THE CONFLICT OF AGES
Daniel H. Shubin
He (the Messiah) will judge between the nations, and will decide for many people; and they will beat their swords into plows and their spears into pruning shears; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Isaiah 2:4.
“My kingdom is not of this world.”
Jesus Christ to Pontius Pilate. John 18:36.
THE ORIGIN OF THE MILITARY
Jesus taught that his Kingdom was not of this world. His was the Kingdom of God or the heavenly kingdom. John 18:36.
The earthly or secular governments are the kingdoms of this world. These are America and the members of the United Nations, and other sovereign states that are politically independent. The power in each of these secular governments is held by a minority of the population, namely the political and military leadership, those who control the financial institutions of the state, and the industrial giants. There exists both a benefit and a detriment in the institution of secular government.
The detriment of secular government lies in the formation of a military along with the massive industrial complex required to support the military. A military is an important facet of the identity and political independence of the nation because, it symbolizes the establishment of a sovereign state and which will defend its existence as a corporate entity. The military is thus designed to serve in the best interests of the state as defined by the ruling party, and to violently defend the ideals that the state represents.
War readily and regularly occurs between the nations because it is a self-imposed judgement upon them for their inability to live in peaceful coexistence. Leaders sense power in devising and creating and employing war. A declaration of war is the product of the military regime to justify its development, its preparations, its manufacture of weapons. War benefits the political and military leadership and the industrial giants and financial institutions, while to the detriment of individuals, society and civilization. The development of industry to support the military as a means of boosting the national economy is artificial, because it is not genuinely productive for the material advancement of the population. The attitude of the state is that military production and recruits are expendable and renewable.
THE CONFLICT OF AGES
Military service is the most volatile of all topics in the dialogue between the relation of religion and state. Religions in America tend to agree with one another regarding secular legislation and do conform to the dictates of the state, but military service is volatile. The reason is ultimate allegiance: Is it to God as the highest authority, or to the state if the demand is at variance to God’s? Is payment of taxes, and civic and community service, sufficient compensation to the state for the privilege of living within the national borders and enjoying the rights and freedoms provided by it, or must a person sacrifice his life at the dictate of the state? This is the conflict of ages.
A military demands financial support for its existence. The military budget has a voracious and insatiable appetite and causes a financial burden on the average American worker and a debt for the country itself. The reader will understand the expense of war and a standing army by following the career of a military recruit from enlistment to entombment.
The state includes a Selective Service System to keep track of military age Americans for possible recruitment, and has recruitment offices staffed in offices throughout the nation. The enlisted soldier must be taught military science and politics in schools, trained for military service by superiors, clothed with several sets of uniforms and fatigues, fed daily and housed in barracks on military bases. If he is married, there is additional allowances for wife and offspring.
The weapons he uses must be contracted for, designed, manufactured, tested, and distributed, and the soldiers must be trained in their use. This applies to guns and ammunition, aircraft, missiles, bombs, artillery, ships and submarines; military bases and equipment to operate the bases. Every congressional district in America has a military base of some sort in its locale, to route federal funds unto the area and promote the local economy.
Military personal must be transported to the area of warfare. If killed in battle, his body is returned to relatives and buried at the expense of the government. If he survives and acquires an honorable discharge, he is qualified to obtain benefits from the government throughout his life. The expenses of the military never end.
UNITY OF STATE AND RELIGION
Government leaders are themselves imbued with a sense of religious fervor and a concern for the welfare of the population, and so the vein of laws legislated are designed for the benefit of the population. The conflict arises with the legislation of law that is at an intolerable variance with the convictions of the individual. Because the Constitution forbids legislation of laws prohibiting the establishment of religion or a resident’s freedom to practice their religion, to resolve the conflict between conscience and the state regarding military service the state adopts the advice of Plato, the pedophile Greek philosopher, and implements an artificial religion for the residents of the state in the churches of its domain.
Plato believed that a nation cannot be strong unless it believes in God; he realized the value of a uniform religion to the stability and success of the military. According to Plato, a mere cosmic force or first cause that was not a person could hardly inspire hope or loyalty or sacrifice, and could not offer comfort to the hearts of the distressed, nor courage to embattled souls. Plato taught that a living God could do all this, and advised that the state promote a living God whose doctrines and demands parallel those of the state; religious belief would be used to gain control over the citizens. Plato also taught that control would be more effective if a belief in personal immortality was promoted along with belief in God. This conviction of immortality, the hope of another life, would give the soldiers courage to meet their own death on the battlefield and be able to bear the death of other soldiers and innocent victims.
The state in adopting this definition and use of God does not become Christian, but becomes the materialization of Plato’s Republic. Religion implemented by the state surfaces in the form of military chaplains and base chapels. “For God and Country,” is the motto of Plato’s secular religion. A person accepting this new religion now concludes that military service in obedience to the state has been approved by God the supreme authority, and is right and commendable. A soldier now proceeds in battle convinced that God is on his side, and that the enemy of the state as defined by the government is also the enemy of God to be vanquished.
The objective of training children to be subjected to the state within the realm of secular religion was also advocated by Plato, knowing that a subsequent generation would always arise to accomplish the decrees of the military.
WAR WILL NEVER END
There is no justification to armed conflict, regardless of the arguments that appear humanitarian and those that claim that force is inevitable to defeat a totalitarian dictator or curb atrocities committed by some regime. Jesus said, “And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is not near.” Mark 13:7. He was absolutely right. Armed military conflict has existed from the initial stages of civilization and news of them travels to other areas rapidly. History contains a continuous and uninterrupted vein of turmoil and armed conflict, and any war initiated will run its course until the judgement of God be accomplished.
The typical person incurs sufficient difficulties during the normal course of life without having to seek and create more. Every person succumbs to illness, accidents, work exhaustion, and eventually our own natural death; weather related calamities and natural catastrophes likewise destroy our property and curb our prosperity. War, however, is man-made and does more damage to human progress than does the elements of nature. There is no justifiable reason to increase the difficulties a person will naturally incur by creating war and imposing its destructive effects on themselves and other people and property.
There will never be a war to end war. A person proceeding to battle convinced he will institute peace will not terminate war, but will only contribute to and continue the incessant history of warfare and the manufacture of weapons and military equipment. After the conclusion of one conflict another will arise shortly after in another region and between other nations. The efforts of the true Christian during war is directed toward reconciliation and institution of peace, and the advocacy of conscientious objection. In peacetime the true Christian works toward mutual harmony and demilitarization to preclude further aggression and conflict.
THE INITIAL PERIODS
The student of the Bible must realize that God dealt with His nation Israel and the other nations of the middle East in the manner of their culture and era. Their education was meager, science and mathematics and engineering were shallow, and communication was slow. People lived in fear; might was right. Few rules were imposed by God for the success of His people and any others who would take advantage of them, and few rules were provided for their interaction with other nations. God designed the course of history of the 4,000 years from Adam to Jesus Christ taking into serious consideration the barbarism of the people and lack of civilization. God’s perfect law included many accommodations due to the uncivilized nature of their society.
The first documented war in the Old Testament is in Gen 14, when the patriarch Abraham armed his servant warriors to defeat 4 alien kings and their armies. Abraham’s primarily purpose was to rescue his nephew Lot from these invaders. Abraham and his small force was the method God accomplished his vengeance on these 4 alien kings for their invasion and pillage of the 5 communities of southern Canaan.
The use of the descendents of Abraham for the execution of God’s wrath on the sinful and wicked nations of Canaan is mentioned in a statement of God to Abraham.
For the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. Gen 15:16.
