A Critique of Christian Pacifism

This article originally appeared in the Autumn 2026 edition of the Social Issues Bulletin.

What is Christian pacifism?

I recently re-watched the film Hacksaw Ridge (2016) with my teenage son. This remarkable true story is about the American combat medic Desmond Doss who, as a Seventh-Day Adventist, refused to use a weapon of any kind. Somehow, he still managed to qualify as a combat medic. He went on to become the first conscientious objector to be awarded the Medal of Honour for his service in the Battle of Okinawa in 1945. Doss repeatedly prayed: “Lord, please help me get one more,” as he rescued injured men from the combat zone. He is officially credited with saving 75 men during the battle. The film closes with an interview with Doss himself shortly before his death. It is an inspiring story with a powerful Christian message. 

Interestingly, Doss had a strong conviction that the war was just – but he had an equally strong conviction that he should not carry a weapon or take a human life. Understandably, the other soldiers found it very difficult to respect his views on nonviolence, but they did grow to admire his bravery in the battlefield.

Understanding Doss’s view helps us to realise that there are a range of views on pacifism and non-violence. It is one thing to personally decide that you will not use a weapon against another; it is another to oppose all warfare for any reason. In this article, I am defining a Christian pacifist as one who is opposed to all forms of warfare or violence. I suggest that this is what is usually meant by pacifism. 

The focus of this article will be on whether Christians can ever support or be involved in violence on behalf of the state. There is a separate, but related question about whether Christians should ever defend themselves or their loved ones with violence if necessary. That is not the focus of this article.

Biblical arguments for pacifism

Old Testament

It is not really possible to make a biblical case for pacifism from the Old Testament. Deuteronomy has a whole chapter on how to go to war (Deut. 20). Multiple battles are related in the historical books, and God is clearly supportive of Israel in many of these battles which are portrayed in terms of good against evil. King David writes that God “trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle” (Ps. 144:1). 

Pacifists sometimes appeal to the sixth commandment which in the KJV and RSV reads: “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13). Most modern translations, however, translate this as: “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13 NIV, ESV, NASB, NRSV, NET). The NET footnote explains: “The verb רָצַח (ratsakh) refers to the premeditated or accidental taking of the life of another human being; it includes any unauthorized killing (it is used for the punishment of a murderer, but that would not be included in the prohibition).”¹  Specifically, the semantic domain of the Hebrew word used does not include killing in warfare. What the sixth commandment prohibits is murder. It does not prohibit execution or killing in warfare.

Any biblical defence of pacifism is going to have to rely on some New Testament texts and argue for a fairly radical ethical discontinuity on this subject between the Old and New Testaments. One could go so far as to say that it will inevitably be verging towards Marcionism in ethical approach.

The Sermon on the Mount

The Christian case for pacifism relies heavily on a few key verses from the Sermon on the Mount. First, Jesus said: “Blessed are the peacemakers.” (Matt. 5:9) Christians are called to be peacemakers, whether this involves making peace between individuals or nations. We are to be peaceable people and people who promote peace. This instruction does not, however, necessarily imply that all warfare is wrong.

Second, Jesus said: “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” (Matt. 5:39) This appears to advocate an ethic of non-violence. But we should put this verse in context. The verse before is the lex talionis: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.” Jesus then elaborates by saying that we should not resist an evil person. This injunction is one of six examples where Jesus is reinterpreting the law. Or perhaps it is better to say that he is expounding the spirit of the law. He expands the law against adultery to say that lust is wrong. He expands the law against breaking oaths to say that everything we say should be trustworthy. Here, he expands the lex talionis by saying that it is not a license to retaliate. 

Earlier in the same sermon, Jesus insisted that he had not “come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfil them.” (Matt. 5:17) The lex talionis is not abolished. The lex talionis is there to limit the legal penalties for crimes. The legal principle is that no one should be punished with more severity than was involved in the crime they committed. But my point is that the lex talionis applies to the laws of the land and the courts, not to individuals. Jesus was saying that this does not justify personal retaliation. This is no more than was already said in context where the lex talionis is found in Deuteronomy 19:21. Deuteronomy 19:15-21 is about a crime committed against someone. The parties are to appear before a court to have the dispute judged – personal retaliation is not allowed. 

