.
If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. That last quote was from Romans 12:14-21. Now, to live literally by those passages that we've just read from the Sermon on the Mount, from the writings of Paul, obviously a Christian could not engage in physical carnal warfare. But were Christians meant to take those teachings so literally?
Well, before I answer that question, I'm going to comment on what evidence we have one way or the other. Now, the teachings are quite clear in themselves. At the same time, nowhere in the New Testament do we read about a specific application of those teachings. In other words, there's not an account that we read where someone was converted to Christ and immediately then left the army or was told by the church to leave the army.
There's no specific commandment from the apostles where they wrote a church and told them to excommunicate someone who joined the army or something like that. In other words, the teachings in themselves are quite clear, but there's no historical record in that time period of these teachings being applied. And why is that? Well, there's a very good reason. Let's start with the Gospels, with what Jesus taught. Of course, He was teaching to the Jews. Now, the Jews at that time were under subjugation from the Romans.
They were not allowed to have their own national army. I mean, there were temple guards, a few things like that, but there was not a Jewish army. This was forbidden to them. So it wasn't an issue one way or the other to Jews as far as joining the army. It did come up later when the Jews revolted against Rome and Jerusalem was destroyed around the year 80-70. And then when we get to say the book of Acts and the New Testament, well, initially we find all of the Christian converts were Jews.
In fact, I should mention that not only were the Jews not allowed to have their own army, the Romans would not let them join the Roman army. So this wasn't initially an issue that way. You didn't have Jews in the Roman army who needed to leave. And even when Gentiles became converts, the Romans initially viewed the Christians as a sect within Judaism. And so again, they were treated, Christians were treated like Jews.
It wasn't until after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, when the Romans destroyed it, that you really see the church pretty well breaking totally free from Judaism, both in numbers. By then, we see a majority of Christians were now Gentiles, and the Romans were now realizing these are not just Jews. This is a whole nother religion altogether. And so it was at the end of the first century that you find this becoming a real issue that Christians were actually having to deal with. Do we join the army or not?
Can we serve in warfare? And so the writings of the early Christians are of enormous value to see once this issue came up. And again, the issue didn't come up during the period of Acts, generally speaking. It was mainly something Christians faced later. And so we can read how Christians first dealt with this issue when the issue arose by seeing what the early Christians believed and practiced in this regard. So that's what we're going to be doing.
So now we're going to look at how the early Christians applied those teachings of Jesus and His apostles. Did they apply them literally, or did they say, "Well, that's symbolic, or that's for the kingdom age or something like that, the millennium"? Well, let me go now in just chronological order, starting with the earliest writings we have on this subject and going up until just about to the time of the Council of Nicaea.
First quote is from Justin Martyr, a very well-respected writer and evangelist in the early church. He wrote this apology, which is a defense to the Romans, about the year 165. He said, "We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies.
And again, we who were filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons, our swords into plowshares and our spears into farming implements." You can find those quotes in volume one of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, page 176 and page 254. You notice there right off the bat that he takes Jesus' writings very literally. And this isn't a personal viewpoint of Justin Martyr because he's writing explaining Christianity to the Romans.
He didn't say, "I don't do this anymore." He said, "We don't do this anymore. We've beat our swords into plowshares." And the prophecy that we read earlier from Isaiah 2, you notice how they understood that to be being fulfilled in the citizens of God's kingdom right now. It's not something for the millennium. It's something that takes place right now in our lives. Tatian, another apologist writing from the Mideast, said this. And again, he's writing as representative of all Christians.
He's not talking about his personal views. "I do not wish to be a king. I am not anxious to be rich. I decline military command." Athenagoras was another apologist explaining Christianity to the Romans. He says, "We have learned not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us. Instead, even to those who strike us on one side of the face, we offer the other side also." All right, the next quote is from Irenaeus.
He's writing from way over in Gaul, modern-day France, where he served as the overseer or bishop in the city of Lyon, which is still a major city in France.
He said, "The new covenant that brings peace and the law and the law that gives life have gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophet said." And now he quotes from Isaiah, "For out of Zion will go forth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, and he will rebuke many people, and they will break down their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and they will no longer learn to fight." He says, "These people," talking about Christians, "formed their swords and war lances into
plowshares, that is, into instruments used for peaceful purposes.
