User:Yt95/C& Notes

[The following working notes relate to the possible creation of an article “Early Christianity and pacifism”, contributions are welcome.]

The issue of pacifism in the early Church is a controversial subject with some stating categorically that before the reign of Constantine all leading Christians renounced war. Christian scholar Roland Bainton, who was a conscientious objector in World War 1 and author of an often quoted work on the subject asserted, “All of the outstanding writers of the east and of the west repudiated participation in warfare for Christians.” and that the “accession of Constantine terminated the pacifist period in church history.” Robin Lane Fox wrote “Constantine's generosity [to the Church] did not lead Christians off a former path of virtue: it intensified vices which already existed.” Other scholars have argued that pacifistic interpretations ignore evidence to the contrary showing Christians were indeed involved in military occupations from the apostolic age until the reign of Constantine and that in some cases early Christian writers are cited to support the case for pacifism when in fact their objection to military service is founded on the avoidance of any contact with “idolatry” and other factors rather than objections to the use of force. A Roman Catholic theologian, who doesn't accept there was a tradition of pacifism in the early Church, asserts that “there is not even one respectable example of pacifism in the Fathers”. Certain passages in Hebrew and Christian scriptures are subject to differing interpretations to argue for and against pacifism. Drake asserts “that there as many tenets of Christianity which favor tolerance and pacifism as there are of those that would justify a more militant and aggressive posture.” Due to the lack of explicit and unambiguous guidance in the bible the concept of Just War in Christian thought is founded not on scriptures but on Natural Law. Drake (2000) notes that at all times there had been Christians who resorted to violence when attacking pagan temples and shrines. He asserts that the “overwhelming” opinion of modern scholarship is that the rise of Christianity inevitably led to the forcible suppression of paganism through the intolerance inherent to Christian belief.

Polarized debate
MeGivern, quoting Adolf Harnack, characterizes the issue of pacifism in the early church as a debate between “hawks and doves, with excesses committed on both sides.” The doves are contemporary pacifist Christians who use the writings of several early Christian pacifist authors and take them as being the position of the “entire” early Christian community. With the coming of the Christian Roman emperors in the 4th century CE the Church was no longer a minority under the rule of pagans, but rather, an organization that had to deal with a  political structure that now defended them whilst defending the wider Empire and thus the idea of “Just War” developed. The “doves” were faced with the problem of reconciling the development of such ideas with what they viewed as the early pacifism of the entire church and did so by portraying the rise of such doctrines as “Just War“ as a capitulation and a fall from the ideals they believed were contained in the gospels. Roland Bainton writing in 1946 asserted that “objectivity is difficult for Christian scholars dealing with this question because the problem is still acute and the practice of the early church is commonly regarded as in some measure normative for present practice”. The “hawks” viewed the development of Just War theory as essential in order to deal with the reality of an Empire that was no longer antagonistic to Christianity and had to be defended for the sake of its own survival. Stratman asserted, following traditional Roman Catholic thought, that “the church has never forbidden military service as such...Though these extreme views (of the early pacifists) were not those of the Church there was a very strong feeling against military service amongst the early Christians.” The nature of these objections are still debated. Were they were due to genuine abhorrence of violence or rather a determination to avoid any contact with idolatry and other non-violence reasons? John Helgeland and others have written of their dissatisfaction with current scholarship and its domination by pacifist leaning authors. Holt calls for a new framework for the historical analysis of early Christians views on war that excludes terms such as "pacifism" since, with the exception of Roland Bainton writing in the mid-twentieth century, it is being used by modern theologians, philosophers, ethicists and political scientists who have "have co-opted alleged early Christian views to relate to the modern world".

A pastoral letter issued by the Roman Catholic Bishops in the United States in 1983 views the non-violence and just War viewpoints as complementary, each preventing the other from becoming distorted, and in doing so preserving authentic Christian theological positions.

Roland Bainton asserted that the “The accession of Constantine terminated the pacifist period in church history.” Other scholars such as H. A Drake and Ramsay MacMullen describe Christians resorting to religious violence and serving in the Roman army long before the reign of Constantine.

Much of the polarized debate surrounding the issue of pacifism in the early Church has been centered on the issue of military service. Any possible reluctance by some Christians to serve in the military has been attributed to a variety of reasons and subject to various rebuttals:

Christian life." Set against this absolute, or pure, pacifism is the argument that the love of the gospels is conditional on acceptance of the message of Jesus. That St. Paul's anathema against anyone who preaches a different gospel “foreshadows, however dimly, the wars of orthodoxy” and that there is no prohibitions in the New Testament against army service when matters involving military personnel arise. Tacitus described the early Christians as being the “Haters of Mankind”. Barrow (1982) asserts that the early Christians purposely provoked violence in others in order to “win a crown of martyrdom.”
 * That the gospels have as their central core a message of peace and that violence is counter to the precepts of love that they contain. That the conception of peace "being of the very stuff and substance of the

Non pacifistic reasons given not serving or being under-represented in the army, or not resorting to violence include:
 * Military exemption. The early Christians were considered to be another Jewish sect. Various dispensations were given to the Jews which included exemption from military service. After the Jewish revolt Christians refused to pay the additional Jewish tax which was imposed as as punishment by the Roman authorities. In doing so they separated themselves from the Jews and their dispensations.
 * . The Roman Army was so steeped in rituals and practise's that Christians considered to be idolatry that they therefore shunned military service. Under the Christian Emperors this was no longer an issue.
 * “Whore of Babylon”. The Book of Revelation described Rome as the “Whore of Babylon”, who had persecuted Christians and predicted its imminent demise. Christians were disinclined to serve in an army which might persecute its brethren and serve an Empire which was to be subject to Gods wrath. Under the Christian Emperors this impediment vanished.
 * Eschatology. According to the New Testament the Second Coming had been prophisised by Jesus and St. Paul as being imminent, within the lifetime of their listeners. The issue of military service and defending the Empire was an irrelevance since it was all coming to an end. As time passed with no sign of the expected second coming a longer term approach to issues relating to defense of the Empire came to the forefront, especially under the Christian Emperors, leading to the concept of a Just War. Bainton wrote that the “failure of eschatological hope” has been used by some people for “discarding Jesus' precepts on nonresistance”.
 * Population. Since the early Christians were mainly drawn from the slave classes, with a disproportionate amount of women, (neither of whom could serve in the army), and that traditionally the Roman Empire had recruited from the countryside, (which was always heavily pagan), and that early Christian apologists exaggerated the numbers of Christians, it follows that the number of Christians serving in the military would be under-represented in surviving records.
 * Empowerment. The advent of the Christian Emperors gave Christians the power that they previously lacked to pursue their goals. Gaddis notes that for the first three centuries of their history, “Christians were in little position to employ significant violence either in defense of their faith or in their own internal disputes.” MacMullen writes: “Christians were [now] in a position of power allowing the free expression of a deeply felt imperative; and that imperative allowed no rest...good believers must fulfill the divine command, 'Ye shall destroy their alters, break their images, and cut down their groves...for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God'(Exd. 34:13...'Praise God in heaven! Peace on earth to everyone who pleases God' (Luke 2:14) – but the displeasing were another matter, with different deserts.” He further notes “that in the century opened by the Peace of the Church, more Christians died for their faith at the hands of fellow Christians than had died before in all the persecutions” and that both Old and New Testament commandments “would allow no truce with error. Christians might point with envy to the concordia that prevailed among non-Christians, just as non-Christians pointed with amazement at the murderous intolerance within the now dominant religion”. Lecky wrote "The opinions of the Christians of the first three centuries were usually formed without any regard to the necessities of civil or political life; but when the Church obtained an ascendancy, it was found necessary speedily to modify them."

