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

[SteveIndy]

No, I'm simply saying that's what some of the commentaries say.
I would think if your interpretation was as air tight as you claim...one of them would have mentioned it.
So, which one?

The commentaries you mention are all of the Reformed, Lutheran, or Arminian variety. What today's Christians fail to learn is that there was another Reformation that took place before and along side of the Protestant Reformation and it was the Radical Reformation. Both the Catholics and the Protestants were murdering these Radicals because they believed in believers baptism and a separation of Church and State, both of which have been adopted by the Protestant Church today. There are many writings of these Radicals that exist today but are nowhere acknowledged and they are still persecuted because they believe in the non-resistance of evil men. Jesus said that His followers would be a small flock, and Paul warns Timothy that "If you live righteously you will be persecuted." Where do we find that persecution today, only among the non-resistant believers, the Radicals.

Although Charles Spurgeon was a professed Calvinist he steadfastly rejected the use of weapons and violence, as did others like D.L. Moody, Leonard Ravenhill, and Reinhold Neibuhr. Spurgeon plainly and forthrightly spoke to the issue, as in the following quote.

“If there be anything clear in scripture, it does seem to me that it is for a Christian to have nothing to do with carnal weapons. And how it is that the great mass of Christendom does not see this, I cannot understand. Purely, it must be through the blinding influences of the society in which the Christian church is cast.” – Charles H. Spurgeon.

“Long have I held that war is an enormous crime; long have I regarded all battles as but murder on a large scale.” India's Ills and England's Sorrows, September 6, 1857

It is assumed by our critics that those who follow the teaching of Christ, on non-resistance to evil, are ignorant of the facts, but it appears to be just the opposite. The facts in the matter are clear and plain, and great effort must be applied to contort the words of Jesus to have Him say what He never said.

What part of “Turn the other cheek” don't you understand?

 

[expos4ever]

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

In a sense, neither your opinion nor mine matters.

Jesus, not me, is the one who says the 'get a sword' instruction fulfills the prophecy about being seen as a "transgressor".

Why can't people respect the scriptures?!

I am mystified that self-proclaimed Christians in this thread appear to think they get to tell Jesus He was mistaken. Jesus could not be more clear: the instruction to get the sword fulfills a prophecy that Jesus would be numbered with the transgressors. So even if you happen to believe getting the swords would achieve this, Jesus does.

 

[SteveIndy]

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.

Jesus' answer to the Jews of His day was that they were in error not knowing or understanding their own Bible because if they did understand then they would know that it spoke of Him. Paul had a revelation of the Holy Spirit which brought everything he had learned from his youth into perspective: his blindness was healed. His ideas did not contradict Moses his ideas exposed the eternal law of liberty, the royal law, and the law of love, which were hidden within those pages. Those Jews are still in darkness today, but soon the lights will come on for many of them..

 

[Historical Christianity]

What part of “Turn the other cheek” don't you understand?

I do understand it. It refers to insults. The context is extending the restriction on revenge placed by the eye-for-an-eye limitation. It forbids escalation. This and related passages are applications of the Hedge of Hillel. You are entitled to revenge but you can choose not to take it. The paragraph isn't about violence. You and others have written meanings into this texts not intended by its author.

 

[Historical Christianity]

Jesus' answer to the Jews of His day was that they were in error not knowing or understanding their own Bible because if they did understand then they would know that it spoke of Him. Paul had a revelation of the Holy Spirit which brought everything he had learned from his youth into perspective: his blindness was healed. His ideas did not contradict Moses his ideas exposed the eternal law of liberty, the royal law, and the law of love, which were hidden within those pages. Those Jews are still in darkness today, but soon the lights will come on for many of them..

Paul's ideas thoroughly contradicted the law of Moses. From your earlier reasoning, if God commanded the offering of sacrifices, and that's recorded in the Bible (Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible), and Paul says don't offer sacrifices, that blatantly contradicts Torah. Thus you shouldn't follow Paul. And if Paul followed your logic, then Paul would never have suggested not offering sacrifices. No amount of rationalizing can change that.

 

[Historical Christianity]

In a sense, neither your opinion nor mine matters.

Jesus, not me, is the one who says the 'get a sword' instruction fulfills the prophecy about being seen as a "transgressor".

Why can't people respect the scriptures?!

I am mystified that self-proclaimed Christians in this thread appear to think they get to tell Jesus He was mistaken. Jesus could not be more clear: the instruction to get the sword fulfills a prophecy that Jesus would be numbered with the transgressors. So even if you happen to believe getting the swords would achieve this, Jesus does.

I do respect them. That's why I work to understand them.
If you want to claim Jesus fulfilling that as a prophecy, then it's reasonable to cite his crucifixion alongside two ordinary criminals. But not that he or his disciples carried swords. The vast majority of people in the ANE who carried swords did so for defense. They were not transgressors. They were defending themselves against transgressors.

