Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 7
In Tertullian’s series of questions (“Shall the Son of Peace take part in battle…?” “Shall he apply the chain, the prison, the torture…?”), what picture of Christian identity is being assumed, and how does that collide with common evangelical categories like “defending freedom,” “just war,” or “protecting the innocent”?
Another way to ask: In Tertullian’s questions about battle, prisons, and torture, what kind of Christian identity is he assuming. How does that clash with ideas like “defending freedom,” “just war,” or “protecting the innocent”?

Direct Answer Tertullian assumes Christians are fundamentally “sons of peace” who do not use the sword or act as avengers, so participating in battle or coercive punishment clashes with their identity—an identity modern evangelicals often blend with national defense categories.

Support from Transcript:

  • Tertullian asks whether it can be lawful to “make an occupation of the sword” when the Lord says “he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword.”
  • He frames Christian identity as peace-oriented: “Shall the Son of Peace take part in battle…?”
  • He links this to non-retaliation even in personal matters: “when it does not become him even to sue at law…when he is not the avenger of his own wrongs.”
  • He extends the concern to coercive force: “chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment.”
  • Bercot summarizes the early Christian stance: they opposed war because of literal obedience to loving enemies and turning the other cheek.
Discussion Follow-ups The transcript doesn’t directly address modern “just war” reasoning, but it creates a collision: if Christians are not avengers even of personal wrongs, how easily can they justify killing enemies for national goals, even good ones like “protecting the innocent”?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10
Back Questions Next