Do Christians truly live the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ? Can the followers of a man who refused to condone violence of any kind participate in war, even for a `just' cause and still claim to follow the tenets laid down by that man? St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas would say yes and proceed into the great rationalization of the so-called "just war." In making this argument they are forced to make interpretations of certain passages in the New Testament which seem to be a stretch at best. The early Christians were pacifists who thought it wrong to even hold a post in the government. They were persecuted by those in power and yet they made no allowance for even their own defense.

Jesus Christ's teachings in the New Testament are very explicit when it comes to the prohibition of violence. In Matthew Ch. 5, Verses 38 and 39 read as follows:

38) Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. 39) But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (1)

27) But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28) Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. (1)

Jesus would not even allow violence to be done in his own defense. The following passage from John Ch 18, Verses 10 and 11 illustrates this point:

10) Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 11)Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath... (1)

The writings of early Christians sustains Jesus' words. The early Christians submitted to extreme persecution by the Romans. They went calmly out to meet the lions in the arenas and meekly surrendered to the Centurians' swords. Tertullian (155-240 AD) wrote the following:

For what wars should we not be fit, not eager, even with unequal forces, we who so willingly yield ourselves to the sword, if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay. (2)

Therefore they are to be accounted as savage beasts who injure man; who, in opposition to every law and right of human nature, plunder, torture, slay and banish. (2)

St. Augustine makes many attempts to reinterpret certain passages of the New Testament. Most of it is, in my opinion, at best a stretch, at worst blatant rationalization. He attempts to reinterpret Matthew 5:39 by saying,

...that what is required is not a bodily action, but an inward disposition. (2)

The intent of this paper is not to refute the idea of a `just war.' Waging war against Adolph Hitler's Germany was certainly just, as well as necessary for our own preservation. My intent has been to refute the rationalization used by Augustine and others for Christians enacting violence. I have found nothing in the Bible to indicate that Jesus Christ intended for his followers to be anything but pacifists. It is my opinion that Augustine was wrong in his twisting of Christian ethics. If Christians completely followed Christ's teachings there would be no such thing as a "Christian Soldier" to march onward. Perhaps the world would be a better place if there were not (certainly there would have been no Crusades and no Inquisition), or perhaps Western civilization and it's dominant religion would both be extinct. I must admit that, even as one who calls himself a Christian, I could not begin to live according to those precepts of Christ's teachings nor do I know of anyone else who could. I would say that it is basic human nature to protect oneself from violence, and it takes much more will and faith than most people are capable of to overcome the instinct to self-preservation.

1) The King James Bible - Various Authors
2) War and Christian Ethics - edited by Arthur F. Holmes