Military service
John Helgeland wrote, "Generally, the contemporary discussion of the early Christians' relationship to the Roman army has been bound to one confessional viewpoint or another. To a large extent all the authors display a position predictable once their background is known, and all have a tendency to find their own doctrinal point of view reflected in the documents of the early church."

Jews had previously entered military service under the successors of Alexander the Great but under Roman Rule they were granted exemption. There is little evidence of Jews ever serving voluntarily in the Roman Army, most likely due to their avoidance of pagan religious rites such as sacrificing to the military standards which demonstrated the loyalty of the soldiers for their emperor. Hyrcanus II in the 1st century BCE wrote that Jews 'cannot undertake military service because they may not bear arms or march on the days of the Sabbath; nor can they obtain the native foods to which they are accustomed' The Romans regarded the early Christians as another Jewish sect. Cadoux wrote “No Jew could be compelled to serve in the Roman legions; and there was scarcely the remotest likelihood that any disciple of Jesus would be pressed into the army..” After the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE a special tax was levied on the Jews which also gave them exemption from partaking in any pagan rites: vectigalis libertas, 'freedom that brings in revenue [to the state]'. By choosing not to pay the special tax, and separating themselves from the Jews, Christians lost the exemptions given to the ancestral faith and left themselves open to prosecution. Mennonite pacifist scholar John Howard Yoder wrote that Christians didn't flock into the military service even after the rise of Constantine and cites Ramsay MacMullen as an authority for this assertion. However, MacMullen doesn't attribute this to Christian pacifism but due rather, quoting Celsus, to the fact that converts were drawn mainly from the slave classes, women (neither groups able to serve in the army) and children, that the army was drawn traditionally from country folk who were pagan, and that the number of Christians in the empire was not large. He further quotes the Christian apologist Tertullian regarding the willingness of Christians to serve in the army:
 * We live together with you in this world, including the forum, including the meat-market, baths, shops, workrooms, inns, fairs, and the rest of commercial intercourse, and we sail along with you and serve in the army and are active in trade.

Fox notes the influence of Christian soldiers in spreading Christianity with evidence dating from at least the early third century CE.

New Testament
It has been argued that the absence of any censure of the soldier who asks Jesus to heal his servant, the baptising of a Roman Centurion who is never asked to first give up arms is not indicative of a ban on military service in the New Testament. John the Baptist is described by Jesus in the gospels as "Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist". When John the Baptist is asked by soldiers "And what about us, what shall we do?" replied "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages." with no mention of laying down of arms.

In defending the viewpoint that Jesus forbade any form of violence Cadoux wrote “Assuming that the use of military force did not appear to him [Jesus] to be in itself illegitimate, why should he not have used it?” Roman Catholic teaching explains that Jesus came to die so that sins may be forgiven and that “on the cross the blood of Jesus, the perfect victim..seals the 'new' covenant”.
 * The Son of Man is going to his fate...Then he [Jesus] took a cup, and when he returned thanks he gave it to them. 'Drink all of you from this', he said 'for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, which is to be poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Clement of Rome
Clement is “attributed eponymously” in some versions of the “Apostolic Church Order”. It contains prohibitions relating to enrollment within the “clergy” class which bans admittance to those who are “a soldier of the prince” but, if indeed they are admitted, they must abstain from killing even if commanded.

Clement wrote “Were you a soldier on campaign when the knowledge of God was laid hold on you? Then listen to the commander who signals righteousness.” Bainton asserts “that plainly Clement didn't call upon the Christian convert to leave the ranks” but, contrary to the opinion of other scholars, he believed that the “commander” Clement refers to is not an earthly general but God and based on other sentiments Clement expresses the soldiers role is limited to police duties.

“Cole notes that Clement also displayed a positive attitude toward soldiering through his interpretation of the New Testament, from which he claimed that, “Jesus, through the mouth of John the Baptist, commanded soldiers to be just but not to quit soldiering (Luke 3:14).”(70)

Tatian
The early Christian writer Tatian (c. 120–180) wrote:
 * I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command... Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it.

W. G. Most asserts that Tatian is not rejecting all kinds of military service. When read in context Tatian is rejecting the fame and honors associated with a prestigious position. According to Benko Tatian became a "christian extremist" and founded his own sect, the Encratites, who regarded marriage as adultery. Tatian altered scripture to support his own doctrines.

Marcion
Rejected war as well as the God of the “Old Testament” with all it's scriptures along with most of the ”New Testament”. He omitted some of letters of Paul and changed others to support his own theology. Marcion's belief were compatible with “an imminent parousia, (See Eschatology above). He was expelled from the Christian community in 144 C.E but the movement he founded was a significant force during the early history of the church. Marcion

Tertullian
Tertullian (c. ) was a “rigorist” noted for his unequaled  “vigour and violence” in apologetics. He took an uncompromising stand against those who sinned after baptism. During this period first offenders were made to wear strange cloths, place ashes on their head, adopt a rigourous fast and prostrate themselves at the door of the Church begging for mercy. There was no second chance after the first offence. With Tertullian certain sins, such as fornication, could not be forgiven by the Church at all. The Bishop of Rome at the time, Calixtus I, found that Tertullians opinion was not founded on scripture and Calixus's refusal to withhold mercy from the penitent led, according to a Roman Catholic historian, to Tertullian and another "rigorist", Hippolytus, attacking the Pope “bitterly and maliciously”. At some point Tertullian left the Church and and joined the Montantists. In contrast to the first half of his life when he “bitterly” attacked and “reviled” pagans and “heretics”, he now turned that same anger against the Church. He is often cited as an authority by modern pacifist writers as an exemplar of early Christian pacifism. In his earlier "non-heretical" writings Tertullian saw no incompatibility between being a Christian and a soldier. He wrote:
 * "Apology" 42: "We are soldiers with you".
 * "Apology" 37: We are of just yesterday, and we have filled the world and everything: the cities, the islands, the fortresses, the towns, the marketplaces, the very camps...we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods."
 * "Apology" 30: "We ask for them [the Emperors - in prayers] long life, undisturbed power, security at home, brave armies."
 * "Apology" 5. & “To Scapula” 4): He recounts how a Roman legion was imperiled during a campaign in Germany with Marcus Aurelius(b. 26 April 121 – d. 17 March 180) but due to the prayers of his Christian soldiers a storm was raised that caused the enemy to scatter. He doesn't give any indication that it was wrong to be a Christian and a soldier.