 

[SteveIndy]

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.

You make an implication of normally carrying weapons but deny the implication of the original poster. You cannot have it both ways. "That's why it was noteworthy when Jesus told them not to take weapons"; that is a gigantic leap of unbelief and conjecture when the following verse explains perfectly why Jesus permitted the carrying of weapons, it was to fulfill prophecy. He didn't rescind anything and He didn't have to be with them, He was God, or did you forget? And, if the best argument for carrying weapons is self-defense then why did Jesus rebuke Peter for even using the weapon and why do we not hear of any weapon use by His followers after this event, and why do we see all of the Apostles, except John, not defending themselves and following Jesus in His death, and why is the history of Christianity of the first three hundred years filled with the martyrdom of Christ's dedicated followers? The really simple answer is that they were following the Lamb in His example. You don't get this because it doesn't mesh with your intellectual approach to faith, but then, it isn't supposed to!

 

[SteveIndy]

I do respect them. That's why I work to understand them.
If you want to claim Jesus fulfilling that as a prophecy, then it's reasonable to cite his crucifixion alongside two ordinary criminals. But not that he or his disciples carried swords. The vast majority of people in the ANE who carried swords did so for defense. They were not transgressors. They were defending themselves against transgressors.

You do not work to understand, you work because you believe it is up to you to grasp the truth when our understanding is a gift as is everything we have in this life including the very air you breathe. The truth is you are an unbeliever just like Paul was before he became convinced through an act of God. Do you think you understand more and better than Paul? Give it up and repent, time is running out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

I was citing Ephesians and a bit of Matthew (Jesus' words...) when referring to apostles, evangelists, pastors, prophets, scribes, etc., so if Paul and Jesus said there is a Spirit led use for these kinds of leaders, then I'm not sure why we would ignore all that.

 

[SteveIndy]

Paul's ideas thoroughly contradicted the law of Moses. From your earlier reasoning, if God commanded the offering of sacrifices, and that's recorded in the Bible (Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible), and Paul says don't offer sacrifices, that blatantly contradicts Torah. Thus you shouldn't follow Paul. And if Paul followed your logic, then Paul would never have suggested not offering sacrifices. No amount of rationalizing can change that.

Are you really so shallow? Jesus abrogated the O.T. and issued a New last will and Testament, then the testator died and sealed the document with His blood. What this means is that the N.T. is the interpreter of the O.T. The riddle of the Old is solved in the New. Paul was contradicting Moses he was unwrapping the riddle which was fulfilled in Christ. No rationalizing is necessary, only belief.

 

[SteveIndy]

I was citing Ephesians and a bit of Matthew (Jesus' words...) when referring to apostles, evangelists, pastors, prophets, scribes, etc., so if Paul and Jesus said there is a Spirit led use for these kinds of leaders, then I'm not sure why we would ignore all that.

The Church today is the result of a small snowball rolling downhill for a few thousand years and along the way it has picked up all sorts of trash and what started out as pure is now corrupt and need to be trashed and rebuilt as Christ says, "Go and do your first works over again." The organized Church of today cannot be found in the N.T.; it has become a business with customers and advertising and marketing and building to lure in the weak minded. Yes, we need all the things you mention but we don't need the brass door signs of Deacon Jones, or Reverend Smith. Those things were not offices in the Church they were only words to identify the gift or calling of the bearer of the title.

 

[Historical Christianity]

... when the following verse explains perfectly why Jesus permitted the carrying of weapons, it was to fulfill prophecy. He didn't rescind anything and He didn't have to be with them, He was God, or did you forget? And, if the best argument for carrying weapons is self-defense then why did Jesus rebuke Peter for even using the weapon and why do we not hear of any weapon use by His followers after this event, and why do we see all of the Apostles, except John, not defending themselves and following Jesus in His death, and why is the history of Christianity of the first three hundred years filled with the martyrdom of Christ's dedicated followers? The really simple answer is that they were following the Lamb in His example. You don't get this because it doesn't mesh with your intellectual approach to faith, but then, it isn't supposed to!

Your explanation fails the test of Occam's Razor. The simpler, natural explanation was that carrying weapons was the norm, and that Jesus imposed only a one-time restriction on that. You don't see weapon use elsewhere because that's not the point of the story. Neither Paul nor the gospels are teaching pacifism.

The author of John shows Jesus in this section as knowing that he was going to be executed as part of a greater plan of God. Many aspects of the narrative in John show this. Here, he simply demands that Peter not interfere with that plan by use of the sword. That's the obvious explanation for this text, and it fits with everyone's doctrine but yours.

