Questions for my brother's in Christ. What do you think Jesus was trying to say about the use of a sword? When is it appropriate to use it? What is the place of the sword in our lives?





"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)



"And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.” (Matthew 26:47)



"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?” (Mark 14:48)



"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. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" (John (18:10-11)



"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)





During the last supper the disciples are told to purchase swords, they produce 2 swords and Jesus tells them this is enough. I believe we can agree this was not enough to defend Jesus from the mob that would soon come. Hours later Peter cuts Malchus’s ear off in front of the armed mob where he is rebuked by Jesus. He is not told to throw away his sword, but to sheath it (put back in it’s place).

I don't know. It certainly seems that Christ contradicts Himself on this, which means Im not understanding what he meant.

At this point, I have prayed to the Lord that if He ever needs a sword wielded, to please give me a call, and if I ever find myself in a position where I think I need to wield one, to please ensure I make the right decision.

Remember, under heaven there is a time for everything, including love and war...

They were not arming themselves for the mob, Christ arrest WAS part of Gods plan and he just got done explaining that to them. The swords were for their travels after the crucifixion when they parted ways and spread the gospel.

So Peter over reacted in the moment.

The sword is to battle true evil when encountered. The crazed mob wasn't true evil.

Some of my thoughts.
I've wondered if the message was as much for the audience (armed Romans and mob) as it was for Peter. Jesus rebukes their use of weapons as if they were coming for a thief. So he was more displeased with how/why the mob was armed under this circumstance than other legitimate ones.
The Romans certainly required the sword to hold together their empire. I wonder if his words were a prophesy for their ears. Meanwhile Peter sheaths/retains his use of the sword for defense and protection of the innocent? So taking up the sword to force ones own will is wrong, but using it to preserve freewill is okay?
 

I agree, 2 swords was not enough to stop the mob, so his instructions were not intended to stop the arrest but for afterward.





 

More for knuckle heads that today run off to places like Africa to do missionary work.

I'm going to assume that everyone's on the same page and agrees that the Bible allows for justifiable self defense.

Notice that every time Jesus tells people to turn the other cheek, or allows himself to be taken, the victim is being victimized because of their faith.

That suggests that being attacked by some dude who wants your stereo is categorically different than being targeted because of your faith.

In the first case, weapons free.  In the second case, there is an issue of witness.  In such a case one would be justified to defend themselves, though suffering for the sake of Christ is better.

Personally, I've got no problems stomping a random criminal who wants to hurt me for my wallet.  But if a person decided to try to kill me because I'm a Christian?  I think I'd be justified to defend myself, though honestly I would consider it a great honor to be counted among the martyrs.

it seemed that on their travels and travails of Christ's disciples,  several seemed happy to sacrifice themselves in order to be closer to him. Thirteen of the original evangelists of Christ were reportedly executed by the peoples they were attempting to minister to. Simon Peter's death is described below.



According to Christian tradition, Peter was crucified in Rome under Emperor Nero Augustus Caesar. It is traditionally held that he was crucified upside down at his own request, since he saw himself unworthy to be crucified in the same way as Jesus Christ. Tradition holds that he was crucified at the site of the Clementine Chapel. His mortal remains are contained in the underground Confessio of St. Peter's Basilica, where Pope Paul VI announced in 1968 the excavated discovery of a first-century Roman cemetery. Every June 29 since 1736, a statue of Saint Peter in St. Peter's Basilica is adorned with papal tiara, ring of the fisherman, and papal vestments, as part of the celebration of the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul. According to Catholic doctrine, the direct papal successor to Saint Peter is Pope Francis.Per Wiki

The only Apostle who did not die a martyr was Saint John. He took care of Mary until her assumption, and then went on to write Revelation before dying of natural causes. He was buried in Ephasus, Turkey.

That verse is one that is so taken out of context, what was being explained and the rule is don't get into a argument about Gods word or religion and so anger someone they strike you, if you do offer up the other side of your face because you have it coming.