God was to utilize the arrival of the new nation of Israel to the land promised by God to execute His judgement and penalty upon the indigenous nations of Canaan for their crimes. This is essentially capital punishment on a large scale. The crimes of the residents of Jericho and other areas on both sides of the Jordan River were so serious that God from heaven pronounced them guilty and sentenced them to death. Their execution occurred in their defeat by the armies of Israel, and none was to be spared. Deut 7:1-2. The history of the wars against the Canaanites is documented in the book of Joshua.
LATER WARS
God did utilize the nation of Israel to impose penalty on local nations whenever their individual and national crimes increased to some intolerable extent. God pronounced his judgement and sentenced them from heaven, some to slavery, some to death, whatever the proper penalty was that they deserved, and sent His army of Israel to fulfill His command. I Sam 15:1-3. The reverse would also occur when Israel would sin against God. He would summon a local pagan nation to invade Israel and execute the penalty on them. Judg 2:14. This is the history of Israel and the nations of the middle East as noted in the historical books of the Old Testament.
The devastation of the northern kingdom Israel and their deportation to Assyria and Media by the army of Assyria over the course of several years was the judgement of God upon them for their crimes against Him. 2 Kings 17. Likewise God utilized the army of Babylon as His method of executing His penalty on the southern kingdom Judah for their crimes. 2 Kings 24-25. The defeat of Israel and Judah is viewed as penalty on a massive scale for their crimes against one another and against God, and they rightfully deserved such retribution.
Such use of the army of Israel in establishing the kingdom and imposing the judgment of God upon the nations was the typical course of national life during the years of the kings of both Israel and Judah, and continued until the war of independence under the forces of the Maccabees.
An indication that a military was not the perfect will of God, but only a temporary accommodation, is evidenced in the reprimand of Samuel prophet when the people of Israel requested a king. I Sam 8. They people wanted a military leader to rule over them and be militarized like the balance of the nations. Although it was not the perfect will of God, he accommodated them and granted their request.
Another incident to be noted are the words of God to David king, that the temple could not be constructed by him because he was a soldier during his career. I Chron 28:3. Only a person not contaminated by bloodshed could build the temple, and this was Solomon.
JUSTICE
During the Old Testament era capital punishment for a capital crime was legislated by God. To a great extent, these same criteria for determining if a crime deserves capital punishment were transferred over to ecclesiastical law in the middle ages and subsequently into legislated law of western Europe and the Americas.
The purpose of capital punishment was to provide justice to the offended party and those affected by the seriousness of the crime, and also to deter future criminal infraction. Deut 13:5, 10-11. With a speedy trial and conviction by responsible members of the community and their execution of the criminal, crime was to decrease and people would be able to live in greater security.
The initial statute legislating capital punishment is noted in Gen 9:6, for murder, which is defined as a capital crime. Ex 21:12. This was a violation of the fifth commandment, Ex 20:13. Other capital crimes noted in the Old Testament are kidnapping, Ex 21:16. Sorcery, Ex 22:18. False-prophesy, Deut 13:6-11. Premarital sex, Deut 22:20-21. Rape, Deut 22:25. Adultery, Deut 22:24. Necromancy, Lev 20:27. Incest, Lev 20:11-14. Prostitution, Lev 21:9. False-witness in a capital case, Deut 19:15-20. Homosexualism, Lev 20:3. Accidental homicide was not considered murder.
Capital punishment for a capital crime is justice and is classified separately from military combat. To deprive a person of their life was a serious matter and was regulated by the law of God.
THE FUTURE MESSIAH
The use of a military to fulfill the objectives of God in imposing His penalty on disobedient nations was only temporary. It had a definite purpose during the ages from the army of Abraham to the army of the Maccabees. The achievement of Jewish independence from the Greeks by the military force under the sons of Mattathias was the final military struggle of the nation Israel. As it began with Abraham their national progenitor, so it ended with the final military king and priest of Israel, Simon son of Mattathias. 1 Macc 15.
The following passages are the prophesies of Isaiah, Micah and Zechariah. Each of them prophesied during the later eras of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. The prophecies quoted here pertain to the Redeemer of Israel, the future Messiah, and deal with the termination of the military of Israel and the transition into a pacifist society at the time of the installation of his reign.
He will judge between the nations, and will decide for many peoples; and they will beat their swords into plows and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Is 2:4. Micah 4:1-3.
For every boot of the trampling warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulders, and his name will be called: Wonderful, counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, sovereign of peace. Is 9:5-6.
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. Shout, daughter of Jerusalem. Behold, your king comes to you righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding a donkey, on a colt the foal of a donkey. I will take away the chariots from Ephraim and the war-horses from Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be broken. He will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to sea and from the [Euphrates] River to the ends of the earth. Zech 9:9-10
The new redeemer of Israel, the Messiah, was to install a new type of kingdom or government that would not utilize or have need of a military. Is 2:4 refers to the conversion of the production of factories from weapons and artillery to that of agricultural implements. Military preparation, training and enlistment will terminate in this new kingdom. Is 9:5 refers to the destruction of weapons and armaments.
The Messiah possessing the title of Sovereign of Peace refers to his reign over a kingdom that is not engaged in military service, preparation or conflict. Under the Messiah, the military would desist and the citizens of his kingdom will be adherents of peaceful coexistence with all other nations and nationalities. War will cease to exist in the kingdom of the Messiah.
CONCEPT OF THE SPIRITUAL KINGDOM
The spiritual kingdom has resided from the beginning of creation among those who accepted the rule of God over their life. These are the subjects of the spiritual kingdom, those who allow the law of God to rule over them. The rule of God materializes in the voluntary obedience of a person to the code of conduct that is defined in the Bible.
Beginning with the settlement of the earth, God provided a code of conduct, a morality and ethic, to the population. God ruled over His people through this code of conduct. This is primarily the 10 commandments and the related moral instruction throughout the Bible. When a person makes the commitment that the code of conduct of the Bible is to be the rule over their life, and not some other philosophy or novelty or personal moral anarchy, then that person enters into the spiritual kingdom.
The ancient kingdom of Israel was patterned after the spiritual kingdom. God instituting a religious system consisting of priests, sacrifices, holidays, temple and tabernacle furnishing, and form of worship, was to impress upon every member of Israel the need for Him to rule over them with their voluntary subjection to the 10 commandments and related laws dealing with morality. God instituted judges and kings to represent His rule on earth. These were a schoolmaster or tutor to instruct them in the spiritual kingdom, one which was to be accomplished by their future redeemer the Messiah.
THE GOSPEL OF THE SPIRITUAL KINGDOM
John the Baptizer first taught the people the good news of the spiritual kingdom of God. Matt 3:1. After John was committed to prison, shortly after the 40 day fast of Jesus in the desert, Jesus began the proclamation saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of heaven is arriving. Repent and believe in the good news.” Mark 1:15. The gospel of the kingdom was the primary topic of the ministry of Jesus Christ during his 3-1/2 year career. The 12 disciples and later the 70 disciples were sent to preach the good news of the spiritual kingdom to all the Jews. Matt 10:7. Jesus continued to teach his apostles about the spiritual kingdom after his resurrection and to the time of his ascension to heaven. Acts 1:3. Paul apostle taught this gospel throughout his ministry. Acts 28:31. The members of the Messianic assembly at Colossae entered into this spiritual kingdom. Col 1:13.
This kingdom is not a material or corporeal government as it existed in Israel in earlier ages, or like the Roman Empire of the era or any other nation. The people accepting the gospel as proclaimed were to repent – turn their life around – and allow God to rule over their life. This would be accompanied by the people being obedient to the code of conduct and morality of the Bible. Jesus said to Nicodemus, that those born of the word (water) and of the Spirit would enter this kingdom. John 3:6.
