Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 7
Several writers frame non-resistance as absolute—Clement: no violence to correct sin; Tertullian: “evil is not to be repaid with evil”; Lactantius: not resisting “even in word”; which forms of “violence” or retaliation (legal pressure, public shaming, verbal aggression, forceful self-protection) do you instinctively justify, and what reasons do you give that the early Christians would likely reject?
Another way to ask: Early Christians talked like non-resistance meant no payback at all, even with words. Which kinds of “payback” do you tend to excuse (lawsuits, online shaming, harsh words, self-defense), and why would early Christians likely disagree?

Direct Answer The transcript presses that early Christians rejected retaliation in many forms—physical force, payback, even resisting “in word”—so instincts like verbal aggression, shaming, or forceful self-defense would likely be seen as repaying evil with evil. Their reasons center on Jesus’ absolute command and leaving vengeance to God rather than asserting personal rights.

Support from Transcript:

  • Clement: “Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sins.”
  • Tertullian: “The commandment is absolute. Evil is not to be repaid with evil.”
  • He argues both provoker and provoked are condemned “for hurting a man,” rejecting “order” as an excuse.
  • Lactantius: “we do not resist even in word. Rather, we leave vengeance to God.”
  • Lactantius extends it to property: the Christian “does not even defend his own property if it is taken…by violence.”
  • Athenagoras: “not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us.”
Discussion Follow-ups Which feels most reasonable to you—verbal pushback, legal action, or physical self-protection—and why? How does “leave vengeance to God” challenge the way you respond when you feel wronged?