Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 6

Cyprian says “it is not lawful for the innocent to kill even the guilty,” and Tertullian treats “You shall not kill” as an inclusive prohibition; how would accepting that premise reshape common Christian exceptions (self-defense, police/military service, “just war”), and where do you anticipate the hardest pushback?

Another way to ask: If it’s never right to kill—even someone guilty—how would that change common Christian exceptions like self-defense, police/military work, or “just war”? Where do you think people would argue the most against that view?

Direct Answer Accepting that premise would shut the door on the usual exceptions, because it frames killing as forbidden even when the target is “guilty” or the cause seems noble. The hardest pushback, in Bercot’s framing, would likely come from ideas about defending self or country and the belief that “the end justifies the means.”

Support from Transcript:

Cyprian: “Christians do not attack their assailants in return, for it is not lawful for the innocent to kill even the guilty.”
Tertullian: “God puts his prohibition on every sort of mankilling by that one inclusive commandment, ‘You shall not kill.’”
Bercot repeatedly states the early church view: “a Christian cannot take up the sword no matter what the evil is on the other side.”
He says early Christians believed “we do not combat evil using the means of evil.”
He contrasts Roman patriotism with Christian ethics: Romans saw it as “noble…to defend one’s country by taking the lives of others,” but Christians didn’t.
He states a foundational principle: “the end never justifies the means,” and the “means…[are] just as important as the end.”

Discussion Follow-ups Which exception feels most “necessary” to you—self-defense, policing, or war—and how does it collide with the early Christian reading of Jesus’ commands?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 6 of 10