When Tertullian became a Montanist his attitude changed:
 * "On idolatry" 19: "How will a Christian man make war, even, how will he serve even in time of peace, without a sword, for the Lord has taken that from him? For even though soldiers had come to John [the Baptist] and had received the formula of their rule...still the Lord afterwards, in disarming Peter, ungirt every soldier."
 * "On the chaplet" 11:" Is it likely we are permitted to carry a sword when our Lord said that he who takes the sword will perish by the sword? Will those who are forbidden to engage in a lawsuit espouse the deeds of war? Will a Christian who is told to turn the other cheek when struck unjustly, guard prisoners in chains, and administer torture and capital punishment?"

As a Montantist Tertullian also “forbids a Christian to be a schoolmaster, a teacher of literature, a seller of frankincense, and condemns all forms of painting, modeling, sculpture, participation in national festivals, and holding any state offices, since the state is the enemy of God ("On idolatry," caps 9-24, passim.)” [ add ref to Tertullians views on women]

“What has Jerusalem to do with Athens” asserts Tertullian, (echoing St Paul in 1 cor 1). Tertullian rejoices in seeing the philosophers, poets, scholars, dancers, tragedians being burned eternally in hell”. St Paul not only disparages philosophy but women teachers. Hypatia who was both philosopher and woman was lynched by a Christian mob in Alexandria. ]

Tertullian recorded with “relish” the torture and killing of the Christian Rutilius who had previously fled from persecution by using bribes. He also acknowledged that Christians were praying that the travails associated with the end of the world would not happen in their lifetimes. (see Eschatology above) Roland Bainton notes that Tertullians “pacifism” has been attributed to his expectation that the current world order was to end soon. (see also Wandering Jew) [nb the current article misleads by not mentioning why someone has to remain alive until the second coming, I.e to fulfill the prophecy, which the gospel attributes to Jesus, that his return must happen within the lifetime of his listeners]) Johnson describes Tertullian as being the “the earliest and noisiest of the Christian witch-hunters” through his attacks on “heretics”.

Hippolytus
A group of rigorists appear towards the end of the second century CE “with a tendency to demand absolute sinlessness as a normal condition of membership” of the Church. Marriage itself became viewed as a bar to sanctity, with virginity viewed as “True Christianity”. Hippolytus, along with Tertullian, took the view that the Church could not be the instrument of forgiveness to those who had committed sins such as fornication, idolatry and murder, and both attacked Pope Calixtus “bitterly and maliciously” when he denied their assertions as being unscriptural. Pope Calixtus held that no sin was unforgivable and that he had apostolic authority to forgive all, responding to Hippolytus with "who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another" (romans 14:4). Hippolytus led a schism and became the first anti-pope but was later sentenced to the mines as a confessor where he met Pope Pontianus as a “fellow sufferer” and was reconciled to the Church. He is a canonised saint of the Roman Catholic Church. Hippolytus is frequently cited by modern pacifist authors as an example of the early pacifist Church. W. Harmless sees Hippolytus as not representing "the" Church" but "a" church of an extremist wing.

The “Canons of Hippolytus” (c. 230 CE) decree that “a soldier of civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded” (canon 16). Bainton notes that this prohibition has “greatly puzzled historians” unable to understand how a soldier could remain in the military whilst unwilling to kill if the need arose. . Helgeland and Morey note that when Hippolytus prohibits Christians from bearing arms in his “Apostolic Tradition” (16; 10-22), he does so in a section that deals with idolatry and immorality and that “We are not explicitly told why he felt Christians should not be involved in the military. [rem to clarify the refs to works of Hippolytus being used here by Bainton and Morey!]

Hippolytus believed like other "Christian extremists" that Rome was the "Whore of Babylon" and this is reflected in his "bitter invectives". He wrote a work predicting the end of the world in 500 C.E in response to a failed prediction which had set 202 CE as the year. (See Eschatology above)

Cyprian
In 250 CE Cyprian records that Christians were serving in the Roman Army – two had been martyred. In Ad Donatum (VI:10) Cyprian noted that homicide is considered a crime when committed by individuals, a virtue when carried on publicly”. . He also wrote in De Habiyu Virginum (XI) that God had intended iron for tilling and not killing. Bainton applies the “homicide” that Cyprian refers to military activity and thus counts him amongst “all the outstanding writers of East and West” who repudiated warfare.

W. G Most doesn't view Cyprian as a pacifist since in his letter "To Demetrian" (3) he describes how the earth is growing old so that many things diminish including the number of soldiers:
 * The farmer decreases and fails in the fields, the sailor on the sea, the soldier in the camps, innocence in the forum (cf. also ibid. cap 17).

Cyprian believed that the end of this world was about to take place. (See Eschatology above). Cyprian responded to inquiries by the pagan Demetrius with “a stream of abuse” which he then published. In these documents Cyprian delights in the eternal torture of those who are dammed:
 * “What joy for believers...An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life.”

MacMullen writes “It would be hard to imagine a more vehemently encountered or less adroitly handled opportunity for teaching.”

Morey notes that another passage from the writings of Cyprian has been used to categorize him as a pacifist: “The hand spotted with the sword and blood should not receive communion. (V:488)”, but rejects this on the basis that when read in context Cyprian is referring to murder, not military service or killing someone in self-defense.

Eusabius
In his book outlining the history of the early Christian Church Eusabius records “a pivotal event” that took place in Gaul during the campaign of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (173 CE). He credits a Legion of Christian soldiers, who prayed for divine intervention, for raising a storm which turned the tide of the battle and won the day for the Romans, and in gratitude the Emperor Marcus renaming the Christian soldiers the “Thundering Legion”.

Church orders, regulations and disciplines
A number texts containing of rules and regulations have survived outlining provisions relating to local church membership that are classified as Church orders. Fox notes the existence of various works of "narrative fictions" or letters of discipline that either claim a false authorship or no authorship at all in order to give the documents a bogus authority. He asserts that such works were written by "over-achievers" who had a propensity for promoting their own personal favoured form of Christian practice whilst ignoring such precepts as surrender of riches or support for the poor. Scholars such as Cadoux, Yoder and Bainton, who believed that the early church was pacifist, make reference to some of these Church disciplines to support their point of view.

Teaching of the Apostles
The Teaching, also known as the Didache, is the earliest text which falsely purports to be teachings of the original Apostles, and is usually dated to the late first or early second century of CE. It contains prohibitions relating to idolatry (12) and associating with pagans or Jews (15) that leads to dismissal from ministry. Provisions relating to administration of justice by Christians are also set out (21,22). There are no prohibitions relating to military service.