The spiritual kingdom materialized on Pentecost among the 120 gathered in the upper room when the holy Spirit descended upon them. With the baptism of the Spirit they entered the kingdom of God and became its citizens. Although they were in this world, they were members of a realm which had its capital in heaven. Although the disciples of Jesus Christ reside in the world, they are not part of the world. John 17:16. This is a difficult facet of the spiritual kingdom to be able to grasp: To be in the world, but not of the world.
The establishment of the spiritual kingdom on this day also meant the fulfillment of the prophesies of Isaiah, Micah and Zechariah among the members of the new kingdom of the Messiah Jesus.
THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST
When Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate, he was asked if he was a king. Jesus answered in these words, “My kingdom is not of this world.” John 18:36. Pilate could not grasp the concept of a person being a ruler over some intangible or incorporeal government or realm. He was perplexed, but then concluded that Jesus was of no threat to his rule as procurator over Judea or to the Roman Empire, and so wanted to free him. The Jews persecuting him likewise could not grasp his message and preferred a militant king.
That violence is not a solution to a conflict of ideas or physical altercation was exemplified by Jesus Christ when he was arrested by the Roman soldiers.
And behold one of those [Peter] who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Matt 26:51-52.
Jesus followed this reprimand of Peter by healing the wound on the soldier, and then stating that if it was the will of God that he should defend himself from the arresting officers, he could summon Angels from heaven to rescue him. Matt 26:53.
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT
In the Sermon on the Mount, the most studied and applicable passage of the New Testament for disciples of Jesus Messiah, he makes 2 most profound statements.
“Resist not evil.” Matt 5:39.
“Love your enemies.” Matt 5:44.
Jesus is not speaking about evil in general, because evil and temptation must be resisted. Part of the difficulty in application is that Jesus spoke to his disciples in Aramaic while the gospel of Matthew is composed in Greek and then translated into English for us. The other difficulty is that the general reader is unaware of the historical background of the era which would surround his disciples’ understanding of the entire Sermon on the Mount. By placing both passages in their historical context and reducing them to their equivalent in the original Aramaic, their application can be properly deduced.
Since 63 BC, Judea was under Roman military occupation. Pompey, Roman general, entered Judea in 65 BC, and within 2 years gained control over the entire country including Jerusalem. He stationed regiments of soldiers in every major city. Jerusalem especially was under occupation by the Roman military. One of the Roman forts was the Tower of Antonia, a large tower next to the temple. Soldiers stationed there keep surveillance over the temple precinct and keep security for the thousands of daily worshippers and visitors. This is probably where Paul apostle was taken by the military commander after the commotion in the temple. Acts 21:31-34.
Every place the eye met in Judea was the ever-present Roman soldier: regimented, armed, and trained to kill and trained to secure safety for the population. They were a combined blessing and curse. A blessing for the national security of the residents; but a curse to their national independence and religious freedom. The Romans were foreigners. Jews in general hated the presence of this foreign military occupation in the land gifted by God to their forefathers. Retaliation of Jews against the Romans was regular, and the Roman soldiers would likewise defend themselves and retaliate against rebellious Jews to secure control.
What did Jesus mean when he said, “Resist not evil.”? He did not want his countrymen to any more retaliate against their military occupation. Aggression was not to be used against the Romans by Jews. Jesus wanted them both to live in a mutual peaceful coexistence. His Jewish countrymen did not have to like the Romans; only to restrain themselves from retaliation due to offenses. This was also the meaning of the statement, “Love your enemies.” So it reads in English, but in its original historical context it was more of a empathy toward those whom Jews felt to be their enemies, the Romans. Jesus knew that the way of peace was only through ceasing retaliation, by Jews deciding to live in peaceful coexistence with their enemies, the foreign Roman military occupation.
If a Roman soldier was to demand a Jewish resident their overcoat, he was also to offer his shirt. If the soldier was to command the Jewish resident to carry his baggage a mile, he was to offer to carry it 2. If the soldier was to strike a Jew, he was not to retaliate. And why all of this? For the Jews to show the Roman that they mean no harm to them. For the Jew to impress on the Roman soldier that they wanted to reside in peace in their own country with no desire for harm to anyone, even to the Romans. Jesus taught his Jewish countrymen that the way to peace is mutual harmony, toleration and non-aggression. To achieve this goal the Jew had to pray for the Romans and be kind to them. Jesus also realized that the Romans were the stronger force with military control over the country, and could easily quell any disturbances or rebellions by Jews. Any Jewish insurrection would be easily defeated by the armed and regimented Romans. It was the Jew who had to make the first move to indicate the desire to live in peace with their secular and military superiors.
The rejection of Jesus as Messiah by the majority of Jews and their rejection of his gospel of the spiritual kingdom, including the Sermon on the Mount, their refusal to acknowledge the way of peace taught by the Prince of Peace, led them to insurrection against the Romans in the next generation, and their eventual defeat in the Jewish War of 66-70 AD.
TERMINATION OF WARFARE
Armed combat and military service now terminates with the establishment of the spiritual kingdom. They are the Church of Christ, the adherents of the New Covenant, the disciples of Jesus Christ. The fulfillment of the prophesies of Isaiah, Micah and Zechariah, materialize in the spiritual kingdom under the Redeemer of Israel, Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. The concept of Christian pacifism and non-resistance to aggression and violence under the Prince of Peace replaces the military struggle against enemies under the ancient kingdom of Israel, now obsolete. No more are the members of God’s people to become involved in the manufacture of weapons and military equipment; this vocation is replaced by those that promote the society and are aimed toward peace and harmony.
Because the members of the spiritual kingdom are worldwide, from every nation and tribe and culture and language, it is preposterous for a Christian confessor to engage in armed combat against a foreign nation or in a civil war. Jesus Christ is the Sovereign of Peace and institutes peace and harmony and reconciliation in those who believe in him and are his disciples. They are examples of peaceful coexistence with all people, regardless of race, creed, color or nationality, and are non-violent in every situation, and refuse retaliation for offenses.
Jesus Christ said to his disciples, “The disciple is not above his teacher and a servant is not above his master.” Matt 10:24. Jesus conducted himself in a non-violent manner when persecuted, and so should his disciples and servants. 1 Pet 2:22-23.
THE REAL WAR
For the true Christian, the real war is a spiritual war. It is the war against sin, against the lust of the flesh, and the victory is gained in defeating temptation. Paul apostle defined it in the following terms:
Put on the entire armor of God that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not contend against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the power, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Eph 6:11-12.
Paul apostle wrote the letter to the Ephesians during his 2 year imprisonment at Caesarea. There were Roman soldiers stationed in the prison as sentries, and no doubt an entire regiment or battalion always in training for combat. This led Paul apostle to utilize the vocation and gear of the secular soldier as an analogy to apply to the real war of the spiritual soldier. The enemy according to Paul apostle is not flesh and blood, it is not the person on the battlefield. The real enemy is the impulse inside a person that causes him and her to inflict damage and act violently. Sin and lust is the real enemy, and the real victory is gained when temptation is defeated. James apostle also realized this.
What causes wars, and what causes fighting among you? It is not your passions that are at war in your members? You desire and do not have; so you kill. And you covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and wage war. Jam 4:1-2.
The real war is against the flawed nature of humanity which contains this impulse of aggression and retaliation. The real war is won with faith, the gospel of peace which is reconciliation and with a knowledge of the word of God, knowing how a person should conduct himself. Using these spiritual weapons a person can defend themselves from temptation and gain the spiritual victory.