So now they are unaccustomed to fighting. When they are struck, they offer also the other cheek." All right, now we're going to move down to Alexandria, Egypt. And there's going to be several quotes here from Clement of Alexandria. By the way, that quote of Irenaeus can be found in volume one, page 512. Clement is in volume two. This first quote is from page 234. He's writing about the year 195. He was a teacher there in the church.
He says, "It is not in war, but in peace that we are trained." Interestingly, back in the days of the early Christians, the New Testament, when you sent a letter, you melted wax on it, and then you had either a signet ring or a seal that stood by itself that you would press into the wax, and that would also verify it came from you as well as sealing the letter.
Now, the Romans, the seals that they would buy from a craftsman would maybe have a picture on it of a sword, of a soldier, of some pagan god, of a drinking cup, whatever. And so Clement discusses what Christians should have. He said, "Let our seals be either a dove, a fish, or a ship scudding before the wind. If there is anyone fishing, he will remember the apostle and the children drawn out of the water.
We are not to draw an outline of a sword or a bow since we follow peace, nor should we draw an outline of drinking cups since we are temperate." It's on page 286. And again from him, talking about Jesus, he said, "He bids us to love our enemies, bless them who curse us, and pray for those who despitefully use us." And he says, "If anyone strikes you on the one cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone takes away your coat, do not hinder him from taking your cloak also." Page 293.
And again, "An enemy must be aided so that he may not continue as an enemy. For by help, good feeling is compacted and enmity dissolved." And one more from him. The last one was page 370. This is from page 420. "We do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war, for we wish even the men to be peaceable." All right, now we're going to move over to Carthage in center or the western part of North Africa. And writing about the year 197, Tertullian was a respected teacher in the church in Carthage.
He writes, "If then we are commanded to love our enemies, as I have remarked above, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become just as bad ourselves. Who can suffer injury at our hands?" Page 45. Again on that same page, and this is from his apology to the Romans, "We willingly yield ourselves to the sword.
So what wars would we not be both fit and eager to participate in, even against unequal forces, if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay?" Interesting comment he makes there. The Romans were very familiar with the fact that Christians were not afraid to die. They died by the thousands every year or every time persecution broke out, and they would suffer horrible tortures before renouncing Christ.
So he says, "If we were inclined to go to war, we would be a terrible force to come against because we're not afraid to die." But he says, "But we would rather die. We would rather be slain than to kill somebody else." He writes again on page 51, this is all in volume three, "The Christian does no harm even to his enemies." And again on page 80, "God puts his prohibition on every sort of mankilling by that one inclusive commandment, 'You shall not kill.'" And one last one from him, page 154.
He quotes from Isaiah, "A nation will not take up sword against nation, and they will no more learn to fight. Who else therefore does this prophecy apply to other than us? For we are fully taught by the new law and therefore observe these practices. The teaching of the new law points to clemency. It changes the primitive ferocity of swords and lances to tranquility.
It remodels the primitive execution of war upon rivals and enemies of the law into the peaceful actions of plowing and cultivating the land." So now I've read to you from a number of writers scattered all over the ancient world, Africa, Egypt, Rome was where Justin Martyr wrote from, Gaul and France from the Mideast, from Syria. And you find the viewpoints are all the same. Everybody expresses the same viewpoint. They took Jesus' commands very literally on loving enemies and not resisting evil.
And they all understood the prophecy in Isaiah about beating swords into plowshares to being applying to Christians. It's something that we live out in our lives right now. Now we're going to move into the third century, the 200s, and see if there's been any change in the view of the church at that time. We're going to start with Cyprian, whose writings date to about the year 250. He was a very respected leader in the early church.
He was the overseer or bishop in the church at Carthage in North Africa, one of the main cities of the empire. He wrote this. It's in volume five, page 351. "Christians do not attack their assailants in return, for it is not lawful for the innocent to kill even the guilty." Again on page 277, "Wars are scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps.
The whole world is wet with mutual blood, and murder, which is admitted to be a crime in the case of an individual, is called a virtue when it's committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not because they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale." So he says, "It's no different than murder. Even governments realize that when an individual kills another individual, that's evil.
But somehow, when a whole group of people do it, it's called a virtue." And again, page 488, he says, "The hand must not be spotted with the sword and blood, not after the Eucharist is carried in it." So in other words, after you receive the Eucharist or communion, holding it in your hands, then you're going to use those same hands to go out and kill somebody. Now we're going to move, we'll be coming back to the third century, but we're going to move right now to the very beginning of the fourth century.