Be civil and don't be a smart ass.

I'm not picking a fight, here, but I'd like to see the Scripture-based support for that assertion...

Lord knows, turning the other cheek and forgiving aren't my strong suits.

One place for the sword seems to be with the scrib and purse. How would the 3 have been used in conjunction?

 

Yeah... Shaffer, that's a pretty unique interpretation you've got there.

Well, they tried to kill him.

John's story is one of my favorites.

What leads you to think that it's ok to kill someone because they are trying to steal your car stereo? If they are trying to hurt/kill you in an attempt to get your car stereo, then that's another story. I believe Christ said that if someone asks of you, you should give. I don't think he offers justification for killing over theft but self-defense is a foregone conclusion.

There is no restriction on killing in self-defense. The very commandment of "Do not murder" implies this further, for self-defense and murder are two different things but the taking of a human life is not to be taken lightly. There are many places in OT law that even a defensive killing has limited consequences as does an accidental killing.

I actually heard the two swords verse discussed today on a podcast.  The thought was that Jesus was sending out the apostles to spread the word.  He was letting them know that there would be those who came after them for this.  We are told to defend Gods word.  The verse about the gates of hell would not prevail against the church was also mentioned.  It was said that gates do not attack or move on people.  When sent the apostles would see the gates of hell and it is out job to attack the gates.  We as Christians CAN move.  We CAN prevail against the gates...and WILL.  In defeating the gates of Hell, we will need to defend the word of God.  I also believe that we are able to defend our selves against physical harm.

Matthew 5:1 "And seeing the multitudes, He went up into a mountain: and when He was set, His disciples came unto Him:"

In Matthew 5 Christ was now away from the multitudes that followed Him in Matthew 4. The ones that He was teaching to were His disciples.




Matthew 5:37 "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

In teaching the Word of God, it is best to keep it simple, and absolute. Keep to the subject, and the object that is taught

So Christ is speaking of one teaching Gods word here. And on with that thought and subject.......

Matthew 5:38 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:"

Now Jesus gets into the area of retaliation, and revenge. Jesus is quoting here Exodus 21:24.

Matthew 5:39 "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."

The subject here is the law, and how it applies to God's elect. In this section of revenge, Jesus is saying that if someone loses their temper, when you are talking with them, and hits you on the cheek, forgive him for that action. This has nothing to do with someone hitting you for no reason at all.

The best I could every come up when I tried researching this was something like a Seax. Maybe someone has a better answer.

In all fairness Shaffer, these two statements are very different.

I'd agree with the second.

Well, I originally meant that the thief was assaulting me to get the stereo.

Though I think a good case can be made in the use of lethal force to prevent the commission of a crime, even if it is not life threatening.

"If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; Exodus 22:2.

The whole chapter is about Christ teaching the teachers how to go out and reach people and I pointed that out.

Be a gentle teacher.

I don't claim to be a scholar, but I have to say I have dealt with this issue for some time, now.

I first was confronted with it in a book a fellow police officer wrote.  He basically said it was for the protection of the Apostles.  I have issue with this because the persons who came to arrest Jesus were soldiers.  The Roman soldiers were highly trained and I just do not believe - without divine intervention - the Apostles, who were fishermen, would have stood a chance having 2 swords against trained Roman Soldiers.  Just my 2cents worth.

On the subject of self-defense Jesus did say to turn the other cheek and to forgive 70x70.  He did not really say anything about self-defense.  Paul said that there would be those who carry the sword to enforce the laws of those in charge of us.  Paul further said we should fear the enforcer only if we are doing wrong.  Romans 13.  I agree, with an earlier poster that said human life is far more important than property.  In  the Orthodox Traditions life is not to be taken as it was created in the image and likeness of God.  There is a very fine line here and if a life is taken, it will have to be dealt with.

