Dave L is correct in this instance.
And I say this after my own full career in the military in a family that has been military for over a century, and in the face of the fact that I am licensed to carry a firearm. But I am an older man, and Ecclesiastes makes a lot of sense to me now.
Jesus did not lie when He we asserted--unequivocally and without exception--"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." The unequivocal nature of that statement must give great pause to anyone who would rather walk the Way in the center and not on the edges.
The king is given authority in this fallen world to use the sword to maintain worldly order--the sword is the weapon of earthly warfare. But Jesus' words will be true: Every worldly nation will fall, sooner or later. The blood shed to preserve it will always ultimately prove to have been shed in vain, because every nation will ultimately fall.
The temple guards who approached John the Baptist were commanded not to use force to extort money from people but to be satisfied by their wages. This did not apply to the legionaries of the Roman empire, because their very job was to create and maintain terror. Their mission and command was to regularly extort from the population. And on occasion, they would crucify even innocent men to maintain terror, if so ordered.
A Roman legionary who did convert to Christianity would necessarily have to refuse to continue to obey the orders of his superior, because his orders were to terrorize Jews. Church history records Roman soldiers who understood that--and died for it.
(I can argue that Cornelius was actually a retired centurion, not on active duty, but that's not necessary here.)
This is the problem with being a member of the military or police force in this fallen world. The kings of this fallen world maintain the wealth and order of their kingdoms through the use of the sword. Even in "peaceful" dealings and trade, behind the smiling diplomats are always baleful soldiers.
To maintain their wealth and power, earthly kings will command their soldiers to do evil.
And that is the problem. Early Christians recognized that to put the sword of the king on their waists meant that they would be required to use that sword for evil--even to kill other Christians. That's what worldly kings must do in this fallen world.
There may be a theoretical thing as a "just war," but in practice just war has not happened, certainly not in our lifetimes. And, by the way, goading or frightening a weaker opponent into attacking you does not make your defense just...which is today's method of justifying war.
People today delude themselves into thinking it's different now, but it certainly isn't. The US military is used for evil every day--for nothing but to maintain wealth and power, often for the plutocrats.
This is a fact: No poor man has ever ordered a soldier to war. Only the wealthy order soldiers to war, and for only their own regard. Their lofty platitudes are just to rouse the rabble.
I have personally witnessed American politicians lie to lie to the people to rouse them to war, and more than once in my own career. I see it happening right now.
So despite any arguments about self defense and such, the issue with making someone the servant of the king to use the sword puts one in the likely service of evil, which is unnecessary for someone who intends to walk in the center of the Way rather than on the edges.
It's often not different for police forces. Frequently "the law" is written for the wealthy to maintain order for their benefit, and "the law" is often evil. Frequently a police officer must hold his tongue when he knows evil is being done before him ("in the name of the law"), rather than giving witness to that evil. Again, it is an unnecessary risk, playing with fire, for someone who intends to walk in the center of the Way rather than on the edges.
As for self defense, certainly the concept of martyrdom, by the very meaning of the Greek μάρτυρας, means one who dies specifically as witness, who dies for his testimony.
That would seem to absolve killing in self defense, because someone killed by a street mugger will not have died for his testimony...possibly.
I pause at the decision of Nate Saint, who went to Ecuador to evangelize the hyper-violent tribe of the Huaorani. These people were so violent that the government of Ecuador had left them to destroy themselves.
Nate Saint, in contemplation of using guns to protect himself, asserted: "I am ready to meet my Maker. They are not." Saint carried a gun, but ultimately when attacked, Saint put the gun down. He was speared and killed.
Years later, Saint's son took up the same mission that had killed his father. Steven Saint was successful, and even brought the very man who had killed his father to Jesus. That was a win-win for Jesus, because now Jesus had both Nate and that man.
'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.' -- Ezekiel 33
I know I am ready to meet Jesus...but is the other guy ready? Can I really feel righteous about taking that possibility from him?
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
And we have to remember that there was not killing in the beginning either, and that killing--even in self-defense--is not an act of righteousness any more than divorce, but a concession of the Mosaic law to the hardness of men's hearts.
Even killing in defense of the innocent is not a righteous act because it was not that way in the beginning. There is no righteousness in shedding another man's blood. The entire event is within a cloud of sin.
The earthly solace is that I don't know if anyone else around me is any more ready to meet Jesus than an assailant. If I kill an assailant who threatens the lives of others, it will be so that they have their chance to become ready to meet Jesus.
But I won't claim righteousness for that act. God has already explicitly asserted that it gives Him no pleasure. That will be a horror and a shame. I'll still get on my knees.
I believe the above regarding offensive war for sure. The type of war that robs people of land and possessions, like oil, or gold. In that manner we are to love our enemies. But in the case for example of a robber coming into the house and holding a daughter hostage, for the purpose of selling her into the sex trafficking industry, and trying to steel her. I don't think it is far fetched for a christian dad to use self defense. In fact I think that maryterdom is something only an individual should do. If you are responsible for others I suggest manning up and defending them, and don't use the Bible as an excuse to get out of it. God never intended it that way. I posted this argument earlier, but let me post it again, because of the length of your post:
Luke 22:36 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."
-This would most likely have been a Jewish short sword - a dagger used as protection against wild animals and robbers, considered so essential that even the "peace-loving Essenes" carried it, and it was permitted to be carried on the Sabbath as part of one's adornment. [See Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist?, 21]… Josephus tells us that when Essenes went on a journey they had no need to take supplies with them, for they knew that their needs would be met by fellow members of their order; they did, however, carry arms to protect themselves against bandits.