We saw in the second century still the same view, and we're going to read some more quotes later. And we find when we get to the beginning of the fourth century, up to the Council of Nicaea, this is still the view of the church. Arnobius, who was an apologist writing about the year 305, says, "You allege that those wars of which you speak were sparked because of hatred of our religion," and it's Christian religion.
"However, it would not be difficult to prove that after the name of Christ was heard in the world, wars were not increased. In fact, they actually diminished in great measure by the restraining of furious passions. A numerous band of men as we are, we have learned from his teaching and his laws that evil should not be repaid with evil. Rather, it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it. We would rather shed our own blood than to stain our hands and our conscience with that of another.
As a result, an ungrateful world is now enjoying, and for a long period has enjoyed, a benefit from Christ. For by his means, the rage of savage ferocity has been softened and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow creature. In fact, if all men without exception would lend an ear for a while to his salutary and peaceful rules, the whole world would be living in the most peaceful tranquility.
The world would have turned the use of steel into more peaceful uses and would unite together in blessed harmony, maintaining inviolate the sanctity of treaties." It's interesting that he would say this, that if everybody were Christian, then we wouldn't have wars. Could today's Christians, could the church today, or what professes to be the church, say that today? Well, we know it's not true. For many, many centuries, all of Europe professed to be Christians.
And look at the endless wars all throughout the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the whole period up to the modern times, and even worse, as you get into the 20th century, two world wars, both started and fought primarily in Europe. Look at just the history of America, the war between the states, both sides being professed Christians. Now, we couldn't say that today. The world would laugh at us, but they could say it back then. Now I'm going to read a few quotes from Lactantius, who was a very educated Christian.
In fact, he was called to be the tutor of Constantine when Constantine was young before he became emperor. And this is what he writes close to the end. It's about the year maybe 310, something like that. Close to the end of the pre-Nicene period, he says, "If only God were worshiped, there would not be dissensions and wars, for men would know that they are the sons of one God." That's in volume seven, page 143. Arnobius, who I'd read before, is in volume six, page 415. And again, these will all be from Lactantius.
"Why would the just man carry on war and mix himself with the passions of others when his mind is engaged in perpetual peace with men? Would he be delighted with foreign merchandise or with human blood, he who does not know how to seek gain? For the Christian is satisfied with his standard of living. He considers it unlawful not only to commit slaughter himself, but also to be present with those who do it." It's page 153 of volume seven.
Again, on page 169, "If desire is restrained, no one will use violence by land or by sea. No one will lead an army to carry off and lay waste the property of others." Again, page 169, "How can a man be just who hates, who despoils, who puts to death? Yet those who strive to be serviceable to their country do all these things.
When they speak of the duties relating to warfare, their speech pertains neither to justice nor to true virtue." And again, page 271, "It is not right that a worshiper of God should be injured by another worshiper of God." That's on page 271. In fact, there's additional quotes that I'm not going to read to you just to not overload you with this. But let me take note of a few things. I want you to understand that these are not some select quotes that I've pulled from here or there.
By all means, read the Ante-Nicene Fathers, verify that what I'm telling you is true. And that is, every single writer who discusses the subject of war or violence or anything like that, they all present the same view, that we are to love our enemies, that war is wrong, that a Christian cannot take up the sword no matter what the evil is on the other side. We do not combat evil using the means of evil.
And this went against everything that the world of that time knew, against Jewish culture, against Roman culture, because it was revolutionary. It was from the teachings of Jesus Christ. And you will not find, as I said, even a single writer who takes a contrary view. We've looked now over a period of 225 years, and from all over parts of the ancient world, and everybody expressed the same view.
I think if we're honest, we all have to acknowledge that none of us like to hear a viewpoint that's contrary to what we believe, particularly in matters of the Christian faith. And I can well understand if this is a bit unsettling to you, but please don't go away and say, "Well, that's just what David Bercot says." If you're troubled by what you've heard, search this out for yourself. The writings are there. You can get the whole 10-volume set. You can often find them at a public library or a university library.
Check up on what I'm telling you. I know when I speak to groups of people and where we have questions and answers, usually about this point, there's a lot of hands going up and people will start off, "Yeah, but what about?" So let me just discuss a few of these what abouts. The first one that's usually brought up is, "Well, what about John the Baptist?