Didascalia Apostolorum
The Didascalia Apostolorum (c. 230CE?) falsely purports to be written by the Twelve Apostles and is thought to be based on the earlier "Teaching of the Apostles", see above. It prohibits a bishop from accepting gifts from “soldiers who conduct themselves in wickedness” or “from any Roman officials, those who are polluted with wars and have shed innocent blood without judgment. [Yodar, who cites this work, doesn't say if those who shed guilty blood with judgment, or soldiers who do not conduct themselves in wickedness are capable of giving gifts.] [add here some more Yoders evidence when balanced interpretations are available. Its very noticeable that in this document Yoder doesn't reference the very first church rule which is set out in the Acts of the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem which makes no entry requirements relating to abstention from military service]

Cadoux notes that the Didascalia prohibits the acceptance of money from the magistrates of the Roman Empire because of their involvement with war. In the gospels, and as actually practiced, the giving of money by Christians, (in the form of taxation), to the same authorities who financed "" and waged war was never subject to prohibition. Jesus when asked about paying tax is recorded as saying "Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars". Fox decscribes the Didascalia as representative of the "fake authority" these kinds of texts try to present.

Origen
Bainton (1960) quotes Origen writing in 248 C.E: “ We do not fight under the emperor although he require it” and interprets this as proving that abstention from war was absolute for Christians in the East up until 250 CE. However, Most (1996) quotes Origen more fully:
 * In "Against Celsus" 8.73, Origen wrote: "To those enemies of our faith who require us to bear arms for the state and to kill men, we can reply: Do not those who are [pagan] priests at certain shrines...keep their hands free from blood? ...If, then that is a laudable custom, how much more so that these [Christians] too should engage as priests and ministers of God... wrestling in prayers for those who are fighting in a righteous cause.... We do not indeed fight under him, even though he require it, but we fight on his behalf...by offering our prayers to God."

W. Most argues that Origen is asserting that since it is considered more fitting for pagan “priests” to abstain from bloodshed so too is it fitting for a Christian “priest” to do likewise. Since Origen says Christians offer up prayers as their form of fighting it follows that Origen accepts there can be just wars. MeGivern asserts that Origen “is not opposed to war as such, saying that "if they are ever necessary, then they ought to be just and ordered," as Plato and Aristotle taught.” Bainton wrote “Origen proposed that if men fight they should imitate the bees in observing the rules of just war... Origen was not far removed from the position of his contemporary Plotinus, that the sage should abstain from conflict, whereas common folk might participate.” Origen shed blood when he castrated himself after interpreting literally the words the gospel record Jesus as saying: “there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

In one passage Origen quotes the pagan writer Celsus who asserts:
 * If all men were to the same as you [Origen] there would be nothing to prevent the king from being left in utter solitude and desertion and the forces of the empire would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians.

Bainton points out that this cannot be taken for evidence that no Christians served in the army since the Christian “Thundering Legion” of troops was active in the decade Celsus wrote. (see Eusabius below)

Dionysius of Alexandria
Dionysius was a disciple of Origen and in 247 CE became bishop of Alexandria. He recorded that the martyrs of his day included “men and women, both young men and old, both maidens and aged matrons, both soldiers and private citizens.”. He also recounted how a group of Christian soldiers “had taken up their position in a mass in front of the [military] tribunal. A Christian was on trial and was about to deny [the faith], but these soldiers “ran quickly up to the bench of judgment and declared themselves to be Christians”.

Military martyrs
Jordan (2006) asserts that Jesus Christ took the view “that violent death was necessary as a supreme demonstration of faith.” That records of military martyrs affirm that Christians were indeed serving in the Roman army. The conventional date for the start of the persecutions against Christians in the military is dated to the last decade of the fourth century. The first recorded Christian military martyr, Maximilian of Tebessa, asserted during his trial in 295 CE that “It is not right for me to serve in the army because I am a Christian” but his act cannot be viewed as normative based on pacifist principles since ten years later when Julius the Veteran was martyred, for refusing to offer incense to Diocletian, he asserted during his trial “that he had served faithfully in the military for twenty-seven years, fought in seven major campaigns, and never had a commanding officer who found any fault with his record or conduct” and he too was revered as a model. X writes that "Christian soldiers must have been numerous before the end of the third century" and "that it is certainly true to say that by that time the great majority of Christians saw nothing intrinsically un-Christian in military service. The action of the martyrs were therefore those of extremists."

Arnobius
Roland Bainton quotes a passage from the writings of Arnobius (c. 304-10 CE) as evidence that all leading Christian writers repudiated warfare:
 * For since we, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another, an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature.—Arnobius, Adversus Gentes I:VI

However Arnobius also writes elsewhere to defend Christianity against the charge that it had disturbed the  natural order of things: “Do those to whom it has been so allotted not exercise kingly power or military authority”, and Arnobius assures that these things continue without any hint that they are wrong. It follows that Arnobius counts as a virtue the avoidance of retaliatory responses against personal injury but this does not mean leaving society defenseless against unjust attacks. Arnobius with his “vehement attack on paganism” is thought to have inspired Firmicus Maternus (see above) in his attacks on paganism. Drake (2000) ponders why both these early Christian authors didn't respond with “love and understanding” to pagans but rather with invective, and seeks answers other than the accepted scholarly consensus that attributes it to the intolerance inherent to Christianity.

Lactantius
Lactantius served in the court of Constantine and was tutor to the emperors children. According to MeGivern no early Christian writer is so set against military service, and all forms of killing, than Lactantius in his book “The Divine Institutes” (c. 304-5 CE). He observes that the pacifism of the early Lactantius was “as total as possible”. Lactantius believed “it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word. . . or. . . by the sword.” He also records how Christian were in the army and the Imperial court of Diocletian at the outbreak of persecution. Roland Bainton, using the example of Lactantius, concludes: “Thus all the outstanding writers of the East and West repudiated participation in warfare for Christians”. However, when it became the responsibility of Christian emperors to protect the borders and administer justice the attitude of Lactantius softened and he describes fighting courageously for ones country as a “good” and in other passages of the “Epitome” indicated that he no longer believed in total abstention from all forms of violence.

Within a few years of the battle at the Milvian bridge Lactantius wrote of the "miraculous sign" that Jesus gave to Constantine that assured him of victory. Arnaldo Momigliano described Lactantius pamphlet "De mortibus persecutorum":
 * The winners became conscious of their victory in a mood of resentment and vengeance. A voice shrill with implacable hatred announced to the world the victory of the Milvian Bridge. In this horrible pamphlet by the author of De ira dei there is something of the violence of the prophets without the redeeming sense of tragedy that inspired Nahum's song for the the fall of Nineveh.

Firmicus Maternus
In 346CE Firmicus exhorted the Christian Emperors to wipe out paganism:
 * Little remains, before the Devil shall lie utterly prostrate, overthrown by your laws, and the lethal infection of a vanquished idolatry shall be no more...The favouring numen of Christ reserved for your hands the annihilation of idolatry and the destruction of pagan temples...Abolish! Abolish in confidence, most Holy Emperors, the ornaments of the temples.. Upon you You, most holy emperors, necessity enjoins the punishing of this evil...so that Your Severities persecute root and branch, omnifariam, the crime of idol worship. Harken and impress upon Your sacred minds what commands regarding this crime.

