"Get a sword", Jesus?

[SolaScriptura139]

Most appropriate pistol to stand as a religious symbol of protection?

So would the religious symbol for Satanists be a Glock?

The "eye for and eye...tooth for a tooth" statements of the OT have largely been taken out of context by everyone (including Jews in the day of Jesus). You must realize that God was teaching Moses how to set up a Theocratic government. These statements where more oriented to government than to individuals. These statements correspond to our laws today that outline proper punishments for crimes. It was never supposed to be that an individual got revenge by taking "an eye for an eye" but that the judges and rulers of the day would seek fairness by ruling "an eye for an eye."

I don't think it could have been put more eloquently. Good stuff so far.

 

[Tried'nTrue]

Howdy, BigG. For clarification,

So, you can see that Jesus' teachings were anything but straightforward and to the point.

I could've been a bit more explanatory. You are correct, Jesus spoke often in parables. When I said Jesus was straightforward and to the point, I was speaking directly about the verse in question, which stated quite succinctly, "Sell your cloak and buy a sword." In my eyes, that is a very direct and unambiguous statement, especially since Jesus even told how to finance the sword's purchase. One could speculate that the urgency of the disciples' need for swords is implied in the act of selling the cloak, a very necessary item. But as I read it, there's no ambiguity in that particular verse.

Howdy, LAK. You said,

Just for the record, the Church has never taught opposition to the words of our Lord. And further more, never denied the right to self defense and defense of property

While I do certainly believe that the Catholic Church, as well as many other Christian denominations, holds beliefs which are in direct opposition to the Bible, I'm not intending to debate you on the merits of Catholic doctrine and theology. Fortunately, I don't think that's what you're wanting, anyways My overarching point, which I did state in my second post, is that the Catholic church leadership in practice has opposed people's right to self defense. For example, read the history of the Inquisition. The Catholic Church sought to convert or expell, by force all Jews living in Spain and Portugal. Jews who refused to convert were often burned alive as blasphemers. Entire Jewish communities met their end in this manner! Many, many others were driven out of their homes and bereved of their property. That is a very active denial of a person's right to defense of self and belongings. And did you know, the Inquisition was not legally halted in Spain until the mid-1800's!

Of course, the Church, Catholic or Protestant, is by no means the only entity to deny people the right to defense. I used them as an example because the context of the thread is Jesus' directive of buying a sword.

 

[Tried'nTrue]

The Catholic Church does condone self defense... but it does not condone eye for an eye (which is what the Jewish and Muslums do... and see what they get?)

I do not understand the purpose of your statement, "and see what they get?". It sounds like a veiled slam towards Jews and Muslims, which is completely unnecessary.

In regards to Jews, I wish to unequivocally state that God promised, "Those who curse them, I will curse, and those who bless them, I will bless." Be very careful when insinuating condemnation towards the Jewish people.

This is the only time that I've purposefully stepped away from the thread's intention, but I am completely convinced that condescending to Jewish people is unwise, not to mention completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[kungfuhippie]

"and see what they get?"

not a slam at anyone. Just pointing out how the "eye for an eye" doctrine has kept a part of the world in continued conflict for most of recorded history. I believe that he was trying to point out that different doctrines of self defense from different belief systems have show different levels of success. I think no malace was intended, just an observation. Obviously if Jews practiced an eye for an eye in such a manner Germany would have been in death camps after WWII, instead people were punished for their crimes and everyone tried to start their lives over, not just stew in hatred.

 

[Bobhwry]

How is this gun related???????????

 

[Travis McGee]

Hmmmm....the sword was the gun of AD 30?

I know it's a stretch......

 

[rogerjames]

If you don't understand and/or haven't studied Roman history, it is impossible to understand the New Testament because it occurs in the context of a once independent Jewish state now under Roman socio-political rule. Now realizing that Jesus was outspoken against much of the Roman policies such as the temple being used for the trade of goods etc., etc. it is quite easy to understand the need for a sword since the Roman State is well known for it's swift and violent forms of justice, especially against those opposed to its rule. It is also quite laughable that any Roman guard/centurion etc. would stand by and allow an ear to be chopped off without immediate violent retribution. Therin lies the confusion of mixing fantasy, beliefs, phables, and interspersing those with actual historical facts, places, and realities.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

How is this gun related?

Arms.

Bear Arms.

Keep and Bear Arms.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

RKBA.

The principles of the right to self defense are considerably older than the weapons of today.

Travis is right on.

 

[cosine]

^^^

Plus, we've only has this discussion like 1,234,567 times.

(Psss! Do a search, there are really at least a half-dozen threads which have gone over this topic.)

 

[ajax]

I believe this to be the most interesting thread I've read on THR since I became a member.