When the Roman soldiers came to him and said, 'What should we do?' He didn't tell them to not use the sword, to lay down their swords, to get out of the army, anything like that." This is, I believe, Luke chapter three. Instead, he tells them to not extort money from anyone, to be content with their wages. Although I think the King James renders it, "Do violence to no man." But regardless of how you translate it, what does that have to do with Christians? John the Baptist was not a Christian. He was born a Jew.
He died a Jew. He died before Jesus Christ, gave his life for us. And Jesus pointed this out. He said, "No man born of woman is greater than John the Baptist, but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." John the Baptist was not part of the kingdom of God. He was the forerunner who pointed people to the Lamb of God. I mean, if you were to go to John the Baptist, then you'd have to say, "Well, we have to all be circumcised. We have to observe the seventh-day Sabbath.
We can't eat pork and all of those other things." All right, another one that's brought up. Well, what about there towards the end of Jesus' life when right before his arrest, he told his apostles that previously he had told them not to carry a sandal bag or a money bag and an extra pair of sandals, that sort of thing. But he said, "Now I tell you," and he said, "To carry a sword." Well, what was that pointing to? Well, that was pointing to the Garden of Gethsemane.
If you remember, the apostles came up with two swords, and he said, "That's sufficient." And then in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he was about to be arrested, Peter pulled out his sword and he cut the high priest, the ear of the high priest slave, cut his ear off. So what was the point of this? Was Jesus now saying, "Arm yourselves and defend yourselves?" No, not at all. He was pointing out just the opposite. This was going to be an object lesson. He was about to leave them.
They had sort of depended upon him, trusted him when he was present, but now he was going to be present invisibly. He was going to be present, dwelling in their hearts through the Holy Spirit. And so they were going to have to trust in God. They were going to have to trust in the heavenly Jesus. And so he had them bring two swords in order to teach them that they didn't need to rely upon swords, because what's the first thing he said after the slave had his ear cut off? He said, "Put the sword back in its place.
He who lives by the sword will die by the sword." And then he turned around and he healed the slave's ear. So no, he wasn't saying, "Now that I'm gone, it's back to hating your enemy and all of that." No, he was teaching them just the opposite. You don't need swords. All right, what about Cornelius? People often ask. He was a Roman centurion and doesn't say that they told him to leave the army or not use the sword or anything like that. That's right. The account in Acts doesn't say anything.
So then do we take silence and say, "Well, that then contradicts all of these very specific teachings of Jesus Christ, all of these very specific teachings of the apostles"? Do we then say, "Well, the silence on this one thing, then that overrules all that"? You can't prove something from silence. It'd be just as easy to say, "Well, I think we can all be certain that shortly after he was baptized, he resigned his command in the Roman army and all of that." I think that's just as fair of an inference.
But the point is, we don't know. Nothing is said about it. And as we talked about before, it generally was not an issue for the Christians in the New Testament period, because at least at the beginning, most of them were Jews. They couldn't have served in the army if they wanted to. All right, another thing people have told me, they said, "Well, I've read a book and it said that Christians were in the armies during the period of the early church." And that's true.
There are, not very many, but there are a couple of references to Christians being in the Roman armies. So does that mean then that the church really wasn't opposed to warfare? Well, we've already read so many specific quotes, it obviously can't mean that. As I said, you won't find one single quote from anybody in the early church period saying it's okay to take up the sword and to defend yourself or to defend your country.
So what would you think about these references, and there's only a few, to Christians being in the army? Well, I think there's a work that clarifies it for us. It's called The Apostolic Constitutions, and it was compiled by a Christian leader in Rome named Hippolytus. In fact, he was an elder or presbyter there in the church of Rome.
And in his work, The Apostolic Tradition, he discusses the various practices concerning baptism and how different people of different careers were to be treated when they came to be baptized. If someone's a sorcerer, then they have to totally get rid of all of their works of sorcery, for example. Or if they're an actor, they have to give up the theater before they can be baptized. But he says this concerning soldiers.
"A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander, however, or a civic magistrate who wears the purple must resign or be rejected. On the other hand, if an applicant or a believer seeks to become a soldier, they must be rejected for they have despised God." Okay, I think this clears up our mystery.
Now, I'm not going to argue that this position was necessarily the right one, that to allow soldiers to stay in the army as long as they made a commitment that they would never use the sword, never take the oath, never assume a military command, because that would mean even though you're not killing, you've got people under you who you're ordering to do that. But on the other hand, right or wrong, and like I say, this is about the year 200, maybe it represents a little bit of liberality. I don't know.