Firmicus goes on to quote Deuteronomy 13:6-9 which for calls for the killing of any family members who should encourage the worship of other gods. He asserts: “but as it is, it menaces his line and posterity, and aims at leaving no portion of his most wicked seed, at seeing no vestige of his unholy progeny remaining.

Arnaldo Momigliano wrote that there was “a predominant attitude of acceptance and respect” by Christians for the Roman Empire explained in part to the belief that the Empire had been providentially created for the furtherance of the Christian faith. Civil administration and the army were acceptable careers for Christian volunteers before the time of Constantine. However he believes that those Christians who might not have shared the opinion of their apologists may have been the cause of doubts by the authorities over the loyalty of Christians. Whilst noting Celsus's appeal for Christians not to cause problems for the Empire by refusing military service he writes that the “Christian writers in the period of persecutions are firm in stating that the Christians accept their obligations as citizens. The condition of a Christian as a stranger in this world does not abolish his duties as a citizen.” Roland Bainton, a conscientious objector in World War I, wrote “some leaders of the Church allowed Christians to do military service, provided they did not kill...engaged in what today would be called police work” (see Council of Arles below). Bainton notes that such policing functions included troops assigned to assist provincial governors. Other ancient sources describe these kind of troops being directly involved in executions such as crucifixion. However Bainton notes that in the east there was “a continuous tradition of military service” on the frontiers.

James Moffatt, considered the third-century Christian pacifists "extremists" and observed that if they had prevailed in prohibiting military service "it is very doubtful if the victory of Christianity in the next century would have been possible.”

Edward Ryan concluded that "when Constantine . . . showed himself a friend and supporter, he [thereby] removed the last reasons that Christians had for rejecting military service . . . The pacifist theory is but an aberration of a genuine element of Christian ethics. The Church has within its walls a place for the Christian soldier.”

An historian of the Roman Empire writes “Among the early Christians the sect of the Montanists alone was opposed to military service. Monasticism was a product of the 4th and 5th centuries. Apart from their refusal to participate in pagan rites, the early Christians showed no disposition to evade their civic duties.”

Capital Punishment
[The present article states]: The sixth commandment "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13) has been viewed as an instruction for pacifism.”

According to a commentary on scripture "the reference here is to the unlawful taking of life by suicide or homicide, but not to capital punishment for capital crimes” which is sanctioned in the Book of Genesis: 'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image', “nor the taking of life in self-defence or lawful war.”

It is argued that in the Gospel of John Jesus (8:11) doesn't sanction the death of the women taken in adultery even though that was the penalty under Mosaic Law. In opposition to this non-violent interpretation it is argued that the context and setting determines the response of Jesus in avoiding a theological trap that he was set: If he had explicitly said “release her” he would have been “contradicting the Law of Moses” and if he had sanctioned stoning her he would be breaking Roman Law which forbade the Jews the right of Capital Punishment. Jesus avoids both traps by saying "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." Furthermore Saint Paul wrote:
 * If you do wrong, be afraid, for he [the civil authority] does not carry the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the evildoer.

John Howard Yoder argued that the sword referenced by Paul related to policing functions and not capital punishment since crucifixion would have been been the method used by the Romans for execution. Tradition recounts that Paul himself was executed by beheading in Rome at Aquae Salviae – he was a Roman citizen. Crucifixion was reserved for slaves who revolted, rebels, and for the most gross offenses.

Cadoux interpreted the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount as not just prohibiting capital punishment but also any “infliction of public penalties on behalf of society as well as the indulgence of personal resentment.”

St. Paul is recorded as passing a sentence of “destruction of the flesh” on a Christian for acts of immorality. St. Peter is recorded rebuking Ananias for failing to hand over,as promised, the full amount of his property to the Christian community and accuses him of being possessed by Satan. Ananias drops down dead before Peter, making a “profound impression” on all who witnessed what had happened. A few hours later the wife of Ananias appears before Peter and he makes similar accusations, telling her “they have just been to bury your husband; they will carry you out too”, at which point she drops down dead. The modern Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church issued in 1992 asserts: “...the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty....” An amendment issued in 1997 changed this to read “...Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offence.” with no explicit mention of the death penalty.

Hebrew scriptures
See also Old Testament

Jordan (2006) writes “There is a commonly held but erroneous notion that the worlds holy scriptures do not advocate the shedding of blood in anger. But closer inspection reveals that the idea of transcendentally sanctified war, both defensive and otherwise, is a much-repeated theme in the pages of the Holy Bible and the Qur'an... The recurrent theme of utter destruction, anathema [herem] is present in Hebrew scriptures with the “Word of God” giving divine sanction to these acts." :
 * But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul alive. You must doom them all-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the LORD, your God, has commanded you, lest they teach you to make any such abominable offerings as they make to their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD, your God.”

Christian writers such as Firmicus Maternus and Saint Augustine used the “Old Testament” to support the forcible suppression of paganism. The former invoked passages that included killing family members who might encourage people to worship other gods, whilst both used Hebrew scriptures to sanction the destruction of pagan temples and shrines.

Those who argue for a pacifistic interpretation of Hebrew scriptures quote from the Book of Isaiah:
 * He shall judge between the nations, and impose terms on many peoples. They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again.

A Roman Catholic theologian argues that this is opposed by the passage from the Book of Joel :
 * Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.

He asserts that there is no contradiction in these two passages and that the text from Isaiah relates to a coming idealized Messianic Age whilst the passage from Joel relates to the eviction of invaders from the “Promised Land”. He asserts that the passage from Isaiah is being used simplistically in order to argue for pacifism and that the passage from Joel could be used equally simplistically to argue against pacifism.

Morey asserts that whilst prophets in the “Old Testament” preached against personal vengeance they also encouraged Israel to destroy the enemies of God.

Jordan (2006) writes that there is clear development in “God's pronouncements” during the history of the Israelites; from a more jingoistic perception to one that tends towards contrition, paralleling their phases of expansion and decline.

New Testament
Roland Bainton saw in the New Testament a transformation of concepts set out in the Old Testament. The Hebrew covenant in which “God swore to the fathers to destroy their enemies from before their face became in the mouth of Jesus “the new testament in my blood”. The apocalyptic doomsday of Judaism, when God will annihilate the enemies of Israel, became the day when wrath would be pronounced on those who had not clothed the naked.” Cadoux details the many invocations of peace contained in the New Testament in order to argue a case against any form of violence. Mennonite scholar Swartley argues similarly in a 2006 book but A. E. Harvey, whilst accepting the many occurrence of the word, is not convinced that this single focused interpretation of diverse passages from scripture raises questions as to whether a Christian should also live a form of religious communism as described in Acts, care for the poor, both as an expressions of the peace of Christ.

