Can a Christian defend himself OR others? (Defensive killing)

[-57]

The greatest thing you can do for your families protection is to make sure they are covered by the blood of Jesus,

You can't make sure anyone is covered by the blood od Jesus.

 

[-57]

nowhere has this author explained how the acquisition of the sword casts Jesus in the role of a "transgressor".

Neither have you explain.
That's because the buying of swords didn't make Jesus seem to be a transgressor.

 

[-57]

This has happened here: multiple posters simply refuse to explain the statement connecting the "get a sword" instruction to the "transgressor" prophecy. Instead, they offer all sorts of peripheral arguments that amount to an argument that the instruction to get a sword cannot have been given to fulfill this prophecy.

Jesus wasn't arested for having a sword...pretending to be a rebel.

Do tou really want to know why Jesus was arrested?

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”

Just prior to that...we read " Pilate replied, “for I find no basis for a charge against Him.”"

In other words if Jesus was arrested for being a trangressor....Pilate said he had no reason to crucify him. Pilates verdict of not quilty showed Jesus wasn't the leader of some sword swinging rebel group.

I trust you stand corrected.

 

[Historical Christianity]

As I see it, dumbing it down of course...

Go get swords, you will need them because the top Jews hate me, want to kill me, they have labeled me a transgressor and things are going to be tougher now.

Now feel free to tear it apart.

I read what I read.

Peace out.

Challenge accepted
First, the text doesn't say that or even suggest it.
Second, Jesus won't be with them. He's the only one we see tagged as a Zealot except for Simon. So only Jesus and Simon were candidates for arrest by Rome. Rome never arrested Jesus until someone falsely accused him. Then he was acquitted of that charge. Besides, a sword is useless if Rome is determined to arrest you. Their track record is clear. Rome promptly and brutally suppresses any rebellion. That's what empire must do.

Luke 22 is the prelude to the passion narrative. They will soon be without a leader. Some accounts say they scattered. They would need to provide for themselves from now on. In John's narrative, Judas had the moneybag, and we have several stories about what happened to him. In none of those stories does he continue as an apostle of Jesus.

 

[Historical Christianity]

Jesus wasn't arested for having a sword...pretending to be a rebel.

Do tou really want to know why Jesus was arrested?

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”

Just prior to that...we read " Pilate replied, “for I find no basis for a charge against Him.”"

In other words if Jesus was arrested for being a trangressor....Pilate said he had no reason to crucify him. Pilates verdict of not quilty showed Jesus wasn't the leader of some sword swinging rebel group.

I trust you stand corrected.

19:7 was long after he was arrested. It was after he was declared innocent. Rome cared nothing about Jewish religious laws, and certainly wouldn't enforce them. The text reflects the author's misunderstanding of what Jews meant by a son of God. Solomon was that. Israel was that. It never was an attribution of deity. But it could have been additional 'evidence' that Jesus was a Zealot. If he really declared his intent to fulfill a role as a messiah, freeing Judea from Rome by either military revolt or as a prophet (causing sinners [non-practicing Jews] to repent, resume obedience to Torah, thus causing God to stop punishing and resume blessing Israel, according to the terms of the Mosaic Covenant), then they could consider him a threat and execute him. Yet Pilate and Herod both declared him innocent of that charge.

But Pilate did have reason to execute him, since mobs were threatening to riot. A chief job of a Roman governor was to keep the peace.

 

[marineimaging]

There is no single verse that supports self defense as much as the WHOLE BIBLE supports self defense.
In the days of David a wolf, a thief, and a bear approach the herd of sheep that David is tending. The wolf grabs one by the neck and saunters off. The bear swats several of them on the head and gathers them in his mouth and walks away. The man comes up behind David with a knife and hatchet and raises it to kill the elect of God and take the whole herd of sheep from his Father. According to those who refer to the phrase that Jesus used toward Peter, David should do nothing and allow all three to do as they wish while he does nothing to stop them.

Two children approach a merry-go-round and one says, "May we play with you?" He waits for a reply. Meanwhile the other child rolls his eyes, stops the merry-go-round and grabs three of the children by the collar and throws them off. He then calls three of his friend thugs over and tells them to get on and starts the merry-go-round again.