But this would explain then why you might have either baptized Christians or perhaps people who called themselves Christians who had not yet been baptized, but who believed in Jesus Christ, who were still serving in the army. But you will not find a reference anywhere during this time, either from the Romans or from the Christian writings, of any Christian ever using the sword against another individual. And you could easily spend your whole life in the Roman army and never use the sword.
Because remember, during this period, it was called the Pax Romana, a period of a couple hundred years. Some would look at a period of about 300 years, up to the 300s, where the Roman armies were not involved in any major wars with outsiders. There was not even one successful invasion of the Roman Empire. There were a few rebellions, a few skirmishes on the borders, but that's it. And so the typical Roman soldier during this time period probably never was called upon to kill someone. That need never arose.
They spent most of their time as engineers, construction engineers, building roads, all the roads throughout the Roman Empire. And it had the best roads up to that period in world history were almost all built by soldiers. Same is true of the aqueducts, the walls around various cities, things like that. So like I say, you could technically be in the army, be a soldier, and yet be spending your time building roads. Now, today, the situation is a little different.
Today, you can say, for example, in America, "I'm a conscientious objector, and therefore I need out of the military," and they will discharge you. In Rome, you couldn't do that. And often, for an individual soldier, the only way out was death. If you said, "I resign," they would put you to death. So you'd never even get baptized if you had to resign before you got baptized. But right or wrong, that was at least the policy in Rome around the year 200, and I think a couple of other places.
But then there's other references, for example, in a work called The Disputation Against Manes, who was a heretic or founder of another religion, where the soldiers who were listening, watching this debate, at the end, they were so impressed, not only by the message they heard, but seeing that the Christian leader there would not allow the crowd to stone the heretic. It says that they threw down their military girdles, their swords, their belts, all of that sort of stuff, and became Christians.
So there's evidence of the opposite of soldiers totally leaving all of that before they were accepted for baptism. But the fact that Christians did not take up the sword is demonstrated in a writing that we have, which would date to the latter part of the 100s, the second half of the second century. The letter purports to be from the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Now, most historians today say they don't think it was really written by him. I don't know. It says this, though.
And again, this will explain a little bit about soldiers who were Christians still in the army. It says, "Having then examined my own position," this is Marcus Aurelius writing or someone purporting to write in his name, "and my host, my enemy, with respect to the vast hordes of the barbarian enemies," or rather, my host refers to his army, "with respect to the vast hordes of the barbarian enemies, I quickly prayed to the gods of my country.
When my prayers were unanswered, I summoned those among us who go by the name of Christians." This was very typical. If something went wrong, everyone blamed the Christians. And so when his prayers weren't answered, his first thought is, "We must have these Christians somewhere among us," because the Romans thought that they were atheists since the Christians had no images or statues or anything like that, no temple like even the Jews had.
"After inquiring," he writes, "I found that there were a considerable number of them, and so I began to revile them. But my curses were quite undeserved, for I soon learned firsthand of their power. They began the battle not by preparing weapons, nor arms, nor bugles, for such preparation is hateful to them because their consciences are trained by the teachings of their god. These Christians whom we had supposed were atheists actually serve a god who rules their consciences.
For having cast themselves on the ground, they prayed not only for me but also for the whole army as it stood by, asking that we might all be delivered from the present thirst and famine. Almost as soon as they had cast themselves on the ground in prayer to their god, a god of whom I am ignorant, water poured from heaven.
Upon us, a refreshingly cool shower, but upon the enemies of Rome, a withering hail." Now, it's interesting, other Roman sources do make reference to that particular battle or situation, and they verify that a heavy rain came and saved the lives of the Romans who were dying of thirst because they were surrounded and cut off from any water supply, and it fell as hail on the barbarians, which caused them to scatter and flee.
Now, like I say, these other sources do not credit it to the Christians, but they do verify that these events happened. And this is one of the very few references you'll find to people who were Christians or professed to be Christians in the army. And as you can see from that account, they did not use the sword. They fell on the ground and prayed, and they were ready to be killed by the enemy or by their commander rather than to take up the sword.
I think it's important that you understand that it wasn't just a matter of not going to war. The Christians followed Jesus' commands in the Sermon on the Mount of Do Not Resist Evil. They followed that very literally in all kinds of areas. They would not take their fellow man to court. For example, they would certainly not take a fellow Christian, but generally, they would not take even an unbeliever, a pagan, to court. They refused to watch the gladiator games where men were being put to death.
