How Christians abandoned pacifism

How Christians abandoned pacifism

How the first Christians refused to kill on command, and what changed after Constantine.

Today, if an Orthodox priest in some Local Churches declares himself a pacifist, he will immediately be accused of the heresy of Tolstoyism and suspended from ministry. And all this is because for today’s theologians, who prop up state institutions of power with their heads, it is much easier to argue with Leo Tolstoy as a historical figure than with Justin Martyr or Tertullian.

Leo Tolstoy indeed hold specific theological views: he denied the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, and the sacraments, reducing Christianity exclusively to a moral teaching. By attacking Tolstoyism, his opponents target his rejection of the Church, pretending that this also undermines the idea of nonviolence. But is that really the case? Was Leo Tolstoy wrong when he argued that swearing an oath of allegiance to the state and willing to kill on command contradict the highest allegiance – to God? Let us face the truth through the eyes of history.

And the first thing that cannot be overlooked is that there is not a single quotation in the New Testament that justifies killing as such. There is not even a hint that a Christian has the right and duty to kill people. On the contrary, there are direct words affirming Christian pacifism. However much one may try to reinterpret the Savior’s words, He speaks plainly, without any allegory: “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person” (Matthew 5:39). Moreover, He repeats this not just once, albeit in different words.

The commandment that "greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends" (John 15:13)

has never had anything to do with war, even defensive war. One could cite numerous other passages demonstrating that the New Testament is pacifist in its very essence and meaning: (Matthew 5:38–39), (Matthew 5:44), (Matthew 5:9), (1 Peter 3:9–11), (Romans 12:17–21), (1 Peter 4:15), (James 4:12), and others.

“Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15).

Very well, but perhaps the historical record will offer us at least some loophole, an indication that a Christian may, after all, take up weapons and kill? The historical documents of the first centuries preserve the records of Roman trials (Acta Martyrum) that authentically document refusals to serve in the military and to shed blood.

Saints who suffered for refusing to fight

Saint Maximilian of Tebessa (295 AD, Numidia). Conscripted into the Roman army as the son of a veteran, the 21-year-old Maximilian refused to take the military oath and to be measured for height. From the court record: – Maximilian: "I cannot serve, I cannot do evil. I am a Christian." – Proconsul Dion: "Serve, or you will perish." Maximilian was beheaded for refusing military service.

Saint Marcellus of Tangier (298 AD, Tangier). The centurion Marcellus, during a celebration in honor of Emperor Diocletian, publicly removed his military belt, threw down his centurion's staff and weapons before the troops: "I serve Jesus Christ, the Eternal King. From this moment I abandon the service to your emperors... It is not fitting for a Christian who serves Christ the Lord to fight for the kingdoms of this world."

At the trial before Prefect Agricolanus, Marcellus confirmed that military service required of him actions incompatible with faithfulness to Christ, after which he was sentenced to death by beheading. When the prefect read out the death sentence against Marcellus, Cassian – a court scribe (notarius) present at the proceedings – threw his stylus and writing tablets to the floor, declaring the sentence unjust and that he himself refused to continue serving a system that killed people for their faith and for refusing to shed blood. Cassian was immediately arrested and executed a few days later.

Saint Martin of Tours (c. 356 AD, Worms). The son of a Roman tribune. Having become a Christian, he remained in the legion until actual combat operations against the Alemanni began. On the eve of battle, during the distribution of combat bonuses, Martin addressed Caesar Julian: "Until now I have served you as a soldier; allow me now to serve God... I am a soldier of Christ, I am not permitted to fight." The Caesar became enraged and accused Martin of cowardice, claiming that he was hiding behind his faith out of fear of the impending battle rather than religious conviction. To prove that his motive was faith and not fear of death, Martin said that the next day he would stand at the head of the vanguard before the front line of troops, unarmed, without helmet or shield, protected only by the sign of the cross, but would not take up weapons.

Many other similar examples could be cited. But that is history; what did theologians teach on the matter? They based their arguments on a straightforward adherence to the Sermon on the Mount and a literal reading of Isaiah’s prophecy that people would “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks” (Isaiah 2:4).

Rejection of violence as a marker of the new man

One of the first great apologists, Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD), directly points out to the Roman emperor that this prophecy is being fulfilled right now – in Christian communities: "We who formerly killed one another not only do not fight our enemies, but willingly die while confessing Christ" (First Apology).

The rejection of violence was regarded as the primary defining characteristic of the new man.

Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 130–202 AD) echoes him, emphasizing that Christians have beaten their weapons into peaceful instruments and no longer "know how to make war," preferring to turn the other cheek.