Reinhartz writes: "The contradiction between the commandment to love and the incitement to hate not only belongs to later interpretations of the [fourth] gospel but is also inherent in the text itself". A modern work on this subject describes the issue of religious violence in the New Testament as a neglected topic even in works that ostensibly deal with biblical violence; that these works, with "virtual singularity", focus on Hebrew texts and Hebrew atrocities and, by ignoring the Christian New Testament, in their own way do violence to the texts. The following passages are used to either support or refute pacifism:

Peace on earth
Cadoux wrote that the conception of peace is the very substance of the Christian life and gives an example with the New Testament which begins with the angelic salutation announcing the birth of Jesus: “"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!"

Ramsay MacMullen cites this passage in his book dealing with the persecution of pagans by Christians and the forcible suppression of their various religious traditions: “ 'Praise God in heaven! Peace on earth to everyone who pleases God' but the displeasing were another matter, with different desserts. 'God who speaks truth has both predicted that the images of the many, the false Gods, are to be overthrown, and commands that it be done”. He notes St. Augustine “acts out his convictions with his declaration to his people, 'This is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims' He believes it reasonable to assume that this sermon was the cause of religious riots that led to sixty deaths.

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division"

Simon the Zealot
The Zealots were a significant political force in the first century CE Palestine. Whereas the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes sought an accommodation with the Roman authorities the Zealots were hostile to such rapprochements and resorted to violence to achieve their ends. Ninian Smart notes that Sadducees regarded Jesus as a “dangerous character”, that he had evicted the moneychangers from the Temple, and whilst Jesus had shown no direct signs of launching a revolution he did have amongst his disciples Zealots. The authorities in Jerusalem may have viewed Jesus as a troublemaker and Zealot since his home district of Galilee was associated with “violence and militancy”. Jordan (2006) asserts that more than one passage from Christian scriptures supports violent intentions and picks out the instance of Jesus himself using force to evict the moneychangers from the Temple in Jerusalem.

Smart interprets Jesus's words “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars's” (Mark 12:13-17) as a rejection of the Zealots desire for armed rebellion. S.G.F. Brandon argues that because Jesus was executed for sedition this resulted in the early Christians being viewed as a subversive movement and consequently resulted in their persecution. In contrast to Ninian Smart, he believes that the Gospel of Mark tries to write away the charge of sedition by moving the blame towards the Jews in order to defend the early Christians, and by way of example describes how the author of Mark (3:18) disguises the fact that one of  Jesus's Apostles was a Zealot, calling Simon the Zealot “Simon the Cananaean”. Bainton (1960) wrote “we may infer that Jesus was traduced as a Zealot, otherwise they would not have crucified him, but equally we may assume he was not a Zealot, for otherwise his countrymen would not have preferred Barabbas”. Bainton doesn't deal with the symbolism involved in this scene revolving around the name of Bar-abbas (“Son of the Father”), nor to early manuscripts that refer to “Jesus Barabbas”). Paul Johnson wrote that the early Jerusalem Church did not accept the views of St. Paul who attempted “to disassociate Christs teaching from Judaism” because of Jewish irredentist politics, and his failure to do so resulted in the Jerusalem Church drifting closer to Zealotry and Nationalism. S. G. Brandon asserted: “As soon as the Jerusalem Christians realized the nature of Paul's gospel, they repudiated both it and him”. In a number of cities in the East Christian societies formed under the name “Zealots” who were involved in rioting and “ceremonious idol burning”. The Essene communities are thought to have been “incubators for extremists, Zealots, men of violence and enrages”. Tertullian, often cited by modern Christian pacifists as notable early pacifist writer, is thought to have embodied “narrow minded, intolerant, venomous and indeed violent” tendencies in controversy as a result of early Christian Zealot-Essene evangelization in his area.

During a radio broadcast in 2010 Pope Benedict XVI said "it was not a political liberation that he [Jesus] brought, achieved through military means; rather, Christ destroyed death forever and restored life by means of his shameful death on the Cross.

"Compel them to come in"
St. Augustine interpreted the words attributed to Jesus in the Gopsel of Luke "Compel them to come in" (14:23) as a mandate for the use of force by the state to enforce religious orthodoxy that would continue to be invoked during phases of religious persecution in the Middle Ages and Reformation periods.

Jesus evicting the moneychangers from the Temple
Jordan (2006) argues that more than one passage from Christian scriptures supports violent intentions and picks out the instance of Jesus himself using force to evict the moneychangers from the Temple in Jerusalem.
 * And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.

Roland Bainton describes the whip of cords as “hardly a hand grenade” and that the moneychangers were actually dispersed by “a wrath which they recognized as right”. Pacifist scholar John H. Yoder called for “intellectual honesty” when reading this passage and asserts that Jesus only drove out the animals in the account given in the Gospel of John. However none of the various bibles in a modern bible compendium assert this, but follow closely the text of the Revised Standard Version given above. King James John 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; New King James John 2:15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables; American Standard John 2:15 and he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers' money, and overthrew their tables;  Living Bible John 2:15 Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out, and drove out the sheep and oxen, scattering the moneychangers' coins over the floor and turning over their tables; Revised Standard John 2:15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables; Simple English John 2:15 Jesus made a whip from some ropes. He forced all of them to leave the courtyard--even the cattle and the sheep. He turned the money-exchangers' tables over and scattered their coins; New American Standard John 2:15 And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers, and overturned their tables; New Jerusalem with Apocrypha John 2:15 Making a whip out of cord, he drove them all out of the Temple, sheep and cattle as well, scattered the money changers' coins, knocked their tables over; New American with Apocrypha John 2:15 He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables; New Revised Standard with Apocrypha John 2:15 Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

Turn the other cheek
Jesus is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew as saying during the Sermon on the Mount:
 * "But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

This has been interpreted as a form of nonresistance. William Most (1996) rejects this literal interpretation of the “turn the other cheek” passage, as Jesus doesn't actually physically do this when struck on the cheek by an official at his trial but instead asks Annas, "If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?". C. S. Lewis, who fought during first world war, thought that Christian pacifism was an “honest theological” mistake and that those who would take isolated verses from scriptures such as “turn the other cheek” as being a pacifistic mandate then ought also to “sell all their goods and give them to the poor” and stop “burying their loved ones” as Jesus also counselled. However Radical Christians, such as Shane Claiborne and the Catholic Worker Movement, believe that these actions (i.e. nonresistance, voluntary poverty and participating in the kingdom of God on earth) are key truths in Christian discipleship. After considering, and dismissing alternative interpretations C. S. Lewis concludes that the meaning of the passage is 'insofar as you are simply an angry man who has been hurt, mortify your anger and do not hit back.'

Roland Bainton asserted that the meaning of this passage was that one shouldn't resent the indignity of being slapped and not that a person shouldn't defend their own life. He argues that the Jews of this period regarded a slap on the face as a form of insult rather than an assault.

Sell your cloak and buy a sword
S. G. F. Brandon points out that Luke 22:36, in which Jesus tells his disciples to buy swords at the Last Supper, is not consistent with pacifism:
 * And He [Jesus] said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one."

William Barclay doesn't interpret this passage as “an incitement to armed force” but rather ”simply a vivid eastern way of telling the disciples that their very lives were at stake”.