They wouldn't go to the public execution, which was a normal thing in those times to go out and watch people being hung or impaled or beheaded or whatever. They wouldn't watch that. They had wanted nothing to do with violence or bloodshed. And even in persecution, if somebody was going to take up the sword, you'd think, "Well, that would be a situation to defend the church." During this whole period of the Ante-Nicene Church, Christians lived with a death sentence over their head.
And most of them were not put to death. Persecution wasn't an ongoing sort of thing in every community. It was ongoing all the time, but it would suddenly burst out in this community, maybe over in Egypt or something. And the rest of the Christians in the rest of the world were fine. And then that would subside and be over with, and then maybe the next year or something would break out somewhere else.
And yet, whether persecution was going on at a particular moment, you knew as a Christian it could break out anytime and you'd be put to death. Instead of fighting the Romans when this happened, Christians would try to flee, as Jesus told them to do, if that were possible. If it weren't possible, they preferred to die than to kill another man in their own defense. They were absolutely convinced that God would not let the church be annihilated.
And so they stood before the Romans with naked hands, letting them know that we Christians will not use human means to try to preserve the church. They trusted God and God alone as their protector, and God protected them. The Romans never were able to stamp out the church. And in the end, you have Constantine throwing in the towel and saying, "Let's all become Christians," which ended up not being a blessing, but he had given up.
The Roman Empire had given up on trying to wipe out the Christians, even though the Christians never fought back to them. Origen wrote to the Romans about this. He said, "When God gives the tempter, that's Satan, permission to persecute us, we suffer persecution.
And when God wishes us to be free from suffering, even though surrounded by a world that hates us, we enjoy a wonderful peace, trusting in the protection of the one who said, 'Be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world.'" And truly, he has overcome the world. Therefore, the world prevails only as long as it is permitted to him by him who received power from the Father to overcome the world. From his victory, we take courage.
If God allows us to suffer and contend for our faith again, let the enemy come against us. We'll say to them, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." Well, you may be wondering, but doesn't a Christian have a responsibility to his country? Well, the early Christians would have said yes. We have a responsibility, but in a very different way than the world defends their countries. Because you see, one of the underlying foundations of Christianity is that the end never justifies the means.
In Christianity, the means by which we accomplish something is always just as important as the end itself. Overcoming evil by using evil means yourself was totally unacceptable to the primitive Christians. Although the Romans considered it as a noble act to defend one's country by taking the lives of others, the Christians didn't. I read to you earlier from Lactantius. I want to read that quote again about what really is involved when we quote serve our country.
He says, "It is not virtue to be quote the enemy of the bad and quote the defender of the good." You see, every—this is me now—every government always says, "They're the enemy of the bad. They're the good ones." And of course, the people that are fighting, they say the same things as well. Every side always says God is on their side. Lactantius continues, "The interests of our country are invariably acquired and protected at the expense of another state or nation.
Increasing the power of the state, improving the state revenue, and extending the national boundaries are accomplished by violently taking from others. None of these things are virtuous, but are instead the abrogation of virtue. How can a man be just who injures, who hates, who despoils, and who kills? Yet those who strive to serve their country do all these things. A man who gives in to grief and anger instead of struggling with them and rushes to wherever he feels called by injustice, he's not upholding virtue.
For a person who repays injury for injury is actually imitating the person by whom he has been injured. He who imitates a wicked person can by no means be righteous." So see, if our country wants us to take up means that are contrary to Jesus Christ, we can't do that. And yet, we can help to defend our country in another way. The Roman critic Celsus, who wrote a searing work against Christians, and he was very well informed about what Christians believed and practiced.
And he really criticized them, for example, their view on not participating in war, not taking up quote civic duties and that sort of thing. Well, Origen wrote a response to Celsus, and this is what Origen says. He says, "We are urged, now quoting from Celsus, to quote help the king with all our might, to work with him in the preservation of justice, to fight for him, and if he requires it, to fight under him or to lead an army along with him." End of quotation.
Origen says, "Our answer is that we do, when appropriate, give help to the king, but in a divine way, putting on the whole armor of God. We do this in obedience to the injunction of the apostle, quote I urge then first of all that request, prayers, intercession, and thanksgiving be made for everyone, for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." End of quote. And you'll probably recognize that's 1 Timothy 2:1-2.