Also, I would like to point out that there is absolutely no documentation of any of the Apostles ever using swords to protect themselves or anyone else, besides Peter, in the garden.  As a matter of fact there are many stories that account for the Apostles fleeing for their lives and even being helped by others to escape, including Angels.

I will offer you this explanation, though:  According to Orthodox Tradition, St Cosmas went to Pirga to see Abba Theophilus about Luke 22:38.  According to Theophilus, "The two swords signify the two-fold order of a God-Pleasing life; Deeds and visions, ie., labor and awakening of the mind to Godly thoughts and prayer.  Whoever has both of these, he is perfect."

I've seen several places where the sword is explained as a metaphor, but few that include the purse and the scrib. They would have been carried together. Any information in that source regarding them?
 

I do not, sir.  I was perplexed by the book written by a fellow officer and researched the best my wee little mind could.  I was often told it was a mystery and to move on.  I finally found the quote I used from the Prologue of Ohrid.  That is the only specific Orthodox thing I have found, to date.  Not that there may be more, but that is the only one I have found.

I'm actually reading Matthew now. I'll have to read it in light of this and see what I think.

Never heard this interpretation before, and I'm not entirely sure I agree with it, but I'll give it a crack...

Then says to him - Jesus
Return the sword of you into the place of it
all indeed those having taken sword by sword will perish

5119 3004 846 3588 2424
654 3588 3162 4771 1519 3588 5117 846
3956 1063 3588 2983 3162 1722 3162 622


I've never read that passage as a commandment against carrying or using a sword, though perhaps it is at least a proverb.  Without a doubt anyone in Jesus' party who had used a sword to slay or otherwise seriously injure the arrest party would have given cause to have them put to death.  The warning is certainly applicable in the immediate time and place without being taken as a general commandment.

As for it's more general application as a proverb, certainly those who make a habit and profession of using force are at a greater risk of death by force, justified or unjustified.  God does not desire for persons to carve their way through the world by imposing force on others or slaying persons without cause.  Yet, force is reserved for preservation of justice both for the state and the individual.

In addition to the quote earlier about the homeowner who is authorized to use force vs. a night intruder, here also in Romans:
"But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

Now for America in particular, the constitution that founded it recognizes and places protection for the pre-existing right of self defense and the means there to (e.g. sword or M16).  However faithfully or unfaithfully various administrations have carried out that protection, it does not change the fact that under our government we have a right to carry a sword for the protection of self, community, state, and nation against unjust violence such as crime/terrorism, invasion, usurpation, or insurrection (e.g. use to maintain the security of a free state).

I do not find that we disobey either God nor the constitutionally appointed government by having or carrying "The sword", nor to employ it where in truth it is immediately necessary to preserve others from unjust violence (though some states and administrations are better or worse at being faithful to the vision our founding documents declare).  

We also have enough history behind us to recognize that not only those who draw the sword may die by the sword, but a good plenty of people who do not draw the sword also die by the sword.  Witness the diverse genocides and politicides of the 20th century.  

I find it a question of how, when, and why you use it, not whether you have it or not.

Likely most of us will agree with what what you've said, and those questions are exactly what I'm wanting to understand.



 

I don't think anyone in here said it was a prohibited commandment, but I think some mistakenly take it as the thumbs up and I don't really think it is for justification, either.

Peter did seriously injure a soldier.  He cut his ear off.  Which when you think about it, the fisherman was attempting to hack the dude right square down the center of his head, but the guy moved and only lost his ear, which I should remind you Jesus healed AND Peter was not put to death.

I don't really see where justification for individual use of force is approved.  Romans 13 is about the government appointed over us and his enforcers, not individuals.

You are correct that our government gives us this ability or justification, but really God does not.  But, we are to obey the government appointed over us.

I think my main point, here, is that is just not such an easy issue.  It is far more complicated than most make of it when they just take a few words out of context and apply it to themselves as they see fit.

What's the code about?