For the apologetic thought of the 2nd–3rd centuries, killing a person in war was no different from ordinary murder. the Carthaginian bishop Cyprian wrote with bitter sarcasm about the double standards of pagan society: “If a private individual commits murder, it is considered a crime; but if it is committed in the name of the state, it is called valor. It is not innocence that escapes punishment, but savagery that receives praise” (Letter to Donatus).

If we examine the surviving writings of the Fathers and teachers of the Church from before the fourth century, we will not find a single author who justified Christian participation in warfare.

Tertullian (c. 155–220 AD), in his treatise "On the Crown," poses a rhetorical question: "Can a human oath be considered lawful when one is under God’s covenant? Can the sword be used by a Christian when the Lord declared that whoever takes up the sword will perish by the sword? Will the son of peace take part in battle when he is not even permitted to go to court?" In another work, "On Idolatry," Tertullian coins a formulation that became a classic of the early Church: "The Lord, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier."

Even Origen (c. 185–254 AD), defending Christians before the pagan Celsus, who accused the community of being unpatriotic and refusing to defend the empire, proudly confirmed this fact. Origen did not deny that Christians refused to take up arms, but explained it as a higher service: "Christians do more good to their country than the rest of mankind, since they educate the citizens and teach them to be devoted to God... Christians do not enlist in the army even if the emperor compels them, but they fight for him by offering prayers to the Deity" ("Against Celsus," Book VIII).

Lactantius (c. 250–325 AD), whose works summed up the era of persecutions, concludes regarding the commandment "Thou shalt not kill": "It will not be lawful for a just man to serve as a soldier, for justice itself is his military service... There ought to be no exception at all to the divine commandment that it is always a sin to kill a man" ("Divine Institutes").

It is also very interesting to examine pacifism from a canonical perspective.

Pacifism and the Canons

The "Apostolic Tradition" (Lat. Traditio Apostolica) is a liturgical-canonical document of the 3rd–4th centuries (traditionally dated to c. 215 AD), the authorship of which was previously attributed to the Holy Martyr Hippolytus of Rome (in modern scholarship the document is considered an anonymous collection). This text contains the most detailed set of rules of the early Church regarding the selection of candidates for catechesis (instruction) and baptism.

The rules concerning military service and state offices are set out in Chapter 16 of the document ("On Professions and Occupations"). They divide military candidates into several categories:

- Rulers and military commanders: "A military commander or civil magistrate that wears the purple must resign or be rejected." Civil and military officials who had the right to pronounce death sentences (ius gladii – "the right of the sword") could not be received into the Church until they resigned from their position.

- Ordinary soldiers (reception as catechumens): "A soldier who is under authority must not kill a man. If he is ordered to do so, he must not carry out the order, and he must not take the oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected." An ordinary soldier could become a catechumen and receive baptism only on the condition of a complete refusal to shed blood and to participate in the sacred military oath.

- Believers and catechumens who wish to join the army: "A catechumen or a believer who wishes to become a soldier must be rejected, because they have despised God." If an already baptized Christian or a catechumen voluntarily decided to enter military service, he was rejected. Voluntary enlistment in the army was equated with apostasy.

In the later Eastern recensions (in particular, in the "Canons of Hippolytus"), this discipline was adapted to new realities:

- Canon 13: "Concerning one who holds a civil office or commands troops: let him refrain from the sin of bloodshed."

- Canon 14: "A Christian must not voluntarily become a soldier, unless compelled to do so by a superior... But if he sheds blood, he must not approach the Sacraments until he has been cleansed through repentance."

The "Apostolic Tradition" records the historical moment when the Church regarded itself as the "army of Christ," whose methods of struggle are exclusively spiritual, and direct participation in state violence was considered incompatible with Eucharistic communion.

The pacifism of the first Christians was not the result of cowardice or political protest. It was a radical choice in favor of the "Kingdom not of this world."

They believed that the cross, suffering, and the forgiveness of enemies were the only instruments by which Christ conquered evil, and therefore the use of violence to defend even the most "just" cause destroys the very essence of the Gospel.

The turning point came in the 4th century with the Edict of Milan and Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity.

When the Church transformed from a persecuted minority into the state religion, the need arose to justify state institutions, including the apparatus of violence. Already at the Council of Arles (314 AD) a step was taken toward canonizing military service, and a century later St. Augustine formulated the concept of the "just war." Later, the theology of “just war” was further developed by Thomas Aquinas and ultimately systematized in the works of Francisco Suárez. Subsequently, elements of this theological tradition also influenced Eastern Christian thought.

Yet the voice of the first centuries – of Tertullian, Justin, Origen, and thousands of martyrs – remains an unambiguous testimony in history: in the era of its purest and most uncompromising ardor, the Church of Christ firmly believed that hands which receive the Eucharist cannot be defiled by the sword and blood.