However, Jacques Ellul and John Howard Yoder do not believe Luke 22:36 overturns the many times Jesus urged his followers to practice love and nonresistance to evil over his three years of ministry. They show when the passage is taken in context (Luke 22:36-38), Jesus is also aware of fulfilling prophecy and makes a surprising statement that two swords are "enough".

"He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied."

- Luke 22:36-38, NIV

They claim that two swords could not possibly have been "enough" to defend Jesus from his pending arrest, trial and execution, so their sole purpose must have been Jesus' wish to fulfill a prophecy (Isaiah 53:9-12). As Ellul explains: "The further comment of Jesus explains in part the surprising statement, for he says: "It is necessary that the prophecy be fulfilled according to which I would be put in the ranks of criminals" (Luke 22:36-37). The idea of fighting with just two swords is ridiculous. The swords are enough, however, to justify the accusation that Jesus is the head of a band of brigands. We have to note here that Jesus is consciously fulfilling prophecy. If he were not the saying would make no sense."

This theory is further substantiated when Peter draws one of the swords a few hours later at Jesus' arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, slashing the ear of one of the priests' servants, and Jesus rebukes him saying: "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."(Matthew 26:52)

Roland Bainton considered that if this passage was to be taken literally then it should be viewed in the context of Essene practices who allowed the carrying of arms during journeys as a protection against robbers but otherwise banned the manufacture of weapons in their communities. The Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria (c. 15bce – 50ce) described the pacifism of the Jewish sect the Essenes and how they did not involve themselves in the making of weapons or any items that could be put to evil ends. The Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the Judean Desert at Qumran in the middle of the 20th century are thought by the majority of scholars to have belonged to an Essene community. The eschatology of the Qumran community embraced the expectation of a final violent war, with heavenly and earthly dimensions, between the sons of light and the sons of darkness. The difference between the description of Philo and the scrolls discovered at Qumran, which look forward to a war with the gentiles, has led to the opinion that the Essenes were not absolute pacifists. Martin Goodman notes that no other ancient source that describes the Essenes mentions the pacifism described by Philo and speculates that whilst Philo may be describing his own form of ideal piety it is significant in itself for describing one strand of Jewish thought in the first century CE. The number of Essenes is thought not to have exceeded four thousand and the movement disappears from history shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. The Quram site was overrun by the Romans between 68-70CE during the Jewish revolt.

Live by the sword, die by the sword
E. W. Orr cites this passage, set in the Garden of Gethsemane, after Peter has cut off the ear of guard, as evidence for Christian pacifism in the Gospels
 * Then Jesus said to him [Peter], "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

William G. Most rejects this interpretation of the passage from Matthew as being too simplistic relating to the putting away of the sword as being a pacifist mandate since it can be refuted in an equally simplistic way by quoting the passage from Luke.
 * “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one”.

St. Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine and Most interpret this passage to mean that to 'take the sword' means to do so without proper authority.

Harnack, quoted by Cadoux, asserted “Peter took a sword with him that very night, but on the first occasion on which he used it, he was told by Jesus not to do so”. There is no scriptural text offered for this assertion and neither is it explained why Peter should even have a sword in his possession after being subject to the “pacifist” teaching of Jesus during the previous years.

However many Christian anarchists, such as Leo Tolstoy and Ammon Hennacy, do not trust Church authority especially when advocating violence. They believe Christianity has degenerated into the will of the ruling elite and, in some cases (such as the Crusades,Inquisition and Wars of Religion), a religious justification for the exercise of power and violence.

Roman Catholic theologian Father William Most asserted that Jesus could not have possibly taught pacifism and a "prohibition of all use of the sword" otherwise "the Church for centuries would have taught error, and the promises of Jesus to protect the Church would be void.." This is exactly the argument of the peace churches, as they believe that the Church has for centuries "taught error."

The Emperor Constantine interpreted this passage as “reproving him [Peter] for his distrust of refuge and safety in himself.” Drake (2002) reads this as an attempt by Constantine to subdue militant Christians, who favored coercion, whilst trying to maintain a policy of toleration by using “the structural ambiguities in the Christian message”

Love your enemies
The Gospels record Jesus as saying: “You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” Roland Bainton notes that the meaning of this text has been debated in so far as it relates to private or public interactions. He favored the latter since he believed that no Jew had ever advocated hatred of a private enemy, therefore the exhortation to love is to be practiced as a public virtue.

William Barclay notes the word for love used in the original Greek text is “agape” and asserts:
 * It is then quite obvious that the last thing agape (GSN0026), Christian love, means is that we allow people to do absolutely as they like, and that we leave them quite unchecked. No one would say that a parent really loves his child if he lets the child do as he likes. If we regard a person with invincible goodwill, it will often mean that we must punish him, that we must restrain him, that we must discipline him, that we must protect him against himself. But it will also mean that we do not punish him to satisfy our desire for revenge, but in order to make him a better man

Blessed are the peacemakers
The Gospels record Jesus as saying: “"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

Roland Bainton asserted that the pacifism of the New Testament centers not just on “the yielding spirit” but includes “the positive role of the peacemaker.”

William Barclay wrote:
 * The blessing is on the peace-makers, not necessarily on the peace-lovers. It very often happens that if a man loves peace in the wrong way, he succeeds in making trouble and not peace. We may, for instance, allow a threatening and dangerous situation to develop, and our defence is that for peace's sake we do not want to take any action. There is many a person who thinks that he is loving peace, when in fact he is piling up trouble for the future, because he refuses to face the situation and to take the action which the situation demands.

Council of Jerusalem
The Acts of the Apostles record Saint Paul traveling to Jerusalem in order to meet elders and apostles of the church and resolve issues relating to gentile membership. The “Council of Jerusalem is the first political act in the history of Christianity and the starting point from which we can begin to reconstruct the nature of Jesus's teaching...”. At the conclusion of the Council Saint James describes what rules gentiles should observe:
 * I rule, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans who turn to God, we send them a letter telling them merely to abstain from anything polluted by idols, from fornication, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood.

Roland Bainton asserted that this passage prohibited the shedding of blood and this is how early Christian writers such as Tertullian interpreted the text. A Roman Catholic interpretation of this same passage, in context, relates the abstention from blood (retained in a strangled animal) to the dietary laws that prohibited Jews from eating blood:
 * (Leviticus 17:14) You must not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is in its blood, and anyone who eats it shall be outlawed by his people.

Book of Revelation
The Book of Revelation described Rome as the “Whore of Babylon”, who had persecuted Christians and predicted its imminent demise. Christians were disinclined to serve in an army which might persecute its brethren and serve an Empire which was to be subject to Gods wrath. Under the Christian Emperors this impediment vanished.