 

Credit card numbers?

http://biblehub.com/strongs.htm


Strong's exhaustive concordance numbers.

Are you suggesting in the above that use of force is permissible by God for a government's appointed "enforcers", (Thus, Christians can use lethal force to uphold justice if they are agents of a government), but if that government declares that individuals have a right to and may use force to protect themselves from violence Christians can not take advantage of this right because they are not direct employees of the state?  i.e. God only allows people to defend themselves if they are acting on behalf of a government?

It is not consistent with the old testament passage saying the man who slays an intruder by night shall not be guilty, since that man is not neccessarily an agent of the state. In this passage the right of an individual to use force under appropriate circumstances is clearly recognized.

I fully agree with you that it is a complex issue and a few words here and there are easily taken out of context, but I don't quite see a clear presentation of government monopoly of force either.

Oh.

Uh..... I'm afraid I don't know how to use those. I see each number corresponds to a word. Is that how a sentence is coded?

Pardon my ignorance. I know what a Concordance is, but I've never used one.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3-16.htm


Example above.  Click on the numbers to get more info on the word.

I tend to do most of my bible study this way, trying to make sure I have the most correct sense of what is written.

Nope.  You got it better with the last line.  I'm saying I have talked to many people that take this one verse and justify their ability to use deadly force against another -but sometimes they like to include "an eye for an eye".  I just don't think this one verse says that.  Yes, we apparently have a right to protect ourselves, but Jesus told us to turn the other cheek and to forgive 70x70, also.  So, with all that, I'm saying it is just hugely more complicated than taking that one verse and justifying deadly force and the right to bear arms.  If you have to use deadly force you will still have to answer to God for taking a life; a life made in His Image and Likeness.  I don't think this one verse absolves you from any responsibility to God.

I don't claim to have the answer to this, except that responsibility will be accounted for by ALL to the Creator.  

Gotcha and that makes sense.  "Vengeance is mine sayeth The Lord", which I think is the most succinct argument against eye for an eye, or other flavors of vengeance.

I think 18th century liberal (conservative by today's standards) hit it pretty well by defining self defense as a right extending to protection of a gift from God, namely life.  The application of self defense being limited to the amount of force necessary to protect that life and not beyond.  

Some states seek codify that sense in self defense legislation which talks about using the minimum force necessary but finding affirmative defense where lethal force is used to prevent serious injury or death to an individual or others, and vs. certain heinous crimes.

I also think it's very much a factor of where someone is in circumstance and their walk with God.  Because of that, as you suggest I think, one can't really lay down a hard and fast rule dictating when one will meekly surrender to death in the name of Jesus, vs. fire to stop someone entering a church with an AK-47 intent on gunning down believers.

I would argue the default in my mind lays with appropriate use of self defense (for in this does exist justice if not taken to vengeance) except where God has brought someone to a place where they are able and called to stand to a different witness.

My 2 cents.

Yes.  Not that I speak for the Orthodox Church, but what I'm understanding is that IF it comes down to a life for a life then self-defense maybe okay to save a life.  Either way, God created EVERYONE and ALL were made in His Image and Likeness.  He has not given us the authority to snuff out His creations.  But, He appears to make concession for saving a life.  But, still with that said, ANY person taking a life will have to face God and give an account.  Those without remorse, regardless of the situation, seem to have cornered themselves into believing that "Christians" are more sacred than "non-Christians".  I'm not totally sold on this.  God so loved the world...That is not just "Christians".

I think the bottom line is that God take His creations (ALL of us) far more serious than some of us do.

I'm curious what this comment is in reference to:



Where are you seeing "Christians" believing that they are more sacred than "non-Christians" in terms of lethal force?  Who is "selling" that in your opinion?

I've never heard of that, either.

Not from any reputable source, anyway...

