(This is final part of Jacob Head’s guest post series. I appreciate him allowing the use of his material here while I am out of town at a conference.)

First and foremost, a hermeneutical agreement needs to be reached. In this matter there is talk of conscience, equally valid individual exegesis, and private interpretations. I don’t believe any of us would accept this hermeneutical stance in matters of “critical” doctrines, such as baptism, repentance, and worship. I think it important and logical to apply a consistent hermeneutical stance to all matters of scripture, including matters we conveniently deem irrelevant to our ultimate salvation.

Second, I would like to try to limit this topic to Christian participation in the military and all subsidiary governmental forces to prevent a general debate on pacifism; while on some occasion relevant, general self-defense deserves a whole other thread.

Previously, I gave a little bit of information on my research of Christians in the military. I established that there was rampant idolatry in the legions and consequently condemnation was given to those early Christians who would decide to participate in the legions (we will also see that is not the singular source of their condemnation).

But what about some of the modern objections?

Cornelius is often used as an archetype for militant Christians. However, upon closer inspection of the argument, we’ll find that Cornelius’ characterization is a logical fallacy; doctrinally, it would be impossible for him to be a Christian and a Centurion in the legions, unless we’re bold enough to assume idolatry to be acceptable to God after the death of Christ (Gibbon Vol 1 pg 14).

Soldier’s duties, especially officers such as Cornelius, were “inextricably bound up with idolatrous sacrifices, oaths, and ceremonies” (Ferguson 221). Furthermore, when we see Cornelius in Acts 10, he is not yet a convert. We do not know of his activities after his conversion, one way or another. As a consequent, his position as evidence for Christian soldiering is nonexistent. Nevertheless, it should be noted that we do not assume Rahab remained a harlot or Simon the Sorcerer continued to pedal his tricks.

However, it wasn’t just the rampant idolatry associated with soldiering that forbid early Christians from participating in the military. Violence was strongly condemned as it was contrary to the nature of Christ and its manifestation in soldiering was self evident (Plea for Christians 35; see also 34). Christ did violence to no man and was prophesied as one who would not even break a bruised reed (Isaiah 42:3).

If we’re called to emulate Christ, how then can we commit violence to another soul in any form (Luke 6:40; John 13:15; 1 Peter 2:21)? It is not only impossible, but highly hypocritical for another soul to love and kill at the same time, and this is precisely the issue that early Christians had with soldiering (Dialogue 110).

Love is something that is not just felt, but shown with outward action (James 2:16). If I can still love you and kill you, that means any lesser physical offense than death would surely be acceptable.

What then? Can I now physically hurt another, deprive them of their livelihood or physically cheat them but still claim love for them? Can I now beat my wife, all the while loving her? Or can I now do all sorts of evil, and claim love in the midst of my sin (Romans 6:1)?

We now approach the venues of gnosticism and of all manners of evil. This love described would be hypocritical love; an unlove so twisted and wrong as to defile the very depths of the soul. It is clinging to what is evil and hating that which is good (Romans 12:9). We only deceive ourselves in thinking otherwise.

Another major concern with Christians in the military both then and now is the inherent conflict of interest; Christ said you cannot serve two masters and by taking an oath of service you are attempting to do just that (Matthew 6:24).

Hippolytus, along with his contemporary brethren, would refuse the baptism of a soldier unless he renounced his ways and would disfellowship a Christian or catechumen who would join the legions because of this conflict (Apostolic Tradition 16:17-19).

It’s no coincidence that the military demands exactly what Christ does in its oath and service–a complete and total sacrifice (Romans 12:1-2; 1 John 2:15); they need soldiers completely dedicated, without distraction.

As Justin said”

“We who formerly murdered one another, not only do not war against our enemies but, in order not to lie or deceive our judges, gladly confessing Christ (Apology I, 39)… We who were full of war and murder of one another and all wickedness have each changed his warlike instruments–swords into plows and spears into agricultural implements” (Dialogue 110).

Justin and his contemporaries knew that they were no longer to be of this world and that they were to concentrate on things above, not things below (1 John 2:15; Colossians 3:2). To join a government and fight for them is not only contrary to the message found in Romans 12, but setting their goals and sights on earthly things as inherent by the oath of service.

We are not Israel. We are not in Israel’s time. We are not called by God to kill or to join a military. Israel had a physical kingdom, with a physical king and a physical military. Our country is not physical, but spiritual and our citizenship heavenly (Hebrews 11:9-16). Our kingdom and king is heavenly (John 18:36). Our army and battles are spiritual (2 Corinthians 10:3 Ephesians 6). As a consequent of our spiritual nature, we are to be strangers and pilgrims in this world (1 Peter 2:11).

If you were visiting China, India or Ethiopia, would you join their military? Of course not, as you’re a citizen of another country and to do so would be a conflict of interest. It is the same for a disciple of Christ. We do not war against the flesh, but in the spirit.

What then is the conclusion? That a Christian must not be in the military. The soldier must withdraw himself from the legions of earth to properly serve the legions of God. I realize this is a strong statement, but the conclusions can be nothing less. I do not judge any man, nor condemn any, but proclaim the gospel of peace which calls us to a better purpose.

Don't forget to subscribe to my full RSS feed to get daily updates of this blog!