The lex talionis remains in place to limit retribution in the courts so that punishment is proportional to the crime. The instruction to individuals not to retaliate does not change that. It does not mean that the courts should not punish someone who assaults you. The government should still punish the wrongdoer, but the individual shouldn’t take justice into their own hands. There is no place for vigilantism in the Bible. 

It is crucial to realise this distinction between the duties of individuals and the duties of governments. Individuals should not punish or retaliate. But governments should administer justice, including retributive punishments. Jesus calls us as individuals not to resist an evil person– but does not mean that a nation should refrain from having a police force or a judiciary. Neither does it mean that Christians should refuse to participate in the police or the judiciary. Nor does it mean that nations cannot have armed forces which at times engage in warfare for the restraint of evil.

The third verse from the Sermon on the Mount cited in support of pacifism is just a couple of verses later: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matt. 5:43-44)

Nowhere does the Bible instruct people to ‘hate your enemy.’ That was a wrongful extension of the law by the Pharisees. Jesus is here expanding on the instruction to “love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev. 19:18) Once again, though, in context, it is clear that this command to “love your enemies” is personal rather than political. Jesus is addressing the crowd. Just a few sentences later, he illustrates the point by saying: “if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others?” (Matt 5:47) All the instructions in this context are to individuals. They do not negate the duties of governments. It is wrong to confuse personal duties with political responsibilities. This distinction has long been recognised by interpreters of the Sermon on the Mount through the ages.² An individual requirement to love your personal enemies does not entail that national warfare is necessarily wrong.

Romans 12

Similar principles would apply to Romans 12:14-21, where we are instructed to “bless those who persecute [us]” and not to repay anyone for evil. That does not mean that governments should never seek to restrain or punish evil. Paul approves of the magistrate’s punishment of wrongdoers just a few verses later in the very next chapter (Rom. 13:4). It is worth remembering that chapter divisions were not in the original text, so the passages should be read together. So, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21) is immediately followed by: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. . . . For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. . . . for he does not bear the sword in vain.” (Rom. 13:1-4) Read in this way, it is clear that the command to overcome evil with good is a command to individuals which does not negate the responsibility of governments to be a ‘terror’ to those who do evil, and to use the sword if necessary. 

Note that it is the same Greek word, κακός, which is translated ‘evil’ in Romans 12:21, translated ‘bad’ in Romans 13:3, and translated ‘wrong’ and ‘wrongdoer’ in Romans 13:4 (ESV). Thus, while individuals should overcome evil with good, rulers are a terror to those who do evil, and they bear the sword to carry out God’s wrath on those who practise evil. The role of individuals and of the state is clearly differentiated here.

Furthermore, Romans 12:19 says: “never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay.'” This is a command to individuals. Just a few verses later in Romans 13:4 we have: “For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” Cognate Greek words are used in both verses for ‘vengeance’ and ‘wrath’. Paul is saying that individuals should leave the state to avenge and carry out God’s wrath. That is a duty of the state, but not of individuals. In context, these verses are actually opposed to pacifism.

Use of a sword

Another key verse used to defend pacifism is Jesus’s rebuke of Peter when he cut the ear of the servant of the High Priest. Jesus rebuked him saying: “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52; c.f. John 18:11) Peter was wrong to use his sword in this instance. His action was rash, without even waiting for Jesus to answer the question about using swords (Luke 22:49). Jesus knew his time had come. He was not going to fight against God’s plan now. His disciples should have recognised this. Jesus was not leading an army or a rebellious mob as he expressly states in the same context (Matt 26:55). He was expecting to be betrayed, arrested, and led to his death. 

Jesus’s use of the phrase “all who take the sword will perish by the sword,” is clearly a proverbial saying. It plays off Genesis 9:6, which says that those who shed human blood should have their blood shed by humans. The saying is repeated in a different form in Revelation 13:10. The point is that generally speaking, violence begets violence. Rash use of a sword, or any weapon, is always wrong. 