Read the whole context. Jesus was not telling the Apostles to arm themselves for self defense (why only 2 swords?)
Jesus knew what was about to happen in the garden and he was going to give a lesson about the use of force, fighting, weapons..etc

He put an end to Gods people taking up arms and fighting by stating "return the sword to its place, All those who live by the sword will die by the sword".

If Jesus was telling his apostles to arm themselves and be ready to fight (as most everyone wants to believe because this is what they want it to mean for them), then why did every single Apostle that was killed  NEVER fight back or was even mentioned as carrying a sword?
None of them carried a sword into their ministry and none of them took up arms to fight against the Romans or anyone else who attacked them.

In Isaiah God prophesies that under the new covenant (in which Jesus constituted, fulfilling and removing the old covenant-Mosaic Law) that his people would "learn war no more" and would beat their swords into plowshares"
Meaning Gods true people would not be involved in any military conflicts and would not take up arms again anyone.

This is hard for people to swallow because they WANT to take up arms and fight, they want to be patriotic and fight for whatever nation they live in..even though Jesus said his followers would not be this way

And what about the scrib and the purse? Those have nothing to do with fighting, but travel. If he was going to give a lesson about fighting why would he have them take the things they take when they travel?



 

Who is selling that?  Well, I seem to remember quite well, when I was a Baptist that we pretty much looked at "non-saved" like that.  They were on a lower level, since they had not been "saved".  Sure we prayed for them to get "saved", but I believe when it came down to it they had not received the Holy Spirit so they were "lost" and on a lower level.  Since Baptist don't really have a book containing their dogma it was pretty much a passed on attitude or tradition, if you will.  When I converted to Orthodoxy I came to understand that we are ALL made in the image and likeness of God; not from the time we get "saved", but from the moment we are conceived.  This really shed light on the world, for me, and I come to realize just how important and precious each and every creature of His Creation really is.  So, back to the beginning.  Lethal force is not an easy decision, for me, any longer.  I look at EVERYONE as being made in the image and likeness of God.  God is in EVERYONE, regardless of their denomination.

The baptist church's I've attended teach that we are all deserving of hell, only through Christ can we be saved. Atheist hate you?, Neighbor hate you?, guess what if you deserve to burn in hell for all eternity you probably deserve the scorn of a few people, you also deserve to have your car stereo stolen lol.



 

Here is my interpretation:

Jesus knew these things were coming to pass. The nucleus of his tiny movement was concentrated right there in that secret meeting. He knew the Jews wanted his sect stamped out, and that they weren't above manipulating the occupying military force (the Romans) to accomplish it.

The Jewish leaders present at the arrest would have realized this as well. It wouldn't have been above them to slaughter His followers right then and there and claim the assembled crowd started it.

Therefore, while Jesus could have exerted His will and produced whatever outcome He saw fit, He instead appears to me to have found a way for the Christian movement to protect themselves, which is a lesson in itself.

He had them arm themselves with the pistol of the day, the short sword. Then, He had them demonstrate their intent to fight and draw blood by whacking at that ear, a symbolic move in an of itself.

One demonstration of their intent to self-defend resulted in the assembled military police to reconsider their use of force apparently. Else, when the first Christian unholstered, I would have expected a swift response from the protective force (why else have more than one troop present?)

And, so that they couldn't be charged with a crime, and further demonstration of His power, He healed the ear of a person who was there that day to lead Him to His impending doom.

Or not. I wasn't there....

Luke 22:35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36 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. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.


My opinion on this verse, is that while Jesus was with the disciples in physical form, they lacked nothing. When they were asked to go with Him for His ministry, they were asked to leave their possessions behind. This was a part of their leap of faith in Him as the Messiah. Now, what he is saying in this passage is that  he will no longer be with them physically but only in spirit until his second coming (as alluded in the prior verses at the last supper). During this time, they will need to take steps to take care of themselves, providing for themselves, and protecting themselves.