THE CLEANSINGS OF THE TEMPLE
Twice Jesus rid the bankers and merchandisers from the temple grounds; at the beginning of his ministry, John 2:13-15, and at the conclusion of his ministry, Matt 21:12-13. As Messiah Jesus had the right to reprimand those who corrupted the true worship of God in his Father’s house. Jesus impressed on the Sadducees their corruption of temple worship by upsetting the tables of the money changes and chasing out sacrificial animals for sale. In each case they ignored him and shortly after continued their business practices.
The point of discussion applicable is whether Jesus would have defended himself if attacked by these religious criminals. He would not have, just as he did not defend himself when arrested. Matt 26:50.
THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD
During the initial 150 years after the ministry of Jesus Christ the members of the newly-formed Christian churches, or Messianic communities as they rightly should be called, abstained from combat and military service. The earliest of these were the Messianic Jews of the apostolic period. These Jews fled Judea to the east side of the Jordan River by prophecy to escape the invasion of Judea by the Roman army, the Jewish War and the devastation of the country, which occurred in the years 66-70 AD. Their migration fulfilled the prophecy of Dan 11:41. The Jewish Christians of Judea were delivered from catastrophe on the east side of the Jordan River and Dead Sea, according to Eusebius, the church historian. None of the Messianic Jews joined the Jewish revolutionaries or took up arms to defend their country from invasion by the Roman army or in the defense of Jerusalem during the siege.
The following are excerpts from the apologists of the 2nd and 3rd century. They reflect the attitudes and practices of Christians during the early centuries prior to the Council of Nicea. Not every writer of the period will be mentioned, and not every passage dealing with this topic from the writers selected, but only the more influential and popular. The authors are also from various segments of the Roman Empire, including north Africa, Europe and middle east. This will provide sufficient evidence of the conscientious objection nature and attitude of the Christian churches of the era.
JUSTIN OF CAESAREA
One of the earliest apologists was Justin of Caesarea, often titled, Justin martyr. He wrote about the years 140 to 160 AD, during the era when those who were taught by the apostles transmitted the gospel to his – the next – generation, and which original gospel was still untainted by later Greek philosophy and anti-Semitism.
Justin taught that the prophecy of Is 2:4, was fulfilled in the gospel preached by the 12 apostles, and so they ceased any involvement in war and military service. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, page 175.) This he mentions in his First Apology, chapter 39, and adds the following:
And we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, page 176)
A similar definition of the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophetic words in the Messianic communities is mentioned in his Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 50.
And we who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons, - our swords into ploughs, and our spears into implements of tillage, - and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, page 254)
In both these passages Justin indicates that the Christians of his era felt the era of military service to conclude and the new era of pacifism to inaugurate with the Messiah Jesus.
IRENAEUS
Irenaeus had his home in southern Gaul, modern France, although he also spent much time in Rome. His writings were primarily directed against the prevalent heresy of gnosticism during the era of 180-190 AD. The following is an except from his treatise Against Heresies, 4:34:4.
But preached by the apostles – who went forth from Jerusalem – throughout all the earth, caused such a change in the state of things, that these [nations] did form the swords and war-lances into plows, and changed them into pruning hooks for reaping the corn, that is, into instruments used for peaceful purposes, and that they are now unaccustomed to fighting, but when smitten, offer the other cheek. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, page 512)
This excerpt follows the same vein of Justin that the words of Isaiah were fulfilled in the gospel taught by Jesus Christ, and which new mode of conduct was accepted by the gentiles of the Roman Empire.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA AND ORIGIN
Both Clement and Origin taught in Alexandria, Egypt. Clement wrote about 190-210 AD. He inclines toward pacifism as a character trait of the Christian. The following is a passage from Clement Instructor, book 1, chapter 12.
For it is not in war, but in peace, that we are trained. War needs great preparation, and luxury craves profusion; but peace and love, simple and quiet sisters, require no arms nor excessive preparation. The Word is their sustenance. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, page 234-235)
Origin likewise, though in a very subtle manner, mentions pacifism as a trait of the new Christian. This is in Book 5, Chapter 33 of his treatise Against Celsus.
And to those who inquire of us whence we come, or who is our founder, we reply that we are come, agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to cut down our hostile and insolent wordy swords into plows, and to convert into pruning-hooks the spears formerly employed in war. For we no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of those who our fathers followed, among whom we were strangers to the covenant. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, pg. 558)
TERTULLIAN AND CYPRIAN
Another witness to the exclusion of early followers and disciples of the teachings of Jesus to military conscription is Tertullian. He was the first of the great Latin apologists, writing 160-220 AD, having his center of ministry in north Africa.
There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament (Roman military oath), the standard of Christ and the standard (flag) of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters – God and Caesar. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 73)
Shall it be held lawful to made an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? … Touching this primary aspect of the question, as to the unlawfulness even of a military life itself, I shall not add more,… (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 99-100)
Tertullian felt the allegiance given to the state through the military oath to defend the nation against all enemies as defined by their Senate to be disloyal to the true God. The oath would have included a testimony of obedience to the Roman Emperor, likewise repulsive to Tertullian. The flag or banner carried by the troops was antithesis to the spiritual signs and character traits of true Christians.
Cyprian, known to be a disciple of Tertullian likewise wrote in several passages that involvement in war was unacceptable to Christians as well as unjust and hypocrisy. The following is an excerpt from his Epistles.
The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pg. 277)
It is hypocrisy to proclaim as a hero and valiant the person who will destroy and devastate the life and property of innocent people in organized warfare, when if the same occurs in peacetime it is considered a crime.
LACTANTIUS
Lactantius was the last of the prominent apologists prior to the era of Constantine and wrote his massive treatise The Divine Institutes about 300 AD. He records also the attitude of the earliest Christians toward military conscription in several sections of his apology.
For when God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but He warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself, not to accuse any one of a capital charge, because it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword, since it is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7. Pg. 187)
Or why should he carry on war, and mix himself with the passions of others, when his mind is engaged in perpetual peace with men? [The Christian] considers it unlawful not only himself to commit slaughter, but to be present with those who do it, and to behold it. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7. Pg. 153)
In the Divine Institutes, Lactantius exposes the errors of pagan religion and the vanity of heather philosophy, and defends the Christian religion and the character of the Christian, which includes conscientious objector to war.
PRE-NICENE PACIFISM
The evidence provided by the apologists of the ante-Nicene era, from the beginning of the 2nd century to the early 4th century, indicates that the Christian religion was different than the balance of religions and philosophies in the Roman Empire in its attitude towards war and military service. They identified the insignias, flags, oaths, and practices of the military with pagan and idolatrous rites. The conduct of military personal in peacetime was corrupt, amoral and obscene, while in war it was the most inhumane and barbaric, no different than our present era.
The gospel the apologists received from the apostles and their direct spiritual descendents was that the cessation of war and its preparation was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and that a renouncement of military service was required for the members of the Christian church. This attitude was not retained easily by the Christian of early centuries and especially due to persecution. Some Christians succumbed to the pressure of the military and accepted service, and their history is also noted in the annals of the apologists. Persecution against Christians occurred regularly in the Roman Empire and many who refused military service were executed. The worst of the persecutions was under Diocletian, beginning 303 AD, and until about 312 AD.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT
The history of this era and its prime historical figure is of exceptional importance because of the massive metamorphosis that occurred as a result of the edits of Emperor Constantine.