 

[Turkey Creek]

This is interesting stuff but it could go on forever- The good part is that on my next gun purchase I'm going to tell the wife that The Lord told me to do it

 

[busy_squirrel]

First off, hooray that this has remained civil!

Just for the record, the Church has never taught opposition to the words of our Lord.

I absolutely disagree but this is not a Catholic bashing thread. PM me if you want a specific example that your clergy (hope that's the right word) will confirm.

But I have read commentaries that explain, for example "birds of the air" in the mustard seed parable as "people of all nations" when it is clearly the same "birds of the air" that represent evil spirits stealing away the word in the parable that is explained, that of the sower.

The Mustard Seed of Faith parable and the Seeds by the Wayside parable were two severate parables. You are confusing two seperate stories.

...the rest contribute to helping keep civilization civil.

I disagree.

I think he is saying not all religions are civil. I know that hijacking a plane and crashing it intentionally isn't civil, BUT I think their motivation wasn't entirely religous, but also political.

 

[javacodeman]

Remember that not only have most current day versions been translated through at least a coupla different languages, much of what's contained therein was passed down VERBALLY for a long time, before it was ever written.

You're incorrect about the translation issue. Today, thanks to such finds as the Dead Sea Scrolls, we're able to compare very old texts with very, very, very old texts. We find no huge errors. There are some paragraphs in some of the very old texts that aren't in the very, very, very old text. These are pointed out in any new Bible that you buy today. There are also some minor pronoun changes. Anyways, new translations (the good ones anyways) are done from the original languages of those very old, very, very, old and well I digress. They are not a translation of a translation of a ... ... ... See this post for more info.

As far as the verbal passing down your right. God Himself verbally passed down to Moses at Mt Sinai what to write for the first five books. Other than Job, these [the first five books] are the oldest. All of the events of the other books occured (and were written) during a time of written language.

 

[javacodeman]

The fulfillment of prophecy is a good point, but I wonder if that is the case why didn't Jesus himself get the sword, instead of recommending it to the disciples. Stopping the attack on the guard (cut off ear) does not negate the bearing of arms - more of a strategic decision at that moment on many levels, and teaching restraint and non-violence (nonviolence does not, to me, mean total passivity - many friends I have had which were capable of delivering tremendous violence were very peaceful and balanced souls). Refraining oneself from violence when capable requires the utmost of spiritual maturity and development, discipline and character.
It's interesting that an attack resulting in damage to a guard was not met with immediate mortal reprisal - imagine if you cut off a LEO's ear in a scuffle where they were arresting your friend. Perhaps the equalization of force was useful?

It may or may not have been sinful to cut off the guard's ear. This would be one reason why Jesus didn't get the sword Himself. Why wasn't this met with reprisal? Because Jesus was/is/will be God the Son:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=18&version=49

1When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the ravine of the Kidron, where there was a garden, in which He entered with His disciples.
2Now Judas also, who was betraying Him, knew the place, for Jesus had often met there with His disciples.

3Judas then, having received the Roman cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, came there with lanterns and torches and weapons.

4So Jesus, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and said to them, "Whom do you seek?"

5They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." He said to them, "I am He." And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them.

6So when He said to them, "I am He," they drew back and fell to the ground.

7Therefore He again asked them, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus the Nazarene."

8Jesus answered, "I told you that I am He; so if you seek Me, let these go their way,"

9to fulfill the word which He spoke, "Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one."

10Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus.

11So Jesus said to Peter, "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?"

Points:
1. Notice that it was a full Roman cohert--not a rag tag bunch of cowardly Mayberry deputies.

2. Notice that "He" is in italics. This means that the translators added it to help the meaning/clarity. It hurts in this case. Jesus says, "I am" (this is literally the original of God's personal name, now translated as Jehovah or Yahweh). The same thing He told Moses at the burning bush.

3. Jesus' annoucement that He is God, "I am", is so powerful that the guards fall back in fear. That's why nothing was done to Peter.

 

[javacodeman]

This is why I prefer the Songs Of Solomon. Everyone can agree that breasts are good.

ROFLOL

You know that book wasn't taught to Jewish boys.

 

[PaladinX13]

As others have pointed out, to say that it's a pro-self-defense or even imperative is taking this particular verse out of context- which isn't to say that's not a biblical value, simply that this verse, properly understood, wasn't meant to be used that way... but even if you do take it to mean that, I'd caution against the extreme (that some may have the habit of going to) of suggesting that someone is derelict in their responsibilities as Christian if they don't go out and arm themselves immediately.