Elsewhere, Jesus speaking proverbially says: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matt 10:34) Earlier, Jesus told his disciples: “if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” (Luke 22:36) When his disciples said, “here are two swords,” he replied: “That’s enough.” (Luke 22:38). This instruction to carry swords strongly implies that Jesus supports people using weapons in certain circumstances. Perhaps in self-defence, or to defend a vulnerable person who is being attacked. Although there are figurative and allegorical readings of this passage, I do not find them persuasive. In any case, a pacifist reading of scripture more or less requires a non-literal reading of this passage; whereas a non-pacifist can read it literally, figuratively or even allegorically in support of a Two Swords doctrine.³ If taken literally, his instruction about swords here makes it very hard to argue that Jesus was a strict pacifist.

Biblical passages against pacifism

The clearest passage against pacifism in the New Testament is where John the Baptist is asked by some soldiers: “And what should we do?” (Luke 3:14) He answers, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely – be content with your pay.” It is very significant that he does not say that they should quit being soldiers for the Roman Empire. Neither did he tell the tax collectors to stop collecting taxes for the Romans. The implication is that Jesus is endorsing the validity of Christians serving in state armies and, indeed, in other civic roles for governments.

When on trial before Pilate, Jesus stated: “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” (John 18:36) Jesus’s kingdom is not a worldly political kingdom like the kingdoms of the world. We should not try to make it such. But Jesus says that, if it were a worldly political kingdom, then his servants would have fought for it. This is a neutral statement about the fact that the kingdoms of the world do sometimes wage war. No moral judgment on this fact is made by Jesus. The morality of this fact is not discussed.

Pacifism in the Early Church

Roland Bainton, in his influential book, Christian Attitude toward War and Peace, makes this striking claim: “The three Christian positions with regard to war . . . matured in chronological sequence, moving from pacifism to the just war to the Crusade. The age of persecution down to the time of Constantine was the age of pacifism to the degree that during this period no Christian author to our knowledge approved of Christian participation in battle.”⁴

Several other writers have made similar claims.⁵ On close examination of the Church Fathers, this claim does not stack up. While many Church Fathers emphasised living peaceably, this does not necessarily imply opposition to participation in warfare.

Tertullian, in his Apology, argues that Christians are model citizens, writing: “We sail with you, and fight with you, and till the ground with you.”⁶ This implies that it was widely recognised that there were some Christians in the army. Tertullian also refers to an event known as the ‘Thundering Legion’ when soldiers (who were fighting in the Twelfth Legion under Marcus Aurelius) were running out of water. The soldiers knelt to pray, upon which there was thunder which caused their water supply to be refreshed and the enemy to flee. Tertullian writes: “You will see by examining the letters of Marcus Aurelius, that most grave of emperors, in which he bears his testimony that that Germanic drought was removed by the rains obtained through the prayers of the Christians who chanced to be fighting under him.”⁷

Eusebius also reports this miracle, saying that the “story is related by non-Christian writers.”⁸ This is clear recognition that it was well known that Christians were in the army. There is no hint from either writer that they believed Christians were wrong to serve in this way.

Clement of Alexandria writes: “But for a man bare feet are quite in keeping, except when he is on military service.”⁹ There is no objection to participating in military service here either. Lactantius, writing of the battles of Constantine, says, for example: “The hand of the Lord prevailed, and the forces of Maxentius were routed.”¹⁰ It is hard not to read this as an endorsement of participation in warfare.

Dionysius of Alexandria wrote that the martyrs known to him included: “men and women, both young men and old, both maidens and aged matrons, both soldiers and private citizens—every class and every age.”¹¹ By this description, soldiers could be Christian martyrs.

There are a small number of pre-Constantinian tomb inscriptions of Christians who are named as soldiers in the Roman army. As Bainton himself notes, these inscriptions “prove that the Christian communities where these men were buried did not prohibit the recording of the military profession on their tombs.”¹² They also show that there were at least some Christians who were unashamed of serving as soldiers.

I am not saying that there were no Christian pacifists amongst the early Church Fathers, but I am saying that there was widespread recognition and acceptance of Christians serving in the military, contrary to the claims of Bainton and others.