Which is living according to Christ?

If a Christian man conducts his daily life in search of peaceful solutions, trying to be amicable with his fellow neighbors, looks for a win-win situation whenever he can, then he is fulfilling Jesus directions as given throughout the Bible? Likewise, if that same man carry's a weapon for protection, how is that different from David as a shepherd carrying a staff and sling with preselected rocks? How is that different than Jesus telling his disciples to sell some things and purchase swords?

It isn't different; but when we hear someone refer to Jesus telling Peter that 'he who lives by the sword will die by the sword' they are taking that notion of what Jesus said to Peter totally out of context. Carrying a gun or sword or knife for self-protection or protection from a thief or thug or your enemy that wishes to kill you or your kin is not what Jesus was referring to.

In this specific case Jesus had a mission and Peter was interfering with it in spite of Jesus having told them it was time. Consider this from Zechariah 11:12-13 “And I said unto them, If you think good, give me my hire; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver. And Jehovah said unto me, Cast it unto the potter, the goodly price that I was prized at by them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them unto the potter, in the house of Jehovah”.

Six centuries before Jesus was born Zechariah prophesies the Betrayal of Jesus. Furthermore, Zechariah details certain things that could not have been known six hundred years into the future. Such as the fact that silver was offered. (Gold and copper where the exchange metal of Zechariahs' day.) (Such as the fact that 30pcs of sliver was the price for a slave (so they weighed me for my hire) in the days of Jesus.) Each of these details can be identified and they are grand considerations of what is to come, but there is something that is not considered as frequently in the prophecy and that has to be fulfilled as well.

That is, All the men with Jesus had to be let go free when he was taken prisoner. So, when Peter drew his sword and cut off the servant's ear he was in danger of being arrested and if he were, then prophesy would be void. Instead, Jesus healed the ear and Peter was not arrested but Jesus, knowing he would no longer be around to coach Peter, also had to remind him something he had told him before about his rash anger.

When Jesus said to Peter, "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword," that was not a commandment made up by Jesus at that moment for all of mankind to follow. Jesus was reminding Peter specifically as he had warned him before to not be one who lives daily with violence and power through brute strength. But to be one who seeks peace in peaceful ways.

What it means, of course, is that people who conquer through violence ultimately end up dying by violence. Or to put it more simply: what goes around comes around.
Live a peaceful life towards others and they will generally be peaceful to you. But that does not take away the responsibility of the soldier or policeman or husband/father for his family when it comes to those who bring violence to the table or who use brute force without seeking a peaceful coexistence.

If you are going to use the Bible as a tool to live by, then by all means study it. ALL of it.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

It certainly seems natural to believe this. However, I see no evidence that Jesus taught this principle. And at least some evidence that suggests He would reject the use of force even in defense of the innocent.

Hello and thank you for the reply.

I was wondering how do u interpret this verse.

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.

Is it a christian teaching to allow someone to murder you?
I

 

[Jesus' Girl]

I am too much a woss...and weapons and pepper spray for self defense is illegal here anyway

 

[expos4ever]

Hello and thank you for the reply.

I was wondering how do u interpret this verse.

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.

Is it a christian teaching to allow someone to murder you?
I

I have spent pages and pages and pages providing my take on this very text. If you are interested in my basic position, please see post number 4.

As to your question about "allowing someone to murder me", I would say that is not easy to answer. I certainly believe Jesus would be opposed to people carrying weapons around. But I would not go so far as to suggest we should not resist physically if our life is under threat.

But we need to deal with one thing at a time. The Luke 22 text does not, repeat does not, support using a weapon in self-defence. This despite the frankly dishonest behaviours in this thread who repeatedly evade responsible, truthful dialog about this controversial text.

 

[expos4ever]

How is that different than Jesus telling his disciples to sell some things and purchase swords?

I do not necessarily disagree with the general tenor of your post; however, this instruction, from Luke 22, does not deal with use of weapons for self-defence. Please see post 4 for a detailed treatment.

 

[expos4ever]

ikewise, if that same man carry's a weapon for protection, how is that different from David as a shepherd carrying a staff and sling with preselected rocks?