God's permissive will for us is broad and His calling for each one of us unique... He may have called Solomon to be one of the richest men in history in the lap of luxury and comfort, but called John the Baptist to live in rags and preach a message that stirred up enemies to ultimately have him killed- not exactly the road to self-preservation. Biblically, some are rescued from aggressors by way of miracle and others- also by way of miracle but- with their own weapon-wielding hands. God has foiled the reliance on military strength as much as he as empowered it at the appointed time. He does these things in different ways to make it not a method but a continual emphasis on the importance of Him in the mixture.

So it may well be with in His permissive will to allow you arms or even require you take them up (most classically, the wandering tribe of Israel post-Egypt called to fight)... but it's also possible that for you or others He may ask you to put them down and rely completely on Him (David, Peter, etc).

 

[javacodeman]

Whew, now that I've read all of the posts, I will finally comment on the original post.

If you've already read all of the other posts this might sound familiar.

That particular verse does have a ring of self defense in it, but it is not just for self defense and it would be a stretch to make it thus. There are plenty of other examples/laws that make clear to us that God is okay with lawful arming/self defense.

Good night!

java

 

[ProguninTN]

cosine

Plus, we've only has this discussion like 1,234,567 times.

(Psss! Do a search, there are really at least a half-dozen threads which have gone over this topic.)

Yes, but is not the exchange of ideas and wisdom on the subject a good thing ?

 

[gwine]

Yeah, it's usually those &*%$^ Presbyterians that start that nonsense. ^$%$)# #@*#))$&!!!

Now you just wait a minute, Eleven Mike, I'm one of them there Presbyterians. An Orthodox Presbyterian, I'll have you know.

From the commentary Jamieson-Fausset-Brown:

But now — that you are going forth not as before on a temporary mission, provided for without purse or scrip, but into scenes of continued and severe trial, your methods must be different; for purse and scrip will now be needed for support, and the usual means of defense.

And from the Geneva Bible commentary:

(m) He says all this using an allegory, as if he said, "O my friends and fellow soldiers, you have lived until now in relative peace: but now there is at hand a most severe battle to be fought, and you must therefore lay all other things aside and think about dressing yourselves in armour." And what this armour is, is shown by his own example, when he prayed afterward in the garden and reproved Peter for striking with the sword.

One for and one against it meaning a real sword. Hmmmmmm.

 

[Eleven Mike]

If you don't understand and/or haven't studied Roman history, it is impossible to understand the New Testament because it occurs in the context of a once independent Jewish state now under Roman socio-political rule. Now realizing that Jesus was outspoken against much of the Roman policies such as the temple being used for the trade of goods etc., etc. it is quite easy to understand the need for a sword since the Roman State is well known for it's swift and violent forms of justice, especially against those opposed to its rule. It is also quite laughable that any Roman guard/centurion etc. would stand by and allow an ear to be chopped off without immediate violent retribution. Therin lies the confusion of mixing fantasy, beliefs, phables, and interspersing those with actual historical facts, places, and realities.

There are many bones here to pick.

That first sentence is way too strong. Sure there are nuances one will understand better with a deeper understanding of the Roman era, but "impossible"? That's a bit much. There are other things more important to understand, such as the Jewish background of the New Testament, and the Hellenistic culture that pervaded both first-century Judea and Rome.

I'd be interested to know why you say the buying and selling in the temple was a Roman idea. I thought the Romans were usually less intrusive in the religious matter of subject states, and from what I have read of Jewish/Roman relations, they would not accept Romans changing their temple customs.

It seems unlikely that Jesus was arrested by a Roman unit. The word "Roman," apparently, is not even in the text. javacode man quoted from the NAS Bible, and I have a print copy in front of me. Roman is in italics, meaning it is a word added during translation. Most translations just say a detachment of soldiers, a band, a crowd or something similar. Probably, the Temple Guard arrested him, as religious officials were also there, and they were the ones who desired his arrest. They tried him, and only brought him to Pilate later. If some Roman commander had loaned the men to the Sanhedrin, why didn't they inform Pilate of the case? Besides, why would the Roman authorities want Roman soldiers to be seen arresting the prophet who had just been welcomed into Jerusalem with great fan-fare? That would be a good recipe for a riot.

It is also quite laughable that any Roman guard/centurion etc. would stand by and allow an ear to be chopped off without immediate violent retribution.

Whether or not the arresting party was Roman, it is laughable only if Jesus were an ordinary man. The Gospel accounts record that the arresting party was quite over-awed by him. And when Jesus healed the man's ear and Peter ran away, there wasn't much to "retribute" over.

Therin lies the confusion of mixing fantasy, beliefs, phables, and interspersing those with actual historical facts, places, and realities.

What are you talking about?