It is only later, once we get to Augustine, that we start to get a just war theory properly articulated. That is not the topic for this essay, beyond noting that the just war tradition has been widely accepted through church history ever since.¹³ The Thirty-Nine Articles explicitly states that it is lawful for Christians to participate in war,¹⁴ as does the Westminster Confession.¹⁵

C.S. Lewis on Pacifism

C.S. Lewis wrote an essay called ‘Why I am not a pacifist’, which is included in the collection of essays titled The Weight of Glory.¹⁶ The essay was originally a talk delivered to a pacifist society in Oxford sometime in 1940.¹⁷ There is no record of how this talk was received by that society, but credit to them for inviting him to give it!

Lewis first argues the point purely from reason. He agrees that, putting it mildly, “war is very disagreeable.”¹⁸ But he argues that no one can prove that “wars always do more harm than good.”¹⁹  Citing various historical examples he states: “It seems to me that history is full of useful wars as well as of useless wars.”²⁰ No one can prove that every war was useless.

Lewis then moves on to consider whether war is the greatest evil in the world. He agrees that “war is a very great evil.”²¹ But Lewis argues: “The doctrine that war is always a greater evil seems to imply a materialist ethic, a belief that death and pain are the greatest evils. But I do not think they are.”²² Here he is implying that it is not a Christian position to believe that death and pain are the greatest evils. He is quite right. Thomas Madden, in his review of Riley-Smith’s helpful book on the Crusades, puts it this way: “the concept that violence is intrinsically evil belongs solely to the modern world. It is not Christian.”²³ These statements are worth reflecting on. Violence is not intrinsically evil. It depends on the context. A materialistic culture will tend to view violence and death as the very worst evils, but a Christian culture will not. Is the popularity of pacifism directly related to the popularity of materialism?

Lewis is very dismissive of the view that we could prevent wars if only we could increase the popularity of pacifism. He points out, “Only liberal societies tolerate Pacifists.” He then continues: “In the liberal society, the number of Pacifists will either be large enough to cripple the state as a belligerent, or not. If not, you have done nothing. If it is large enough, then you have handed over the state which does tolerate Pacifists to its totalitarian neighbour who does not. Pacifism of this kind is taking the straight road to a world in which there will be no Pacifists.”²⁴

You could say this kind of pacifism is self-defeating. The more pacifists you get in a state, the more likely that state will be taken over by a state that does not tolerate pacifists! You can’t abolish war by pacifism.

Lewis concludes his essay by arguing that the weight of both human and Divine authority stands clearly against the pacifist position. With the reasoning above and the weight of the vast majority of human thinkers and Christian interpreters throughout history being against pacifism, Lewis is confident in not being a pacifist. 

The burden of proof is on the pacifist

Myron Penner argues that pacifists bear the burden of proof to justify their beliefs before they can expect any others to accept them.²⁵ This is because of the apparent moral failure of pacifism to value public safety appropriately. A Christian non-pacifist will believe that it is immoral not to intervene to protect lives in cases of terrorism, for example. Should police really not have acted to protect lives in the 2025 Manchester synagogue attack? Surely we are grateful that police used force to arrest Edward Little when on his way with a gun to attempt to kill Christian preacher Hatun Tash? Many similar examples could be cited. 

While a Christian pacifist will argue that followers of Christ ought to reject violence in all forms in every circumstance, the Christian non-pacifist will argue that followers of Christ ought to reject violence in all forms in almost every circumstance. This places the burden of proof squarely on the pacifist to demonstrate that there are no circumstances in which violence is ever justified.

Violent intervention saves lives

Many examples could be cited when violent intervention has saved lives. In addition to the examples above, one thinks of the Iranian Embassy siege in 1990. Last year I read Ben MacIntyre’s gripping account of the siege which was deservedly a bestseller.²⁶ The terrorists took 27 hostages. Negotiators tried to string out the process. After six days, one hostage was executed and his body thrown outside. At this Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher authorised the SAS to raid the embassy. After 17 minutes of high drama broadcast live on television, five of the six terrorists were killed, one was captured, and all but one of the remaining hostages were rescued. This violent action undoubtedly saved lives.

Former Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, in his recent book, Can We Be Great Again?, cites British military intervention in Sierra Leone in 2000 as “a textbook example of successful military intervention.”²⁷ Civil war had been raging for years, costing an estimated 75,000 lives, and causing two million people to lose their homes. The Revolutionary United Front frequently captured civilians, including children, and brutally hacked off their limbs. 