Boustan notes that in the book of Revelation Jesus is depicted as the heavenly general soaked in blood who leads a vast army that will conquer the nations and supplant the Roman Emperor and that this may have resonated with early Christians and Jews who saw vengeance being dealt to the gentiles with the final triumph of Jesus providing a new meaning to the recent events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

R. L. Fox doesn't accept there is a development from the “Old Testament” in the precepts of love set out in the “New Testament:
 * ..from the psalmists' bitter hatred against their enemies to the divine approvals of genocide or the slaughter of most of humanity in the Revelation of John. There is no comforting progression, from a barbarous God of war to later and milder God of love: Omega ends in John's Revelation by behaving much as Alpha had begun to behave with the flood.

Non canonical Christian scriptures
The gnostic Gospel of Thomas contains the following passage which repeats in more explicit terms what Jordan (2006) interprets as violent intent in the canonical gospels:
 * Yeshua [Jesus] said: People may think I have come to impose peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to impose conflicts upon earth: fire, sword, war.

Morey describes how the Gospel of Thomas depicts Jesus striking people down dead. Though he doesn't accept the document as being an accurate historical account he does believe that this kind of popular literature shows that early Christians did not see Jesus as a pacifist. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas describes Jesus as a child killing a boy who had ran into him.

Council of Elvira
This Spanish council was held at the turn of the 3rd and 4th centuries before the reign of the Emperor Constantine. The bishops denied the crown of martyrdom to those who died whilst attacking pagan temples. According to Ramsey MacMullen the provocation was just “too blatant”. Drake cites this as evidence that Christians resorted to violence, including physical, at all times. Gaddis speculates that the Bishops were trying to prevent retaliatory acts against Christians.

Council of Arles
It was decreed at the Council of Arles (c. 314 CE) ”that those who laid down their arms in peace should abstain from communion”. According to Roland Bainton this canon has caused great difficulty for those who believe that the previous position of “the Church” towards military service was one of abstention. He asserts that it has been interpreted as allowing a Christian to leave the army if serving under a persecuting Emperor but not so if the Emperor is tolerant of Christianity. He argues that the passage relates to “policing duties” during times of peace, which are acceptable, but that withdrawal is still permitted during times of war. He cites Martin of Tours who remained in the army for two years after his conversion but declined to serve only when battle was imminent. Others point out that it was Bishop Martin of Tours who led the attacks on pagan shrines and temples in Gaul.

According to a Roman Catholic historian the Council of Nicaea repeated many of the laws promulgated by the Latin council at Arles, including the penalty of up to thirteen years penance on those who had left the army but then re-enlisted under Constantine's foe the “persecutor, the lately destroyed Emperor Licinius”.

Council of Nicaea
Canon 12 of the Council decreed:
 * Those who have been called by grace, have given evidence of first fervor and have cast off their [military] belts, and afterwords have run back like dogs to their own vomit, so that some have even paid money and recovered their military status by bribes -- such persons shall spend ten years as prostrators after a period of three years as hearers.

Scholars Hughes and Helgeland relate this provision to the previous canon (11):
 * Concerning those who have transgressed without necessity or the confiscation of their property or without danger or anything of this nature, as happened under the tyranny of Licinius, this holy synod decrees that, though they do not deserve leniency, nevertheless they should be treated mercifully. Those therefore among the faithful who genuinely repent shall spend three years among the hearers, for seven years they shall be prostrators, and for two years they shall take part with the people in the prayers, though not in the offering.

Yoder wrote:
 * Hefele assumes, without argument or explanation, that the phenomenon of Christians having renounced military service and trying to get in is somehow related to a specific anti-Christian measure taken by Licinius, the eastern Emperor, in the last years before Constantine defeated him. That does not explain either why the "first zeal" of a convert would have led him to "throw down his belt", or why he would have wanted to buy his way back into the army.

Helgeland asserts that Christian soldiers had left the army of "the persecutor Licinius" when he began to wage war against Constantine but since this involved giving up considerable benefits such as retirement pay some had been tempted, even to the point of using bribery, to re-enlist. Eusabius had in his possession an imperial edict of Constantine, who called the Council of Nicaea, giving such soldiers who had confessed and lost rank the option of honorable discharge or returning to that same rank. It was during the reign of Constantine that military chaplains first appear in history.

Monasticism
[The article Christianity and violence notes that] 'Weaver asserts that Jesus' pacifism was "preserved in the justifiable war doctrine that declares all war as sin even when declaring it occasionally a necessary evil, and in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition of Christian pacifism." ' [in fact Weaver is describing another groups opinion]

Harnack asserted that after Constantine the Church turned over to the monks its earlier position regarding abstention from war and military service, and in doing so "threw itself into the arms of the emperor"; but shortly after became disenchanted and "sought to win back its independence.". Other scholars note violent aspects in the monasticism of early Christianity: Monasticism was a product of the 4th and 5th centuries. Drake (2002) notes that any voices of moderation that sought to limit the violence unleashed through Christian coercion was muted through the influence of the bishops and monks. He places the bishops at the centre of Christian coercion with the monks at the forefront and notes how the story of Christian coercion from the mid 4th century is “punctuated by accounts of rampaging monks roving at will through town and countryside, systematically destroying shrines and monuments and terrorizing local populations. He argues that the monks should not be simply viewed as “storm troopers” of the Christian movement, with their power founded solely on the violence they exercised, but rather as authoritative voices whose opinions were, (according to Sozomon), universally received and respected within the Christian community. The killing of Hypatia of Alexandria is often cited as an important marker for the passing of the pagan world and the beginning of the new Christianized Roman Empire. Mojsov (2005) writes:
 * “The persecutions of the pagans continued and culminated in the killing of Hypatia in 415. She was the daughter of Theon, director of the Platonic school, and had succeeded her father at the academy. She was a Greek, a pagan philosopher, and an educated woman. None of these things were acceptable any-more and she was torn apart by the wild, black robed army of monks. 'human only in their faces'. With her cruel, public murder, the Hellenic spirit of Alexandria expired forever.”.

Drake describes this killing and the attacks on the Serapeum in Alexandria by Christian mobs as “two of the most spectacular acts of this age” and blames Saint Cyril for provoking the particularly gruesome death of the philosopher Hypatia. Libanius records how the monks gave pagan priests the choice of “silence or death”. Rufinus described how the destruction of pagan shrines continued “throughout every Egyptian city, fort, village, rural district, riverbank, even the desert, whatever shrine could be found or rather, tomb [of the “dead” gods], at the urging of every bishop”. . When pagan landowners protested at monks ransacking his home in search of idols their leader responded "There is no crime for those who have Christ". Peter Brown writes "Paganism, therefore, was brutally demolished from below" and regards these events as signalling a deeper change that reflects Christianity asserting itself as the majority religion of the Roman Empire.

According to a Roman Catholic historian Theodosius I “stamped out the last vestiges of paganism” and that he “took severe measures against the surviving remnants of paganism. In 388 a prefect [Cynegius] was sent around Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor for the purpose of destroying temples and breaking up pagan associations; it was then that the Serapeum at Alexandria was destroyed (Socr., V, 16).” However, the violence of the monks was such that Theodosius banned them from the cities and limited them to “desert places and desolate solitude”.