 

[Eleven Mike]

Even if only one church were the valid choice mandated by our creator(hypothetical for the sake of the statement), the rest contribute to helping keep civilization civil.

gungfuhippie,

Maybe, instead of saying that I disagree, I should have said I'm not so sure I agree with you. While most religions have some admirable qualities, I think some religions have made civilization much less civil. For all the splendor of its golden age, I'm inclined to think Islam has not helped civilization that much. Nor did India's religiously-mandated caste system, nor the Aztec religion that called for human sacrifice. But I could be persuaded otherwise.

If anyone here follows these religions, just disagree calmly. I'm ready to accept persuasive evidence.

 

[kungfuhippie]

11M, I made too broad a statement. There are some religions that don't contribute to a civilized world. I'm not going to start saying who I think they are because you can probably argue that each organized religion could have some "bad". Everyone should tread lightly when speaking of another beliefs, Hinduism, and Islam comprise more followers than Christianity, so you just stated that nearly 2/3 the world follows religions that arn't civil. Some people still follow a break-off of the Aztec beliefs and teach their children nahuatl the Aztec language. Lets all take THR and not state pointing fingers.

Here are good teachings that comes from Islam, Hinduism, and reformed Aztec (since primitive Aztec is no longer practiced).

Islam teaches five main pilars (I'm not speaking of radical islamic splinter groups) 1. believe in God 2. pray often 3. charitable giving of time and money 4. fasting as a form of self-restraint and increased spirituality (Moses, Jesus and John the Baptist all are on record for fasting too) and 5. a pilgrimage to Mecca, their holy city (many Christian desire a visit to the Holy Land, same idea) so there are good things taught, because it's been manipulated by some to gain power or control is sad, I would hate to see any religion, especially my own (not islam) used for evil purposes.

Hinduism teaches that the goal of life is stated variously as the realization of one's union with God, attainment of the vision of God, attainment of perfect love of God, realization of the unity of all existence, perfect unselfishness, liberation from ignorance, attainment of perfect mental peace, or detachment from worldly desires. Take away the Hindu views of a supreme being and these seem like Christian goals.

I know nothing about the modern Aztec religion except that it exists and is practiced in many parts of rural Mexico, and they don't do human sacrifice. Also many places have mingled the lore of the aztec religion with catholicism.

So, yes I was too broad, but most religions contribute to a more civil world though they may not contribute as much as others.

 

[LAK]

Solascriptura

I agree with you to an extent. The Catholic church did unfortunately fall into corruption (because of the decadence of its leaders) for about 800 years. Now I would say that they didn't teach opposition to the Scriptures, but their actions seemed to oppose Scripture.

The Church has never fallen into corruption - to say so is to call Christ Himself a liar, who promised to guide her to the end.

The visible hierarchy has been corrupted during the last 40+ years - to the extent that the current Rome is representative of another religion entirely. This is why you will not see reference to much pre-1958 teachings anymore; particularly papal encyclicals condemning specific heresies and errors and much has been omitted or changed in the liturgies. See examples such as;

Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors - Pope Pius IX, 1864

Rerum Novarum - Capital and Labor (against Marxism) - Leo XIII, 1891

Lamentabli Sane and The Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists - Pope St. Pius X, 1907

This is why the official position on issues like the thread topic do not represent the teachings of the Church anymore. Read any copy of "My Catholic Faith" published in the 1950s and this is quite clear.

-------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Tried'nTrue]

Haha, would it be presumptuous for me to declare,

Kudos to us for keeping this theologically-charged discussion civil!

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled insights

Without counting, it appears to me that we have an ideological split in one regard and a virtually all-encompassing agreement in another. We are split on the meaning of Jesus' words; one side believes that he was speaking literally, in regards to the disciples' impending need for self-defense. The other group of us believe that he was fulfilling prophecy and his mandate to buy a sword wasn't for the primary purpose of self-defense.

We do mostly agree, however, that the teachings and leanings of the Bible, Old Testament and New, and implicity the God who wrote this Bible, are in favor of self-defense, armed when necessary.

 

[BigG]

Quote:
But I have read commentaries that explain, for example "birds of the air" in the mustard seed parable as "people of all nations" when it is clearly the same "birds of the air" that represent evil spirits stealing away the word in the parable that is explained, that of the sower.

The Mustard Seed of Faith parable and the Seeds by the Wayside parable were two severate parables. You are confusing two seperate stories.

I think you miss the point I was trying to make. The Bible interprets itself. A prophetic symbol is consistent throughout the Bible. The birds of the air is always symbolic of the same thing, not one time human beings and the next time demons. The symbol is the SAME not the meaning of the parable.

The mustard seed parable means the church (the large tree) is infested with enemies, represented by the birds of the air. The church is large enough that it can support a flock of demons within.