First, it needs to be stated that just because certain Bible character does something, this does not mean that God approves. For example, David prays that the heads of enemies' infants be dashed against rocks. Does God approve? I very much doubt it. So the mere fact that certain Bible characters engage in self-defence with weapons is not a particularly strong argument for using weapons in self-defence.

Second, we have Jesus’ declaration before Pilate that the reason His followers are not using force to rescue Him (Jesus) is because they are citizens of a new kingdom whose rules do not permit the use of violent force. This not exactly what Jesus says but it is certainly the inescapable implication. Jesus says that if His kingdom were like other earthly kingdoms, His followers would use force to rescue Him. But His is a different kingdom. Although people will play games and deny the obvious implication, it is clear that Jesus is effectively teaching us that it is in the very nature of being a citizen of Jesus’ kingdom that we reject the use of force.

 

[expos4ever]

The Johannine community, writing in the last decade of the first century, were forced to admit that the apocalypse didn't happen as everyone expected it would. So they spiritualized it in various ways. Your interpretation is not obvious, and is not required. This community was richly saturated in Greek philosophy, notably the ideal realms of Plato (leading to the idea of an afterlife), Logos of the Stoics, and Gnosis (probably of Neo-Platonism). Jesus was long dead. So if he's going to have a kingdom, it's not an earthly one.

I disagree with you over the issue of whether Jesus' kingdom is earthly or "spiritual" - I think it is earthly - but that is not relevant to the point I was making.

Jesus explains His disciples' refusal to take up arms in terms of their citizenship in a new Kingdom - one where force is not used even in defence of the innocent (in this case, the innocent = Jesus).

It doesn't matter whether that Kingdom is "earthly" or "spiritual" - the important point is that the nature of that kingdom - of which Jesus' followers are citizens - is such that force is not used to rescue even the innocent.

In other words, whether the kingdom is earthly or spiritual, it still informs how the disciples behave. And, in this case, the behavior is refusal to use force.

 

[expos4ever]

Go get swords, you will need them because the top Jews hate me, want to kill me, they have labeled me a transgressor and things are going to be tougher now.

The problem is that you have subtly reworded what Jesus said. What you say above does not, as the actual text does, indicate that the instruction to get the swords (and the other stuff) is given in order to fulfill a prophecy that Jesus be seen as a transgressor:

And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment

Why get the swords and the other stuff?

Jesus' answer: this will fulfill a prophecy that I will be numbered with transgressors.

This explanation is not self-defence. It is what it is: that Jesus will be seen as a transgressor.

And this makes perfect sense: If Jesus' followers march around with swords, Jesus, as their leader, will be seen as the leader of a band of armed thugs.

That is, transgressors.

And this will be true even after Jesus has died and risen - if His followers are armed, Jesus - now long gone - will still be "numbered among transgressors".

The point is that you have to honour the exact wording of the text - I politely suggest you have expunged the clear connection that Jesus makes: He says the sword instruction fulfills the prophecy. You are saying the sword instruction is related to self-defence.

But Jesus never says this.

 

[dentonz]

Is it right for a Christian to defend himself OR others if it will result in the attacker/threats death?

I have spoken to multiple people about this question. As the end continues to draw closer things will get worse and worse. There will be warfare, earthquakes, famine, and disease. Men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, disobedient to parents, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God.

I do not fear these times, I accept it will happen. My question is how should one who loves God act during these times in a way that is holy and not part of the world or falling short of God's standard.. If someone threatens my life and wishes to commit murder, can I defend my body if it means the attacker dies in the process?

All of Jesus' disciples besides Judas Iscariot (who committed suicide) where killed/murdered and I don't believe any defended themselves.
Scripure says something along the lines of "Those who lose their lives will find it, those who keep their lives will lose it" does this mean by defending yourself you will be punished?
Scripure also says something along the lines of "there is no greater love than laying down your life for another" does this mean you could risk your life defending another Person?

I understand the concept of ending someone's life short when there is a possibility of them having asked for repentance/salvation later on, IF they hadn't been killed.. But still, I wonder how I would act in that situation.

How would you act? Would you let someone kill you or a loved one?

