Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 5
They note the Pax Romana context and “gray areas” (building roads, policing) where someone could be a soldier yet never use the sword—how does that complicate modern all-or-nothing debates about Christian participation in state systems, and what principles from this lesson should govern those decisions?
Another way to ask: If a soldier could serve and still avoid violence in the Roman world, how does that affect today’s debates about Christians working in government or state systems? What guiding rules should shape those choices?

Direct Answer The transcript complicates simplistic categories by showing that some state roles may involve less direct violence in certain contexts, but the guiding principle remains clear: Christians must not use the sword and must remain faithful to Jesus as King.

Support from Transcript:

  • They locate Hippolytus around “the year 200” during the “Pax Romana,” when the “average soldier would not have been involved in bloodshed.”
  • They list duties that could be nonviolent: “building walls, building roads, bridges… maybe policemen.”
  • Yet they maintain a nonviolent boundary: “they couldn’t use the sword… it would have been entirely possible to be a soldier and never use the sword.”
  • Dean’s Wales “Bobby” story illustrates nonlethal policing as a cultural possibility: police “didn’t carry any weapons except… this club.”
  • They keep the big picture: “We do know where Jesus is King and He gives us the ways that He wants His people to behave.”
Discussion Follow-ups Where do you think your culture has made violence feel ‘normal’ or ‘necessary’? What would it look like to evaluate a role by whether it pressures you to cross the transcript’s lines (sword, oaths, coercion)?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10
Back Questions Next