Constantine was a soldier, a general of the Roman army. The turning point in the career of Constantine which was to affect Christianity was his vision at the Milvan Bridge near Rome in 312 AD, during his invasion of Italy to capture Rome, as he was preparing to battle his final competitor Licinius for sole rule of the Roman Empire. In this vision, Constantine saw in the sky during bright daylight the shape of a cross having the inscription, “Conquer by this.” He later stated that he had a dream, in which God told him to utilize this sign in all his encounters with enemies. In response to the vision, Constantine took a spear and affixed a bar to it forming the shape of a cross. With his army he proceeded into combat and gained the victory over the army of Licinius his opponent, and took possession of Rome.
In reality, Constantine’s interpretation of his vision and dream was opposite to its intent. Jesus was the Prince of Peace, and the purpose of these revelations was to indicate to Constantine that God wanted him to gain control over the empire through reconciliation with his enemy. But since Constantine was a soldier, he proceeded in the manner that he felt proper, that this sign represented a new religion or new deity that would grant him military victory and political control through combat using its emblem. The benefit was mixed: good to Constantine and his concept of Roman government, but detrimental to the original gospel of the spiritual kingdom.
The following year, 313 AD, Constantine issued an edit of toleration granting freedom of religion, and especially to those calling themselves Christians. Persecution against the Christians finally ceased in the Roman Empire. Constantine is heralded by Catholicism and Protestantism as a champion of the cross of Christ, although he continued as a military administrator in his rule over the empire, and permitted the Roman senate to classify him as a god in the tradition of the Roman Emperors. Constantine himself had no personal Christian virtues or morality to speak of; he was a soldier and pagan to his dying day.
THE EFFECTS OF CONSTANTINE
Constantine realized the value of having religious harmony in his empire. His reason for issuing an edit of religious toleration was to cease persecution of minority religious groups, and thereby decrease strife within the empire. Christianity valued this as a blessing of God, especially after the persecution under Constantine’s predecessor Diocletian. Constantine realized the importance of such an advanced religion and its benefit for his empire, and especially the facets of the teaching that required them to be good citizens and submissive subjects of the emperor.
The religion, however, that Constantine promoted for the empire was not the religion of the Bible. Constantine’s concept of a state religion was that of Plato, not Jesus Christ. The resultant religion under the Ecumenical Councils was a Christianity redefined in terms of neo-Platonism. The attempt of the Nicene Fathers working together with the secular authority of the Roman state to create a Christian nation was in reality the materialization of Plato’s dreamed Republic.
The Christian leaders under Constantine then took the fatal leap of approving this new concept of the gospel. It now became part of Christian service to serve in the Roman military, since the emperor was “Christian” and the empire was “Christian.” There was no longer a distinction between the divine and secular kingdoms. This identification of the kingdom of God with the contemporary secular government created in the mind of the population the attitude that service to the government was service to God. To join the military and fight the emperor’s battles was to give service to both God and Caesar. The military now under the authority of a “Christian” ruler then promoted the enlistment of Christians and accepted the conversion of soldiers to Christianity. At a church council held in Arles in 314 AD, church leaders decided, “They who throw away their weapons in time of peace shall be excommunicated.”
ATHANASIUS AND AMBROSE
It was especially the church fathers of the post-Nicene era that promoted the necessity of Christians to support the secular authority with military service. Both Ambrose and Athanasius supported military conscription for Christian men as a service unto God. Athanasius, the father of Catholic orthodoxy, circa 350 AD, led the succession, teaching, “Murder is not permitted, but to kill one’s adversary in war is both lawful and praiseworthy.” Ambrose, circa 375 AD, followed likewise teaching, “And that courage which either protects the homeland against barbarians, in war, or defends the weak at home, or saves one’s comrades from brigands, in full of righteousness.” (The Fall of Christianity, G.J. Heering, pg. 36-37)
But it was Augustine who most systematically and effectively defended the right of the church to war.
AUGUSTINE
Augustine’s attitude toward war was molded by the defeat and sack of Rome by the Goths in 409-410 AD. He now viewed the church as having a responsibility to save the world. No longer specifically involved in personal, family and community matters, but the church was now responsible for the welfare of the nation, which included defense against enemies. During this period after the defeat of Rome, Augustine compiled his just-war theory which he adopted from the pagan philosopher Cicero. Not all wars would be approved or sanctioned by God, Augustine felt, but only those considered “just” wars. Augustine formulated 4 points that must be adhered to in order to wage a justifiable war, that is, a war that would be approved by the God of the Bible. These 4 points are as follows:
1. War is to be declared by the sovereign of state.
2. War is to be declared only after all peaceful means of accomplishing resolution have been exhausted. Inward love must be the motivation.
3. The purpose of the war must have as its object the punishment of injustice and atrocity.
4. The war must be directed on the enemy forces, that no innocent people or civilians be injured or killed and that no civil property be destroyed.
The primary flaw in the criteria of Augustine and his just war theory is that both sides claim the same justification. Each side claims that peaceful means of resolution have been exhausted to no success; the war is declared by their sovereign; each nation is defending itself from aggravated assault; each nation is attempting to bring peace by punishing the other for their injustice and atrocity. But war is not war without the death of civilians and the massive destruction of private property. Augustine’s criteria has given Christian denominations greater justification to promoting war, rather than ceasing war.
THOMAS AQUINAS
Thomas Aquinas was the greatest of theologians of the Catholic church of the middle ages, living 1225-1274. He defined Catholic theology for the future generations of Catholics, and is highly respected and very influential at the present in world-wide Catholicism.
Thomas Aquinas confirmed Augustine’s just war criteria as valid Catholic doctrine, but not without good reason. Thomas Aquinas lived and taught in the era of the 6th, 7th, and 8th Crusades, 1228-1229, 1248-1254, and 1270, respectively. The popes were urging the citizens to war against Islam, whom they labeled as infidels. Three of his brothers were soldiers in the Crusades. Thomas Aquinas also taught the legality of slavery and the burning of heretics by the state.
MARTIN LUTHER
With the dissolution of the authority of both Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy during the middle ages, a number of smaller denominations were created. Each had their own founder with a specific set of religious criteria for their denomination. The majority of these incorporated the concepts of Augustine regarding military service and his just war theory into their confession of faith, while a few held to conscientious objection. Both classes of militant and pacifist churches will be discussed.
Luther viewed the state as the civil arm of God, which became the dominant trend of thought in Protestantism. He believed that government was installed by God and which proceeded to govern the state as the supreme authority. Luther had the view that the state governed by divine providence, and so the citizens had the obligation of obedience to the state in the manner the state understood the will of God. This then proceeds to the question of war in the thinking of Luther. He taught that the soldier was the servant of the state, and that the state ruling by divine providence is allegorically given the sword by God to fulfill His will as the state sees fit. Luther described it in this manner.
The hand which bears such a sword is as such no longer man’s hand, but God’s, and not man it is, but God, who hangs, breaks on the wheel, beheads, strangles, and wages war. (Ob Kreigsleute, Martin Luther, quoted from The Fall of Christianity, G.J. Heering, page 53.)
Luther in this manner hoped to reassure the Christians who were in the military that their service to the state in combat was acceptable and proper service to God. Luther continued the theology of the post-Nicene Fathers, having abolished the distinction between the divine and secular by stating that service to the state is service to God.
JOHN CALVIN
Calvinism was largely grounded in the reformation of Luther and used many of the same arguments to approve of military service and the relationship between church and state. Calvin was far more militant than Luther, teaching that the church and state were to work together in one loyal alliance for a common goal.
Calvin felt that the state was subject to the church, following the concept of Israel in the Old Testament, thus creating a “Christian state” in Protestantism. Calvin felt he solved the problem of the conflict between the secular and spiritual by having the state subject itself to Christian law, but a Christian law based on the Old Testament concept of a theocracy and not on the concept of the spiritual kingdom of the new Testament. This included the execution of heretics.
