The Early Church and the Sword

James M. Arlandson, Ph.D.

This article is designed to be contrasted with the next one about the sword in the early Muslim community, in our comparative study of the two religions.

Should the church be a state of sorts, as it has in some periods in its history? Should the church wield the sword in the name of God? We have already seen in previous articles that Jesus separates the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Caesar, but what are the teachings and practices of the early church? Do they hint that the New Testament church took a slightly different path?

This article looks at the book of Acts and the epistles. Then a brief description of the lives of key church leaders and their deaths is presented. Did they pick up swords to stop the persecution and control nonconformists?

Peter and Cornelius the Centurion

The book of Acts records the historical growth of the early Jesus movement, sometimes called the Way (Acts 9:2; 24:14), which was eventually named the church. In many passages the Roman and Jewish authorities confronted the apostles, especially Paul in the second half of Acts (e.g. 4:8-12; 25:8-11). None of the apostles denounced the authorities for carrying swords as such. True, sometimes the apostles challenged the authorities’ justice, but not the government’s right to exist and impose order on society, with the sword, if necessary, as a general rule. Two examples of the Christian community accepting the governmental authorities – the kingdom of Caesar – carrying swords can be seen in Peter’s and then Paul’s life.

Does not a Roman centurion deserve divine censure on the face of it? However, this is God’s assessment of the commander:

Apparently, Cornelius’ godliness positively influenced his family – not an easy task since often the family can see the hypocrisy in the head of household more clearly than outsiders see it. The end of the story, one of divine coincidences, is happy. Cornelius and his family convert, are filled with the Spirit, and are baptized (Acts 10:44-48). He is a military man and the first gentile convert to the church. The lead apostle Peter never tells the centurion to leave the army or give up his weapons. Further, no one knows if Cornelius ever killed an enemy, but if he rose to the rank of centurion, then he probably served for a long time, as a career. And if he served for a long time, then he probably saw some action. If he saw some action, then he probably killed an enemy, or ordered his men to kill. Yet, it is possible to be blessed of God while serving in the military and possibly killing an enemy in battle or in law enforcement. Most important, Cornelius shows that soldiers should develop good and godly characters as they serve the state.

Paul and a Jailer

Paul was constantly persecuted just for preaching the gospel, not for committing acts of “righteous” violence. In this case he expelled a demon from a hapless girl, so he waged spiritual warfare, just as we saw Jesus do. In the Roman colony of Philippi he and his traveling companion Silas were “severely flogged” and jailed in the inner cell of prison, which was probably stinky, damp, insect- and rat-infested. Their feet fastened in stocks, they were singing hymns to God, but then an earthquake in the middle of the night loosed their bonds and opened the prison doors.

Being filled with joy, the jailer and his family convert to Christ. However, Paul never tells the jailer to abandon his career. In fact, the jailer is seen fulfilling his duties in an official capacity the next day (Acts 16:35-36). The jailer carried his sword after his conversion.

Summary

These two passages in Acts teach us that Christians can serve in law enforcement, and by extension, in the military because it imposes peace on a large scale, just as law enforcement does on a small scale. To go beyond these two passages, nowhere in the book of Acts do Peter and Paul encourage the church to rush out to buy swords. On a practical level, swords, even small ones, were expensive, so how could the fledgling church buy them for the fast-growing number of disciples? Leaders needed to take care of the poor with food distribution (Acts 6:1-7).

But is it conceivable that some prosperous recent converts to the new Jesus movement owned swords? Yes. However, the enemies of the church would have accused it of violence if it had ever used swords regularly or as an ecclesiastical policy. On the contrary, Christians were sometimes persecuted and even martyred by unjust civil authorities.

Though this reasoning is, in part, an argument from silence (what a text or history does not say), the silence is significant. The logic of history requires us to assume that if the early Christians had an opportunity and a motive to retaliate with violence as a matter of church policy, but the records demonstrate that they did not do this, then we can be certain that they in fact followed the path of peace and nonviolence. But if anyone, whether believer or unbeliever, serves in the military, then he or she performs a sacred duty. The epistles confirm with positive evidence these nonviolent actions and policies in Acts and the state’s role in keeping the peace.