Origen continues, "The holier a person's life is, the more effective he is to help kings, far more than soldiers who go out to fight and slaughter as many of the enemy as they can. To those enemies of our faith who would require us to bear arms for the empire and to kill men, we reply, 'Don't the priests who attend your gods keep their hands free from blood so that they may offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods with hands unstained by human blood?
Even when war breaks out, you never enlist the priests in the army.' Now, if that is a praiseworthy custom, how much more so that while others are engaged in battle, Christians should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their hands pure. By our prayers, we put to flight the enemies who stir up war. So we are much more helpful to kings than those who go into the field and fight for them. Indeed, we refuse to fight under the king even when he demands it.
But we do fight on his behalf, forming a special army of righteousness by offering our prayers to God." Now, there's a lot more I could say about what are our responsibilities to our country, but I've saved most of that for another message that's entitled The Two Kingdoms. If you haven't listened to that, I really encourage you to do so because you can't totally understand their position on war without understanding what was one of the basic doctrines of the early church, the doctrine of the two kingdoms.
I'm surprised at how many Christians or professing Christians scoff when they hear the quotes that I just read that, "Oh, if we pray, that's going to save our country." Because what are they showing? They're showing they really don't have faith in God. Then when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, they're saying the only way we can preserve our country, the only way we can preserve our freedoms and that sort of thing is to use the same means as the world uses because we don't have supernatural power as Christians.
And they would say, "Well, this is unrealistic to think we can just pray." Well, let me just share a little bit of history with you, and let's see how unrealistic it was. As I mentioned, from about the time of the birth of Christ to the year 200, secular historians refer to this as the Pax Romana, the Roman peace, a period of time, as I said, that was marked by very little war and no successful invasions of the Roman Empire.
Other historians would really extend the period of the Roman peace pretty well up to the time of Constantine. There were wars in the later 200s and the early 300s, but these were primarily wars of one Roman army fighting another Roman army because you had various military commanders who were vying to be the emperor. And so the wars you had going on then were, again, internal wars. The barbarians had not successfully been able to penetrate the boundaries of the Roman Empire up to that point.
And the early Christians talk about this a lot. I read you that one quote from Arnobius where he mentions it, but many of the other ones mention it as well, that because of our prayers, look at the peace you're having. Look at the protection the empire has. No one is able to successfully invade it. Now, after Constantine began to favor Christianity and to profess to be a Christian, very quickly, within a few decades, this view on war was thrown out the door, and Christians began serving in the army.
And by the end of the 300s, only a Christian could serve in the army. If you were a pagan, you weren't allowed to be in the army because Christianity had now become the state religion. So what happened then? Now Christians were taking up the sword to defend the empire, and so the empire just continued on for centuries just enjoying peace, right? Wrong.
Within a few decades, after Christians began taking up the swords, the barbarians began invading the empire, and in less than a century, the whole Western Empire collapsed, completely taken over by the German barbarians and by other tribes. And in the centuries that followed, little by little, the Eastern Empire began losing its realms until it shrank and shrank, and about nothing was left but the city of Constantinople. So our history would show we can depend upon God's promises.
If we'll be on our knees praying, if the whole church did this, that would protect our country. But when we pray and then go out with swords, we're showing we don't really trust God. We don't really think that he's going to protect our country. That's why we have to be there with guns and bombs and airplanes and that sort of thing. And of course, we're not going to receive his protection when the church doesn't have faith in him.
Another example of how effective it is, its position of non-resistance, is dealing with persecution. The Christians never fought back when they were persecuted, even though they could have no doubt effectively done so since they weren't afraid to die. And yet, interesting here, they were facing up against the mightiest empire that had ever existed on the face of the earth. They stood up to it with no swords, no arms of any kind, and the Romans could not stamp them out.
And the Roman government certainly tried to stomp out the flame of Christianity, but they couldn't. And in the end, Constantine and his successors threw in the towel and said, "Look, we'll become Christians," which they really didn't, but that's another story altogether. So it does work. We can truly trust in God. In conclusion, to the early Christians, we've seen that Jesus' command to love one's enemy wasn't some unattainable ideal to them. It was a way of life.
They applied Jesus' teachings quite literally, and they refused to fight against even those who persecuted the church. They labeled war as simply being murder on a grand scale. And the question I'd like to ask is, do Christians today have the faith to follow the example the early Christians set in walking in the footsteps of our Lord Jesus Christ?