Calvin had no difficulty in providing an acceptable place for military conscription in his Christian state, using all the arguments and justifications of the Old Testament. The areas dealing with pacifism in the New Testament were rewritten and interpreted out of recognition by Calvin. He himself advocated and participated in the defense of his new Christian denomination using military force.
THE FRUITS OF REFORMATION THEOLOGY
The Thirty-Years War was the direct result of the theology of Calvin in actual practice. This war was actually a series of religious wars between the Protestants and the Catholics in Europe, 1618-1648, and dealt with which religion was to be the political and military power in Europe. The fruits of the theology of Calvin was the military devastation of Europe and increased enmity between Catholicism and Protestantism.
The theology produced by the later theologians, both Catholic and Protestant, circumvented the pacifism of the early church and succumbed to the concepts of Augustine and his peers due to pressure from popes and kings of Europe during the middle ages. As much error that the reformers were able to rectify during their era, they were still unable to return to the apostolic concepts of the spiritual kingdom, and continued the support of military service.
THE FIRST MILLENNIUM
The extant history of small Christian denominations and sects that separated from the doctrine of the ecumenical Catholic church during the early centuries is very brief and meager. However there is sufficient evidence to establish a continuous vein of thinking from the ante-Nicene era to the present pertaining to conscientious objection as part of the gospel of the spiritual kingdom.
The Montanists of central Turkey of the 2nd to the 5th centuries were most likely pacifist. This conclusion is based on the available information regarding their beliefs, which are close to those of Tertullian who was a Montanist for many years during his early life. Tertullian no doubt acquired his pacifist convictions from disciples of Montanus.
The Paulicians were originally disciples of Paul of Samosota, a bishop of Antioch in the 3rd century AD, and primarily living in central and eastern Turkey and Armenia. Records indicate that they repudiated the rites and theology of the Catholic church and so were heavily persecuted. They were pacifist.
The influence of the Paulicians gave impetus to the rise of another sect, the Bogomiles, who primarily lived in the Balkans. This occurred during the 6th through the 10th centuries. The Bogomiles likewise repudiated the Catholic rites and theology and were pacifist.
THE CATHARI AND ALBIGENCES
The Cathari were the popular name of the group, although in southern France they were known as the Albigences. This group appeared in historical records about the year 1000 AD, with the appearance of members who rejected the rites and teachings of the Catholic church. They assimilated many of the doctrines of the Bogomiles. This group re-introduced pacifism into the instruction and practice of those seeking a true teaching of the gospels, as opposed to that of the Catholic church.
Eventually, massive persecution by the Catholic church beginning in 1120 AD, broke the sect and caused them to assimilate into the general population. The Inquisition under Pope Innocent III especially affected the Albigences and Waldenses.
PIERRE WALDES AND THE WALDENSES
He was also known as Peter Waldo, founder of the Christian sect that became known as the Waldenses. Pierre Waldes lived in Lyons, France toward the end of the 12th century, about 100 years before Thomas Aquinas, and during the 2nd and 3rd Crusades. His group was excommunicated by the pope in 1184.
The Waldeses were pacifist, and accepted the New Testament literally. The group spread from southern France to Italy and then into Germany. In Italy, they were known as the Lombards. The sect lasted into the era of the Protestant reformation and then apparently assimilated into other denominations.
PETER CHELCHEKY AND THE CZECH BRETHREN
He was also known as Peter of Chelcice, living about 1390-1460. He was originally a disciple of John Huss, a Czech Christian reformer who was burned at the stake as a heretic by the Catholic church in 1415. His group became known as the Bohemian or Czech Brethren. His group adhered to a literal interpretation of the New Testament and was pacifist. The Czech Brethren lasted as a denomination until the 1620’s when the majority joined local Protestant sects and abandoned their earlier precepts.
DESIDERIUS ERASMUS
Erasmus lived about 1460 to 1535, in France and Switzerland. He was not a religious Christian but was a humanist, believing that the way to truth was through scholarship. His claim to prominence in Christian history was his publication of the Greek New Testament and other books of the early apologists. He especially taught that war and military service were incompatible with the teachings of Christ.
MENNO SIMONS AND THE MENNONITES
Menno Simons was a ex-Catholic Franciscan priest who lived in the Netherlands, about 1496 to 1561. He became a priest in 1524 but abandoned the Catholic church and priesthood about 1534 after a study of the Bible. He joined the Anabaptist movement and later became a leader of a group in Holland and north-west Germany. They became known as the Mennonites.
One of the main precepts of Menno Simons was conscientious objection to military service. His group was persecuted for this in later years. The Mennonite congregations increased in Germany and eastern Europe in subsequent generations, but became a wandering sect for a while, journeying to escape persecution. Many immigrated to Russia, and later many immigrated to America. The Mennonites in America have been a tremendous promoter of the attitude of conscientious objection and have offices available for support and consultation for those who seek assistance in avoiding military service.
JACOB HUTTER AND THE HUTTERITES
A group of German Anabaptists who migrated to Moravia in southeast Europe under Jacob Hutter in the 1530’s became known as the Hutterites. They were driven into exile similar to their Dutch cousins the Mennonites due to religious persecution. Non-violence was a firm part of their religious persuasion. Additional persecution in later years forced the Hutterites to move to the Ukraine in the 1770’s, and then into Russia in 1802, seeking religious freedom and the ability to live as conscientious objectors. Many Hutterites, along with Molokans and Dukhabors, then migrated from Russia to American and Canada after Tsar Alexander II passed the universal military service act of 1874.
GEORGE FOX AND THE QUAKERS
George Fox is rightly called the founder of the Quakers, today known as the Society of Friends. He died about 1691. His group first began to gather about 1650. The Quakers are not a true Christian denomination, but are a religious philosophy, much like the Dukhabors, collecting wisdom and counsel from various religious teachers throughout history, those who conform with their quest for truth. They claim a guidance by the Inner Light of Christ residing in every person. George Fox and his Quakers rejected most of the doctrines of the Bible, although they utilized the gospels and teaching of the New Testament to develop a profession of faith.
One common vein in Quaker belief is conscientious objection to military service. Since their inception, the Quakers have been recognized as a peace church. They migrated to America seeking religious freedom in the late 1600’s and early 1700’s. In America they continued their pacifist convictions.
With the Revolutionary War, the attitude of other American settlers changed toward the peaceful Quakers. For failure to join the regiments against the British, the Quaker C.O.’s were imprisoned and their property confiscated; some were heavily fined.
The Quakers found themselves in the same dilemma with the outbreak of the Civil War in America. Many young members of the sect not well founded in their persuasion joined the armed forces. The patriotic zeal and anti-slavery sentiment was more compelling for them than the archaic religion of their forefathers. The C.O. Quakers were in a minority. Abraham Lincoln’s administration provided for C.O’s. A person claiming to be a conscientious objector had to pay $300 to circumvent military service, a sizeable amount at that time. Still others were forced into service by ruthless military commanders, or had property confiscated as a type of persecution for refusing inscription.
During both World Wars and all wars since, the Quakers have been adamant in their conviction as conscientious objectors. They also have offices available for conscientious objection counseling.
THE CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN
The church of the Brethren began in 1708 in Germany with an original group of 8 persons. In 1719, the group under the leadership of Peter Becker came to America and accepted free land offered by William Pen, and the settled in Germantown, PA. Additional families arrived from Germany as time timed and the group spread across the country. Their membership at present is about 170,000.