Granted this was not a broad or long sword like those of the temple police, or roman guards. Yet it was a weapon for self-defense. A pacifist would not promote such self-defense.
So you must choose to accept that Jesus was not a strict pacifist.
WHY DID JESUS SAY TWO SWORDS WAS ENOUGH?
Many pacifists hold the argument that because Jesus said that only two swords is enough, and because two swords is not enough to protect twelve disciples that therefore Jesus motive for the buying of the swords was not for protection at all. And that is simply refuted in the verse, 36 of luke 22. It mentions that anyone that has a garment (or cloak), was to sell it and buy a sword. Some may not have had a cloak or garment to spare, and thus this is the reason for the limitation, the reason they were not more protected was that they did not have garments to spare. That is the most straight forward answer to refute the pacifist claims. But there are other explanations as well: This site mentions that it is possible that when Jesus said "it is enough" that it was talking not about the swords but about the words. Here is more on that:
"But as we see repeatedly throughout the Gospels, the disciples never really "got" the whole "Jesus is going to die and then be resurrected" thing until after it was all accomplished. Here, they hear him talking about swords, and someone says "yeah, we've got a couple here already." They just don't understand what he's trying to explain, and you can almost hear the Master's resigned sigh. "Sure, that'll be fine.""
Why did Jesus tell His disciples to buy a sword?
I tend to believe the first explanation over the second, but that is just my opinion.
another pastor and teacher that believes the second interpretation of this passage:
"c. It is enough means enough of this kind of talk (Jesus’ firm way of ending the conversation), not two swords will be enough. How could two swords ever be enough against all those who came to arrest Jesus?
i. Jesus’ disciples must be “just as determined and whole-hearted as a fighting man who gives up everything, even his garment, as long as he only possesses a sword to continue the struggle with.” (Geldenhuys)
-David Guzik is the new Senior Pastor of Calvary Chapel Santa Barbara. His excellent study materials have been edifying the Christian community for the past seven years. Currently he is the director of the Calvary Chapel Bible College in Siegen, Germany. Sources: Guzik, David. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". "David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible". "
Luke 22 Commentary - James Burton Coffman Commentaries on the Bible. 1997-2003.
Other commentators who believe in a literal Luke 22:36:
----------------------------------------
And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword.
The absolute pacifist tradition among Christians of all ages and the acceptance of it by many commentators make this verse "a real problem" for many. Most commentators view the passage as figurative, as did Geldenhuys, who said, "The Lord intended (these words) in a figurative sense."[19] But if the sword is figurative, what about the purse, the wallet, and the cloak?
As Hobbs said, "It is impossible to tone down this statement; neither can we dismiss it as not being a genuine saying of Jesus."[20] The clear meaning of the passage is that "a sword" is the one thing needful, even surpassing in priority such an important item as a cloak. The two errors to be avoided here are (1) the supposition that the gospel should be spread by the sword, and (2) the notion that a sword should ever be employed against lawful authority. Before the evening was over, the Lord would have further occasion to demonstrate the proper and improper uses of the sword. Barnes was certainly correct in his view that "These directions (concerning the sword) were not made with reference to his being taken in the garden but to their future lives."[21]
J. S. Lamar, an eminent Restoration scholar, expressed surprise "to find several of the ablest Protestant expositors interpreting (this passage) as a warrant for self-defense."[22] Nevertheless, the view maintained here is that self-defense is exactly what Jesus taught. Self-defense is a basic, natural right of all men, and there is no lawful government on earth that denies it. Just why should it be supposed that Jesus denied to Christians such a basic right has never been explained. "Resist not evil ... go the second mile ... turn the other cheek... give thy cloak also, etc." are not applicable to situations in which one's life is threatened, or endangered.
[19] Ibid., p. 672.
[20] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 307.
[21] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 150.
[22] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary, Vol. II (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 260.
Coffman, James Burton. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". "Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament". "
Luke 22 Commentary - James Burton Coffman Commentaries on the Bible". Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.
----------------------------------------------
We are living in difficult days. The Lord said, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Why? For self protection, of course. They were living in days that required a sword. We need to recognize that fact also. If we do not resist evil today, all kinds of evil will befall us. We could end up in the hospital or have some of our loved ones slain.
McGee, J. V. (1997). Thru the Bible commentary (electronic ed., Vol. 4, p. 347). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
----------------------------------------------------
22:36. Jesus’ instructions here reflect the culmination of His mission and the crescendo of antagonism from the leadership in Jerusalem. The increased context of hostility called for supplies that would facilitate self-preservation (a “money bag” or knapsack) and self defense (a sword). Although the supplies would change, they would still lack nothing (v 35).
Valdés, A. S. (2010). The Gospel according to Luke. In R. N. Wilkin (Ed.), The Grace New Testament Commentary (p. 340). Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society.
---------------------------------------------------
When the disciples had depended on God to provide for their needs, those needs were met through generous people. However, the situation had changed. Jesus here instructed His disciples to take a money bag, a knapsack, and a sword on their journeys in order to be prepared for the rejection that was to come.
Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary (Lk 22:35–36). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.
-----------------------------------------------------
The Galileans generally travelled with swords. Christ wore none himself, but he was not against his disciples’ wearing them.
Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 1903). Peabody: Hendrickson.