I'm pretty sure all of the apostles were "legally" killed by corrupt systems, not murdered by individuals. We do know for a fact "Biblically speaking" that Peter carried a sword. There has only ever been one reason to carry a sword, to kill another person. Whether used in defense of one self, others, or used un-lawfully, the sword was the handgun of the day.

 

[expos4ever]

There has only ever been one reason to carry a sword, to kill another person.

One would think so, but we have an exception in Luke 22, a passage repeatedly, and erroneously, used to defend the right to armed self-defence:

And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his [g]coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its [h]fulfillment.”

Although many here in this thread dishonestly treat verse 37 as if it does not exist, this is an example of a sword being acquired not for self-defence but rather as a ploy to make Jesus appear to be a transgressor. And this makes sense - if Jesus' followers are armed, it certainly casts Jesus in the light of being a "transgressor" in the sense of someone who is associated with a band of armed thugs.

 

[SteveIndy]

So, if it all comes by the fiat of the Spirit, then I guess we really don't need apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, wise men, and scribes. Do we?

Not if what they say differs from the inspired declaration of God. The Bible is our standard against which everything is tested. Most of the supposed wisdom you speak of is human wisdom and there are no Apostles today, only disciples. There are many hirelings shepherding the flocks today and have pretty pieces of paper on their walls declaring their ordinations of men and white collars to prove they are holy, and flowing gowns and scarfs with tassels all to produce a false effect amongst weak men who need those sort of things. Doesn't the Bible say that the way is narrow and the gate strait, i.e. difficult, and that very few will be able to enter in? Yet, everyone thinks they are going to make it, that they have their ticket and only have to wait for the bus. Through the wisdom of their preachers, pastors, evangelists, priests, sages, and popes the sheep are led to Hell because they refuse to read and heed the ancient words. My pastor will unwrap this mystery for me, they think, so why the angst, just relax and enjoy the ride. The truth is a treasure must be discovered dug out for ourselves, and when your will is to do the will of the Father then you will know, John 7:17

 

[SteveIndy]

I see.

How do you know you are accepted?

Because He promised and He cannot lie. He showed Himself to be God and to be true to His word, and I believe Him.

 

[Historical Christianity]

First, it needs to be stated that just because certain Bible character does something, this does not mean that God approves. For example, David prays that the heads of enemies' infants be dashed against rocks. Does God approve? I very much doubt it. So the mere fact that certain Bible characters engage in self-defence with weapons is not a particularly strong argument for using weapons in self-defence.

Second, we have Jesus’ declaration before Pilate that the reason His followers are not using force to rescue Him (Jesus) is because they are citizens of a new kingdom whose rules do not permit the use of violent force. This not exactly what Jesus says but it is certainly the inescapable implication. Jesus says that if His kingdom were like other earthly kingdoms, His followers would use force to rescue Him. But His is a different kingdom. Although people will play games and deny the obvious implication, it is clear that Jesus is effectively teaching us that it is in the very nature of being a citizen of Jesus’ kingdom that we reject the use of force.

We have no way of knowing whether God did or did not approve of this. All we have are the writings of ancient Israel, which tell us what these people believed. Torah shows plainly and repeatedly that they believed God told them to do equally heinous acts, including the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the entire population of Canaan: men, women, children, and animals. So yes, they believed their god approved of these actions, since he instructed them to do them.

No, that's not an obvious or inescapable implication. No one talked about weapons in an afterlife. Even for an apocalypse on earth, why would you need weapons when the only people left are the good people?

In the ANE, carrying a weapon was the norm. That's why it was noteworthy when Jesus told them not to take weapons or money on their first expedition. For the second, Jesus simply rescinded those prohibitions. At the very least, because he knew he wouldn't be with them, and they would have to manage on their own. The best argument is that in the ANE, a man would always defend himself. Only to do otherwise was noteworthy.

 

[Historical Christianity]

Not if what they say differs from the inspired declaration of God. The Bible is our standard against which everything is tested.

Then, you must reject Christianity, because that's exactly what Paul did. His ideas flatly contradicted Tanakh. That's why so few Jews became Christians.

 

[Historical Christianity]

a ploy to make Jesus appear to be a transgressor.

False. That would not make him appear to be a transgressor. He would appear to be an ordinary person in the ANE.