The original tenets of the Bretheren include their opposition to war and military service. In their “Statement of the Church of the Brethren on War” from their 1970 Annual Conference, they state, “The official position of the Church of the Brethren is that all war is sin and that we seek the right of conscientious objection to all war.” The church of the Brethren since its beginning has repeatedly declared its position against war, and their understanding of the life and teaching of Christ as revealed in the New Testament led their Annual Conference to state in 1785 that they should not “submit to the higher powers so as to make ourselves their instruments to shed human blood… The church cannot concede to the state the authority to conscript citizens for military training or military service against their conscience.”
Morally the Brethren opposed the Revolution and they were against slavery as well during the Civil War era. Their pacifist convictions have continued since their arrival in America and throughout all wars since then. The church provides counseling for all military age members to be conscientious objectors, but also pledges its support for constructive civilian work as alternative service. The church also teaches that their members should not have employment or investment in defense industries.
A branch of the Brethren known as the Old German Baptist Brethren (Old Order Dunkers) also follows conscientious objection. According to their tenets, “Any member who enters military service will fall into the judgement of the Church.” Non-cooperation in political and secret societies is also required of the members of the Dunkards.
THE DUKHABORS
The concepts held by the Dukhabors of Russia are documented beginning about 1734 during the reign of Empress Anna. The Dukhabors repudiated the rites and theology of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Dukhabors were pacifist and refused military service in the army of the Tsar of Russia. Their leader Ilarion Pobirokhin and his followers migrated to the Tambov region about 1760, and from which center the Dukhabor philosophy spread throughout Russia. The Dukhabors as a religious entity were exiled from central Russian by Tsar Pavel I, in 1802, to the southern Ukraine and Caucasus regions of Russia.
An important event in Dukhabor history is the burning of arms on June 29, 1895, advised by their leader at the time, Peter Vasilivich Veregin. This occurred on the holiday of Sts. Peter and Paul. Much like the decree of universal military service by Tsar Alexander II, he required an oath of allegiance from all his subjects in Russia. As a protest to this requirement, which the Dukhabors would not fulfill, they gathered all their weapons, those used for hunting, or personal collections, and destroyed them in large bonfires. Dukhabors again began to refuse orders to take up weapons or participate in military exercises. Needless to say, they were severely persecuted. Eventually the Dukhabors migrated from Russia to Canada seeking religious freedom and the ability to live as conscientious objectors.
LEO TOLSTOY
The famous Russian author Lev Nicholaevich Tolstoy made the concept of Christ’s teaching on non-violence and non-resistance to aggression the theme of his book, The Kingdom of God is Within You. It was first published in 1893, and immediately became popular among the many sectarian groups in Russia. The book was a result of Tolstoy’s personal conversion and study of Christ’s teachings. In later years, Tolstoy incorporated his philosophy in his novels.
Tolstoy served in the Russia army, 1855-1856, in the Crimean War against Turkey, and personally experienced the horror of organized warfare and the bloodshed of the battlefield. This experience impressed upon him the futility of the objectives of armed struggle and the senselessness of the many wounded and dead in battle. His study of the gospels and especially the Sermon on the Mount in later years converted him to pacifism. The concept of Tolstoy in this book was that the spiritual kingdom as taught by Jesus Christ was antithetical and alien to military service. The 2 concepts were of 2 different domains: one of the divine kingdom and the other of the secular government.
His book did influence many, explaining that the only acceptable conduct of a true follower of Christ was that of non-violence and especially not resorting to retaliation or aggression. The person in whom the kingdom of God resided was not to succumb to the politics of national struggle and ideology of military service. To Tolstoy, peaceful coexistence with all other individuals, societies and nationalities was attaining an earthly kingdom of God. Tolstoy’s attitude of non-violence and pacifism was influential on many religious and political leaders of the 20th century.
SEMEON UKLEIN AND THE MOLOKANS
The primary preceptor of the Russian Molokans was Semeon Matveeich Uklein, who preached from 1760 to 1805 throughout central Russia. Uklein was son-in-law of the Dukhabor leader Ilarion Pobirokhin, and lived with him in the same village. Uklein was evangelical in contrast to the philosophic Pobirokhin, and later separated from his father-in-law and joined the Molokans, who like the Dukhabors, were conscientious objectors.
Uklein, along with Matvei Semeonich Dalmatov, compiled a confession of faith of the Molokan religion. Point 23 of his teaching is the following:
About oaths and war. Fulfilling the divine commandments, they [Molokans] do not have need for human ones, and must escape the fulfillment of those laws which are contrary to the teaching of the Word of God. So they must, for example, escape servility to landowners, war, military obligation, and oaths, and matters not permitted by the Holy Scriptures.
Historically the Russian Molokans have been conscientious objectors, and over the years have suffered imprisonment and exile for refusing to join the military. As a result of their pacifist convictions, Molokans would not participate in the mandatory conscription imposed by Tsar Alexander III in the years 1887-1889. Rather than opposing any further persecution by the Tsarist government, they migrated out of Russia to America in the years 1904-1911.
In America the Molokans have continued in their convictions as conscientious objectors, refusing military service in both World Wars and subsequent wars.
THE CHRISTADELPHIANS
This denomination originated here in America under Dr. John Thomas. He came to America from England about 1833 and joined the Disciples of Christ, studying the Bible under the Cambellites. He discovered the inadequacies of historic Christianity and broke away starting his own congregations. He taught a return to primitive Christianity, and conscientious objection to military service was one of their beliefs. The Christadelphians were conscientious objectors during the Civil War and have been since that time. Thomas’ convictions were continued under the preacher Robert Roberts.
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
Properly titled the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, they are labeled as a cult by historical Christianity. One of the main criticisms are because the JW’s are non-secular. They do not pledge allegiance to the flag or serve in the armed forces, and have been heavily persecuted as a result of this in America and in other countries. They are the largest single religious conscientious objector group in America.
PACIFISM IN HISTORY
There are many small denominations in America that adhere to pacifist convictions, and many more in history past, but which could not all be mentioned here. The above examples are to evidence that throughout Christian history, from the apostolic age and to the present, there have always been those who believed in the concept of the spiritual kingdom accompanied by the conviction of conscientious objection to military service. Although small in number they retain a place in history for refusing to conform to the demands of the state and pressure from other Christian denominations regarding military service.
Even then, members of historical peace churches have occasionally strayed from the tenets of their faith and joined the military, but these are the exception; likewise adherents of major pro-military Christian denominations have also voiced disapproval of warfare at various occasions and have refused to serve, much to the dismay of their religious leaders. There are also many non-religious bodies that utilize political or philosophical arguments as their refusal to serve in the military or earn a living in some military industry.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY TO THE STATE
There are 2 passages in the New Testament that deal with the obedience of the Christian to the state and the role of the security force or police. The era that these passages were written was that of Nero Caesar, Emperor 54-68 AD. He was the most inhumane and ruthless of any emperor during the 1st century AD. The apostles in their inspired letters to believers disregard the evil of the person himself and focus rather on the intent of government, which is to provide a civil framework for the success of the society and for the security and safety of the residents.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good and you will receive his approval, for he is a servant of God for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the criminal. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Rom 13:1-7.
Be subject for the sake of the Lord to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 1 Pet 2:13-14.
Paul apostle prefaces his passage by stating that the concept of government is divine, meaning that the motivation to establish a ruling body over the population for civil purposes is based on a correct understanding of the intention of God for humanity.
The statement by Paul apostle that the civil servant carries a sword to be utilized is to be understood as the responsibility of the state to provide safety and security for the population. The state has the authority granted to it by God to impose a penalty on individuals who commit a crime, even capital punishment for a capital crime. This provides the population an environment of safety and security. Both apostles Peter and Paul impress upon the Christian the necessity for respect of civil authority. The Christian is to be complemented as a law abiding citizen and benefit to the society.
