Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 4

The lesson argues the early church did not limit Romans 12 to “personal vengeance” but applied it to war, quoting Justin Martyr (“now refrain from making war even upon our enemies”) and Origen (“Christ nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to anyone”); what would accepting that historic stance require you to rethink about patriotism, self-defense, and what it means to “serve your country”?

Another way to ask: If Romans 12 also applies to war, not just personal revenge, what would you have to rethink about patriotism, self-defense, and what it means to serve your country?

Direct Answer Accepting the stance described in the transcript would require rethinking whether “serving your country” can include acts—like killing in war—that early Christians treated as forbidden violence. It would also challenge the common distinction between personal ethics and national actions.

Support from Transcript:

Bercot notes that “since the days of Augustine” many say Romans 12 applies only to “personal vengeance,” but war is “different.”
He counters: “that is not the historic faith. The early Christians made no such distinction.”
Justin Martyr: “We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies.”
Origen: “Christ nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to anyone, no matter how wicked.”
Origen argues Christ “altogether forbidden the putting of men to death” and did not allow “the killing of any individual, whomever.”
Lactantius questions how people can be “righteous” while doing what warfare involves.

Discussion Follow-ups If discipleship rules out violence “no matter how wicked,” what happens to our categories of patriotic duty and self-defense? How would we describe “service” in ways consistent with living peaceably and refusing retaliation?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 4 of 10