Paul’s Theology

The epistles were written primarily to explain pressing, practical needs, as well as to introduce new Christian theology. In the Mediterranean world, while Christians traveled, they were sometimes subjected to violence that everyone also suffered from, such as banditry (2 Corinthians 11:26). This was a pressing, practical need. But no ecclesiastical policy of carrying swords can be found in these documents. Though the motive and need existed to write such a policy, the epistles’ authors do not take that opportunity.

Paul taught that the kingdom of the world or Satan is different from the kingdom of God. “You were dead in your transgressions . . . when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air” (Satan’s spiritual kingdom) . . . “no immoral person . . . has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God” (Ephesians 2:2 and 5:5). “He has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued you us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son [Jesus] he loves” (Colossians 1:12).

The various teachers in the church through their epistles speak of using weapons while they lived like strangers in the world, but the weapons are very special swords. Paul in his second epistle to the Corinthians reports on his own trials during ministry, which led to “beatings, imprisonment, and riots.” Even though he suffered much unjust violence from his persecutors, he did not lash out with swords, raising a small militia or sending an assassination hit squad. Per contra, he speaks of these weapons: . . . “Weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left” (2 Corinthians 6:7). Physical weapons do not occupy either hand. To strengthen this interpretation of hands empty of physical weapons, he also says in the same epistle:

In these two Corinthian passages Paul seems glad to contrast divine and moral weapons with physical and worldly ones. He explicitly denies worldly weapons and explicitly affirms divine or moral ones in his ministry. Jesus set the example, and Paul followed him, or perhaps he followed the policy commonly practiced among other leaders in the church who personally knew Jesus. This indicates that the widespread use of physical swords never took root in the church.

In Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians he repeats the notion that the Christian’s weapons are not physical, but spiritual. He borrows from the image of the Roman soldier and explicitly says that the true sword is the word of God (cf. Hebrews 4:12). He writes:

Paul completely agrees with the kingdom message of Jesus, which involves spiritual warfare, such as fighting Satan. Also, this epistle was probably an encyclical, meaning it was intended for several churches. This confirms, again, that the use of physical weapons was not widespread in the early church, according to apostolic teaching.

Paul writes that God establishes, in general terms, civil authorities who are God’s servants and who carry the sword. A passage in the epistle to the Romans is the classical text. Paul writes:

Paul also writes to Titus, whom Paul left on Crete to complete some work there as a leader of the church on the island: “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities” (Titus 3:1).

Civil authorities may wield the sword for punishing wrongdoing, but the church is not permitted to do this. That is the result of keeping the kingdom of God separate from the kingdom of Caesar. Now we have clarity.

The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews

The author of Hebrews[2] states that the kingdom of God cannot be shaken, in contrast to the earthly systems and kingdoms (Hebrews 12:28).

The author also speaks of a spiritual sword, likening it to the word of God. He writes:

This verse is far from an endorsement of a physical sword used as a matter of church policy, even though the original readers of the epistle suffered from persecution, like public insults, imprisonment and confiscation of their property (Hebrews 10:32-39).

In the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11 the author extols the courage of men and women of God:

Some were put to death with the sword, but they were innocent. They did not put the innocent or anyone else to death with the sword.

Peter’s Theology

Peter also distinguishes between the realms of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar (the world). Christians are called strangers in this world (1 Peter 1:1, 17 and 2:11), which is contrasted with heaven and eternal glory (1:4; 5:10) and the “eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:11). Like Paul, Peter uses the metaphor of darkness and light: God “called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Peter 2:9), adding that God’s people are a “holy nation” (v. 10).

Though neither Peter nor Paul (or the author of Hebrews) endorses the sword for the church as a policy, Peter and Paul teach that God endorses agents of the state, who carry the sword and who bring peace and justice to the world. Paul assumes that the military is part of this world system (1 Corinthians 9:7, 14:8; 2 Timothy 2:4), and so does Jesus, incidentally (Matt. 22:7; Luke 11:21-22, 14:31-32, 19:27). Peter writes that civil authorities may punish those who do wrong:

Then Peter says Christians should not suffer as criminals.

In the Roman empire, the authorities were instituted among humankind, whether the leader or representative was a king or governor. He had the authority and power to punish criminals, even with the sword. Significantly, however, Peter also teaches in his epistle that the state can go astray and persecute Christians, even though they may live a godly life (1 Peter 2:19-20; 3:8-18). So the state does not receive unquestioned, unchallenged permission to do what it likes. Since the state does not receive revelations directly from God nor from a theocrat, we can use reason and human rights to shape the state.