There is no justification for a Christian to violate the laws of the state that are designed for the security and prosperity of the population. There is nothing to be gained in protests, demonstrations or violent civil disobedience. Any violation of just laws discredits the Christian religion. Christians must be especially good examples of moral conduct so others may recognize the value and blessing of being a disciple of Jesus Christ.
EXTENT OF CIVIL OBEDIENCE
The extent of civil obedience is defined by Jesus in a conversation with Herodians, residents of Judea who had political affiliation with the family of Herod the Great.
“Tell us what you think. It is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the money for the tax.” And they brought him a coin. Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Matt 21:17-21.
This passage can be interpreted in the following manner in the light of the earlier passages by the apostle regarding civil obedience. The reimbursement to the state for the privilege of living in this country is payment of taxes and obedience of civil law. The line of obedience is drawn when the state requires a person to sacrifice their life for the country they reside in. At this point the state is usurping authority over life which only belongs to God the author of life. The state in demanding the life of a person installs itself as deity, and which is a capacity beyond that which the Bible rightfully attributes to and allows the state. This is the right of the Christian, to refuse to yield to the state what belongs to God, their allegiance and life.
Mainstream and historical Christian churches of America have a close relationship to the state and promote the artificial secular religion as defined by Plato, and which indirectly provides divine approval to the actions and decrees of the state. Because of their fear of censure by the government, other clergy, and their own parishioners, many ministers do not hold to the truth of the gospel regarding military service. This reluctance to advocate Christian pacifism is because minister, priest and parishioner alike are veterans or are directly or indirectly connected with civil service. The Bible then becomes a cloak of excerpts and circumstances to justify military enlistment and aggression, rather than promote Christian pacifism.
PILGRIMS AND SOJOURNERS
The Christian is only a pilgrim and spiritual migrant in this world, a temporal resident, a person travelling through the valley of earthly experience on their journey to the eternal kingdom. The apostles wrote regarding this in the following:
These all died in faith, not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted if from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. Heb 11:13.
Beloved, I beseech you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh that wage war against you soul. I Pet 2:11.
Because of this the Christian does not become involved in the politics of secular government. These are matters that envelop the personality of a political figure and more than often do not pertain to issues. Christian involvement in government should always pertain to issues of a moral and ethical nature. What is important an individual should accomplish with their own family and associates and their religious community. Involvement in politics tends to direct the sight of the spiritual migrant away from the eternal kingdom and to the temporal issues of the state.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL OF THE AMERICAN MIND
There are 2 primary methods used by the state to gain psychological control of the American mind: the first is patriotism, the second is reducing the enemy to a sub-human level.
Patriotism is intended to generate a sense of obligation to the nation an individual is a resident of, as a result of providing that person with the privilege of residing there, and the privilege of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Patriotism is intended to impress upon a person the obligation of reimbursement to the government for these privileges through personal sacrifice. Patriotism is instilled into the population beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. This insignia symbolizes the nation as a corporate entity, and for many it is even a religious symbol. Patriotism is also instilled into the American public with national holidays of a political nature and the parades and celebrations on these days, along with the national celebration of the birthdays of prominent presidents. Patriotism in America is strong, and so strong that refusing to recite the pledge of allegiance can label a person as anti-American, Communist, and undeserving of living in America. The Christian must be aware that although the decision to join the military and fight in armed combat is admired by the general population, and to give your life for your country is considered heroic, and such individuals are awarded medals and honor, it is not the religion of Jesus.
In every war the phenomena arises of portraying the enemy as sub-human. Foreign nationalities are caricatured in the media and by the state as having features that reduce them to the level of animals or barbarians with a Neanderthal mentality. The national enemy is often referred to by discrediting and disgusting terms. By using this psychological maneuver to equate the enemy with an animal, their mass murder or destruction of their civilization becomes equated with the slaughter of animals. The state is very subtle in its ability to convince the mind of the soldier that the enemy is not a human just like himself.
THE DISCIPLE OF JESUS CHRIST
The disciple of Jesus Christ considers war organized and premeditated murder on an international scale. It is controlled criminal insanity resulting in violence and devastation, and without justification. They recognize that the purpose of military training is to make men killing machines. There is only one manner for the disciple of Jesus Christ to conduct himself in regard to the question of military service and that is to refuse. The conscience of the true Christian will prohibit them from such participation, and which includes employment manufacturing military equipment and weapons.
A person who claims to be Christian and is faced with the dilemma of whether to enlist in the military should contemplate in the following terms, “Will my service in the military institute peace, or will it promote more war and aggression? Is the military a service unto the living God, or is it service unto the secular god of war? If I die in combat, do I die for a purpose that is worth the value of my life, or do I die as a pawn of the state? Do I acknowledge as supreme the dictates of the secular state, or those of the spiritual kingdom? Should I suffer on the battlefield as a sacrifice to the state, or should I suffer for my faith as a Christian?”
A Christian is a pacifist in these terms. “My conscience will not allow me to participate in military service, armed combat, or any aggression. Jesus of Nazareth, the son of God, taught pacifism as part of his gospel of the Kingdom. He exemplified in his personal life and ministry that I am not to retaliate or take vengeance for any injury committed against me or against another person or society. The gospels teach that further aggression does not resolve conflict. I cannot face the judgement seat of Christ knowing that I have taken the life of a soldier or an innocent person, or destroyed property in war, or caused people to suffer. I will not have a clean conscience if I am employed manufacturing military equipment or weapons. Although I am in the world, I am not of the world.”
There is no justification for a Christian to violate the laws of the state that are designed for the security and prosperity of the population. There is nothing to be gained in protests, demonstrations or violent civil disobedience. Any violation of just laws discredits the Christian religion. Christians must be especially good examples of moral conduct so others may recognize the value and blessing of being a disciple of Jesus Christ.
THE CROSS OF CHRIST
It is difficult to be a conscientious objector because you are in the minority and are liable to be labeled a traitor, a coward, unpatriotic, and not willing to serve your country as others have done in the wars of previous generations. The choice is a difficult one and Jesus knew that it would not be easy, just as he said, “If any person will follow me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” Matt 16:24. Others have suffered and the contemporary true Christian must realize that he may have to also. It is this faith that will enlighten the population, cease aggression, and serve as an examples to others, and especially those of future generations.
The one unanswerable question proposed often to the conscientious objector by advocates of defense and retaliation is the following, “What would you do if somebody attacked your wife or mother or child in your presence?” A concrete answer cannot be offered because nobody actual knows what they will do in such a situation. The sincere Christian will only state that they hope they will react in such a manner to curb the attack, or not cause any more injury, or perhaps sacrifice their own safety to protect the other person.
CONCLUSION
The concepts discussed in this sermon can especially be applied to our own society, the multi-cultured and multi-racial America: to reside in peaceful coexistence, even if superficially, for the benefit of our own long term safety and security. The way to peace is only by implementing peaceful coexistence, through non-aggression, mutual respect and toleration, as disciples of the Prince of peace. The efforts of the true Christian during war is directed toward reconciliation and institution of peace, and the advocacy of conscientious objection. In peacetime the true Christian works toward mutual harmony and demilitarization to preclude further aggression and conflict.
It is the intention of the disciple of Jesus Christ to change the world and convert the world by entering the spiritual kingdom. Military service and armed combat will desist when clergy of all religions acknowledge and teach the gospel of the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Messiah. The reward for Christian pacifists is the future generations of a peaceful society and their inheritance of eternal life.