I also think that there is great significance in the fact that there were 12 of them, yet they only produced 2 swords to which Jesus replied "That's enough!" Utilization of the sword and "living by the sword" are different things. I am not certain as to what exactly the distinction is between them, but I would venture a guess that "there is a time for war" or a time by which one should utilize the sword for a purpose, but one who "lives by the sword" is one that is all too eager to utilize it for violence as we saw when one of them struck the servant on the ear. I believe this view is wholly consistent with scripture.

As with anything, I think the idea of balance/moderation is applicable here.

I'm no great Biblical scholar, but I'm happy to take a stab at trying to explain my own opinions...



One of my guiding principles when it comes to scriptural interpretation is that some points are made clear, and some aren't; and the crucial nature (doctrinally speaking) of those points generally correlates positively with exactly how forcefully that point is driven home.  The Bible doesn't leave a ton of wriggle room on crucial topics; the existence of a lot of gray area on a given point implies to me that, while folks may feel very strongly on the subject one way or another, it probably isn't crucial doctrinally.  And when I say some point of doctrine is crucial, I mean it seems to me that one must believe it to be, in fact, a believing Christian; if a point is not crucial, two people with diametrically opposed views on that subject can still be doctrinally sound Christian believers.



The question of self-defense seems a bit murky - witness the amount of discussion we're having now.  So that right there leads me to believe that there can be some healthy disagreement on the point even among Christians.  And any time I'm dealing with a murky issue, the issue of Christian liberty rears its head, and my go-to scriptures are I Corinthians 7-8 and Romans 14.









Similarly, in Romans:






Now, of course these issues don't address self-defense.  But they do
seem to address how a Christian ought to approach 'murky' issues.  And the two takeaways to me
are that 1) some courses of action may be better than others, but 2)
that doesn't mean the 'worse' course of action is 'wrong.'



By analogy to those issues, it seems to me that each Christian ought to be convinced in his mind whether or not the use of lethal force, in defense of self or others*, violates his conscience in the context below:






Two points again: the first is that I ought to remain in the situation in which I find myself called as a Christian believer.  That situation happens to be fairly complex, historically speaking.  Things were a lot simpler (and bloodier) back in the 1st century; now I find myself in a post-Constantine (Christianity gets mixed up with politics, meaning it must confront questions of state, including the use of force), post-Augustine and Aquinas (Christianity gets mixed up with Just War theory, which includes being waged under the auspices of a legitimate temporal authority), post-American Revolution (suddenly I, an individual citizen, am part of that temporal authority) situation.  In short, I am a free man, in a free country, in which I, as an individual, enjoy the right of self-defense.



The second is, again, a clear scriptural principle: what matters is not your situation, or the specific details of your actions, if you are keeping God's commandments.  Keeping God's commandments is what counts.  Straight up, verbatim.



Speaking of God's commandments:






*So this is why I emphasize the "in defense of self or others" above.  Drawing the sword just for kicks falls nowhere near the 'murky' category.  That doesn't keep God's commandments, period, full stop.  But using lethal force in defense of self or others, in the face of unprovoked aggression?  Yeah, I can see a situation in which employing the sword could be showing love to one's neighbor.



That said, I can also see how refraining from using lethal force even in the face of evil also keeps God's commandments.  And it might even qualify as one of those situations in which the person who fights evil does right, but the one who 'turns the other cheek' does even better.  And over and above those considerations, no matter what, if the conscience of the individual Christian doubts or is troubled about the permissibility of using lethal force, then that person's individual course seems clear - he should not unsheathe the sword, nor should I urge him to do so even if I myself do not harbor those same doubts or qualms.



Does any of that make sense or have I talked myself in circles?

Individually, this becomes a matter of knowledge, wisdom and understanding. When to use and how much to use..deadly force.  Collectively, it's a whole different scene, and if you ever want to test your understanding in this area, ask yourself "what is the spiritual validity of the American Revolution"????   The Word of God is common sense...in the extreme.  Which makes it all the more mystical  to the current generation!