Charged with evacuating British and other non-combatants, Brigadier David Richards stretched the meaning of his orders to commit British forces to help the government in Sierra Leone defeat the rebel forces. He pulled together a coalition of forces and proceeded to take on the militia. This went well, until eleven British soldiers were taken captive by a rebel group. After two weeks of unsuccessful negotiations, a daring rescue operation was carried out which successfully saved all the hostages, with one British fatality. Shortly afterwards the rebel groups agreed to a ceasefire. Since then, says Hunt, “for the last twenty years, the country has been a beacon of stability in West Africa.”²⁸ The burden of proof is on the pacifist to explain why violence in such cases was not justified.

Theologian Matthew Flannagan, who is from New Zealand, cites an example of a 22-hour long terrorist shooting spree in Aramoana in 1990.²⁹ The terrorist killed 13 members of the community, including four children, and injured three others before he fired at police. The police returned fire and fatally wounded him. Flannagan raised this case in a panel discussion with some pacifist-leaning theologians who were evasive in their responses. They did not want to approve of the killing of the terrorist, but neither did they want to condemn it. I suggest these theologians failed to meet the burden of proof which rests on the pacifist position.

Conclusion

The primary mistake of Christian pacifism is to read commands in the Bible intended for individuals as if they are commands for the state. I have tried to demonstrate in this article that that is not the case. The other mistake is to assume that the early church was entirely pacifist. That is also not the case. Pacifism, it seems to me, is very hard to justify in the face of countless examples where use of force appears justified and certainly saved lives. I conclude, therefore, that Christians ought not to be pacifists.

1. ‘Bible Gateway Passage: Exodus 20:13 – New English Translation’, Bible Gateway, accessed 18 September 2026, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020%3A13&version=NET. ↩︎
2. See: David Corey and Daryl Charles, The Just War Tradition (Regnery Gateway, 2023), 235n82, perlego.com/1/book/4154451. ↩︎
3. The theory that the swords together represent spiritual and temporal power, a particularly popular interpretation in medieval theology. ↩︎
4. R.H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation (Hodder and Stoughton, 1961), 66. ↩︎
5. See discussion in: Corey and Charles, The Just War Tradition, 23-28. ↩︎
6. Tertullian, Apology, 42. (ANF 3:49). ↩︎
7. Tertullian, Apology, 5. (ANF 3:22). ↩︎
8. Eusebius, Church History, 5.5 (NPNF2 1:220). ↩︎
9. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2.12 (ANF 2:267). ↩︎
10. Lactantius, On the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, 44. (ANF 7:318). ↩︎
11. Dionysius of Alexandria, Extant Fragments, 2.1 (ANF 6:96). ↩︎
12. Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace, 69. ↩︎
13. Corey and Charles, The Just War Tradition, 1-22. ↩︎
14. Church of England, ‘Articles of Religion,’ art. XXXVII, The Book of Common Prayer, accessed September 11, 2026, churchofengland.org. ↩︎
15. The Westminster Confession Of Faith, (Jazzybee Verlag, 2012), ‘Of the Civil Magistrate’. ↩︎
16. C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory (London: Harper One, 1980). ↩︎
17. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, 18. ↩︎
18. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, 72. ↩︎
19. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, 73. ↩︎
20. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, 74. ↩︎
21. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, 78. ↩︎
22. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, 77. ↩︎
23. Thomas F. Madden, ‘Inventing the Crusades’, First Things, 1 June 2009, https://firstthings.com/inventing-the-crusades/. ↩︎
24. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, 78. ↩︎
25. Myron A. Penner, ‘The Pacifist’s Burden of Proof,’ Philosophia Christi 7, no. 1 (2005). ↩︎
26. Ben MacIntyre, The Siege (London: Penguin, 2024). ↩︎
27. Jeremy Hunt, Can We Be Great Again?: Why a Dangerous World Needs Britain (Swift Press, 2025), 30. ↩︎
28. Hunt, Can We Be Great Again?, 30. ↩︎
29. Matthew Flannagan, ‘Thank God for the New Zealand Anti-terrorist Squad,’ Philosophia Christi 18, no. 1 (2016) ↩︎