Of course, the church should offer its guidance, but ultimately the state does not have to listen to it. It would be wise, however, if the state recognized that it receives its ultimate ordination from God, so it should not oppress ordinary citizens obeying the law, who are made in God’s image.

Summary

All of these passages about governing authorities in Peter’s and Paul’s writings and the epistle to the Hebrews are full of many truths.

God ordains the state to impose order on the world, even by the sword. But the state must follow justice, not excessive policies that oppress religious or political freedom. This is why Peter wrote that Christians must bear up under official persecution, even though they were good citizens (1 Peter 2:19-20; 3:8-18). Governmental injustice anywhere can be challenged, as Paul often did in the book of Acts.

Second, the believer and unbeliever alike should submit to the governing authorities so the citizens can enjoy a peaceful life. This is especially incumbent on Christians who have to maintain their witness to the world, living a godly life.

Next, the agents of the state punish the wrongdoer and commend the good. Historically, punishing criminals was harsh in the Roman empire (too harsh by today’s standards), but we can use reason to craft the state to follow justice. Regardless of the particulars, the timeless principle behind the history and the texts says that punishment of wrongdoers is God-ordained.

Further, the words “judgment,” “sword,” “terror” (= “fear” in Greek), “wrath” and “punishment” are found in Romans 13:2-4. In the Old Testament, God does not shy away from executing justice on the surface of his planet, against his highest creation, humans. Thus, the so-called “God of the New Testament,” so wrongly separated from the “God of the Old Testament,” does not teach only peace and love – though that is the main message.

With that said, in the God who inspired the New Covenant uses primarily the nontheocratic state to bring about justice and judgment here on earth. This division between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar in the epistles agrees with this thesis in the Gospels.

Moreover, if a Christian becomes a soldier or a police officer, then he officially and publicly serves the state. But his private faith and religion will make him a better servant because he strives to act with integrity. Ultimately, the Christian soldier or officer serves a just and loving God, so he obeys justice. But his service is subjected to fluctuating circumstances.

Therefore the soldier or officer must exercise wisdom as to when and how to apply justice. He must also know the law, which provides a lot of guidance in difficult situations.

A Spiritual Temple

At first, the earliest Jewish Christians were attached, on some level, to the temple in Jerusalem (Acts 3:1-2, 8, 10-11; 5:12, 20-21, 24-25, 42; 21:26-30; 22:17; 24:6, 12, 18). But Stephen said in his defense before the Sanhedrin, the highest court in Jerusalem (Acts 7:48-49):

And Paul told the Athenians: “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands” (Acts 17:24).

The early Christians never fought to gain control of the Jerusalem temple, even though the religious establishment or people there sometimes chased them away (Acts 8:1-2). Why did they not fight for it?

Jesus said that one (himself) had come who is greater than the temple made of stones in Jerusalem (Matt. 12:6), and the better temple was his body (John 2:19-21). The early church followed him in this teaching.

The author of Hebrews refers to an eternal tabernacle up in heaven, where bulls, calves, goats and heifers are not needed for sacrifice. Jesus’s sacrifice at the crucifixion replaced all of them (Hebrews 9:11-14). The author then contrasts Mt. Sinai with Jerusalem, but it is not the earthly city. “But you have come to Mt. Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Hebrews 12:22). Christians have a better covenant than the one laid down at Mt. Sinai (Hebrews 12:18-24). At Sinai, God’s voice shook the earth. But now he will shake the entire earth with a new kingdom. “We are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken” (Hebrews 12:28). The kingdom of humankind will fall apart, but God’s kingdom will endure forever. So the contrast is complete in Hebrews.

Further, Paul had a special relationship with Jerusalem. During his third missionary journey he felt a sense of urgency to go to the city by Pentecost, if possible (Acts. 20:16). The Christians there suffered from a famine, and Paul took up an offering for them and delivered it personally (Romans 15:25-29; 1 Corinthians 16:3). Yet his concern was not for the stones that made up the temple structure. Rather, he says the church is the temple, and God dwells in its midst. “You together are that temple” (1 Corinthians 3:16-17). “We are the temple of the living God” (2 Corinthians 6:16).

Peter agrees: “You also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).