See this for a more objective assessment of the degree of martyrdom and persecution. The Myth of Persecution - Wikipedia

 

[Historical Christianity]

You do not work to understand, you work because you believe it is up to you to grasp the truth when our understanding is a gift as is everything we have in this life including the very air you breathe. The truth is you are an unbeliever just like Paul was before he became convinced through an act of God. Do you think you understand more and better than Paul? Give it up and repent, time is running out.

I resent your unfounded accusation and ad hominem attack.

Paul was fully aware that the ideas of Christianity contradicted Torah. That's presumably why Saul persecuted Christians. But he became convinced those ideas were true, even though they contradicted Torah.

 

[Historical Christianity]

Are you really so shallow? Jesus abrogated the O.T. and issued a New last will and Testament, then the testator died and sealed the document with His blood. What this means is that the N.T. is the interpreter of the O.T. The riddle of the Old is solved in the New. Paul was contradicting Moses he was unwrapping the riddle which was fulfilled in Christ. No rationalizing is necessary, only belief.

Rationalizing is precisely what you're doing. During his lifetime, Jesus fully supported, studied, taught, and obeyed Torah. He was never even accused of violating it. Other Pharisees argued with him, but only on subjects of interpretation on which the various sages held different interpretations. Is it lawful to do xxx on Sabbath? Some said yes, some said no. Jesus never suggested breaking Sabbath or kosher or not offering sacrifices. Not one jot or tittle.

But Paul said that the death of Jesus as the universal sacrifice changed things. He likely wasn't the first, but we have no earlier writings.

 

[SteveIndy]

Your explanation fails the test of Occam's Razor. The simpler, natural explanation was that carrying weapons was the norm, and that Jesus imposed only a one-time restriction on that. You don't see weapon use elsewhere because that's not the point of the story. Neither Paul nor the gospels are teaching pacifism.

The author of John shows Jesus in this section as knowing that he was going to be executed as part of a greater plan of God. Many aspects of the narrative in John show this. Here, he simply demands that Peter not interfere with that plan by use of the sword. That's the obvious explanation for this text, and it fits with everyone's doctrine but yours.

See this for a more objective assessment of the degree of martyrdom and persecution. The Myth of Persecution - Wikipedia

My friend, you are no Christian. And, your answer fails the test of faith in the very words of God. The simpler and natural explanation is to believe what is right in front of your eyes. You are an atheist masquerading as a Christian and your atheism is obvious. The lack of weapon use is the very point of the story, but you must start with and know the Spirit in which Christ speaks. And, in case you don't know, John is the author of John. Mr. Historical Christianity, you don't know squat about history or our Lord. Post all you like I cannot endure this anymore.

 

[SteveIndy]

Rationalizing is precisely what you're doing. During his lifetime, Jesus fully supported, studied, taught, and obeyed Torah. He was never even accused of violating it. Other Pharisees argued with him, but only on subjects of interpretation on which the various sages held different interpretations. Is it lawful to do xxx on Sabbath? Some said yes, some said no. Jesus never suggested breaking Sabbath or kosher or not offering sacrifices. Not one jot or tittle.

But Paul said that the death of Jesus as the universal sacrifice changed things. He likely wasn't the first, but we have no earlier writings.

I beg your pardon, Jesus regularly enraged the jews for His breaking of the Law, and the Jews demanded that, "We have a law and according to that law He must be executed." Most of the healings were done on the Sabbath along with working on the Sabbath.

 

[expos4ever]

I do respect them. That's why I work to understand them.
If you want to claim Jesus fulfilling that as a prophecy, then it's reasonable to cite his crucifixion alongside two ordinary criminals. But not that he or his disciples carried swords.

Are you serious?

I can read English prose.

Therefore, like anyone else who reads correctly, I understand that Jesus is saying that the reason for instruction to get the sword is that Jesus will be seen as a transgressor.

That is simply what the text says!

You are basically denying the plain words of Jesus!

What is the matter with people here?

 

[expos4ever]

There are only a handful of explanations I can think of to explain that people here deny the clear connection that Jesus draws between the provisioning instruction and the fulfillment of the "be numbered with transgressors" prophecy:

1. People cannot read English text;
2. People are being dishonest;
3. People are in denial.

Either way, I have had enough of the incredibly low calibre of discussion at this site. This is my last post at CF.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There are only a handful of explanations I can think of to explain that people here deny the clear connection that Jesus draws between the provisioning instruction and the fulfillment of the "be numbered with transgressors" prophecy:

1. People cannot read English text;
2. People are being dishonest;
3. People are in denial.

Either way, I have had enough of the incredibly low calibre of discussion at this site. This is my last post at CF.

E4E, I'm in your corner. Feel free to talk any time.

 

[GingerBeer]

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

Your reply does not give any evidence that you are accepted only a reference to promises that may apply to others. How do you know that you are accepted?