In all these examples about the temple, the apostles took a physical structure and spiritualized it. Now the church, especially the far-flung gentiles (and Jewish Christians), does not have to focus on a geopolitical holy site and fight to get it back. It was replaced with the church, even before the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, by the Roman general Titus, just as Jesus had predicted (Matt. 24:2).

The church was given the mission to spread the gospel all around the world. The resurrected Jesus told them: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The mission radiated outward. The disciples were not to be attached to stones and cities in such a way that they would be distracted from their worldwide mission.

However, if Christians would like to take a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (or any church or Christian shrine), they may do so out of their own free will. But it is not required of them from New Testament Scripture. To repeat, they are not (or should not be) attached to stones or statues. Rather, they are under grace, not law.

Conclusion

To answer the question in the introduction to this article, the early church did not take “a slightly different path” from the kingdom message of Jesus. He separated the kingdom of God from the kingdom of Caesar. Also, he did not try to reestablish the theocratic kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6-7).

He set the institutional genetic code for his later disciples to follow, and Peter and Paul indeed followed him in their actions and policies in the book of Acts and in their theology in their epistles.

The early church had a strong need and motive to institute a policy of violence or at least one of self-defense in the face of its persecutors who often resorted to violence, like stoning. However, not one of them in all recorded early church history swung a sword to bloody people to get them to convert or prove the Christians were right. Instead, following Jesus the king who waged only spiritual and moral warfare, the apostles walked the same path in early church history. None of them mixed post-conquest tax policies, warfare, bloodshed, and the sword with religion.

Another important conclusion to draw from this article is that the church is not the state, and neither is the state the church. The two must be kept separate in their roles in society. God ordains the government as a whole institution, but that does not mean that it receives direct revelations from him.

Sometimes parts or all of it can go astray (e.g. a tyranny). So only in an indirect sense or in the big picture are members of law enforcement and the military servants of God, and, incidentally, members of other religions working in law enforcement and the military also become servants of God.

But Christians should not believe that these institutions are infallible. Therefore, in a direct and more significant sense Christians are servants of the Lord first, ahead of serving the state and must stand for righteousness.

The church as an institution is “pacifist” only in its own internal policies and actions, because it follows the dictates of the kingdom of God, his active rule and dynamic reign. That is, church leaders in the name of the church or of God should never convene a council or general assembly in order to raise a militia or an army to fight battles and to coerce heretics and sinners to conform.

However, the church violates its own Scriptures if it transfers this kingdom policy (only pacifism within itself) to the state, because the New Testament ordains that only the state may use the sword, if necessary and done lawfully. Christ’s and the apostles’ teaching hands the lawful and just sword over to the state (not the unjust or unlawful sword).

Christians may serve in the military or law enforcement – complete with weapons – because governing authorities have been ordained by God. If Christians choose to serve in this capacity, they must follow justice. But they must also develop good character, just as Cornelius the centurion did, a sword-carrying military man who prayed and followed righteousness and justice. It is best and less complicated to maintain the distinction between the private and public spheres while Christians work in institutions that permit wielding the sword. In private, Christians serve the Lord while they work, as all Christians do at any job.

Finally, Christians may use the law courts to defend themselves, just as Paul did during his arrests. They do not need to be passive in legal matters. However, it is better to find Christian lawyers and judges to adjudicate a dispute between other Christians in a court of arbitration (1 Corinthians 6:1-11). But if it is not available or the dispute is with unbelievers, then the state law courts are an option for believers. Presumably a Christian court of arbitration is open to unbelievers, if they want it.

But the court does not follow a Christian legal codebook of sorts. Rather, the court follows and submits to American law, while counseling the disputants about a better way, like settling the matter amicably, not adversatively.

Articles in the Series:

1. Introduction

2. The Mission of Jesus and the Sword
3. The Mission of Muhammad and the Sword

4. The Gospels and the Sword
5. The Quran and the Sword

6. Two Kinds of Swords

7. The Early Church and the Sword
8. The Early Muslim Community and the Sword

9. The Sword and the Jews

10. Martyrdom and the Sword

11. Q & A on the Sword

12. Conclusion

[1] The New International Version is used in this article, unless otherwise noted. If readers would like to see other translations, they can go to biblegateway.com.

[2] Scholars debate who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, as no name is attached to it. But regardless of who wrote it, it does accurately reflect early church teaching, as this part in the series demonstrates.