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

[real tree]

Do whatever you believe is right, according to the Word.

With every post you create I grow wiser and wiser.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Who defended Y'SHUA ?

 

[real tree]

This keeps being used as an argument for self-defence, but I think it does not work. Please excuse the length of what follows but I want to be thorough.

The following text, from Luke 22, is often used to support the right to bear arms:

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." 38They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

Obviously a “superficial” reading suggests that Jesus is advocating the “right” to carry a weapon. However, the fact that such a reading is deeply at odds with other things Jesus teaches should be a tip-off that things are not as they appear. And indeed, such is the case here. When this text is understood in broader context, we realize that Jesus is not making any kind of a case for the right to bear arms (swords or otherwise).

In order to arrive at the correct interpretation, we really need to step back and ask ourselves what Jesus’ larger purpose was in this dialogue. Note the connective “for” at the beginning of verse 37. It suggests that the material which follows is an explanation or amplification on the point just made – that the followers of Jesus are to sell their coats and buy a sword. So what is Jesus’ larger purpose?

It is that He been seen as a transgressor. Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him. Of course, appearing as part of an armed band would be precisely the ideal scenario to ensure Jesus’ arrest. Remember the “for” at the beginning of verse 37. If we are to be careful students of what Jesus is saying, we need to take seriously what Jesus says in verses 37 and 38 as qualifying and explaining his statement about buying a sword. We cannot simply gloss the text and conclude “Look, Jesus is making some kind of general statement about the right to self-defence with weapons”.

In fact, this very specific focus on the intent to be seen as a transgressor is powerfully sustained by Jesus’ statement that there is prophecy that He (Jesus) must be seen as a transgressor.

Remember the incident in the temple with Jesus overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers. This is not, as many people think, merely a repudiation of the sin of materialism. It is also a shrewd provocation on the part of Jesus. By creating a ruckus in the temple, He is forcing the hand of the Jewish leaders – they cannot allow such behaviour, Jesus must be arrested soon.

This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says “It is enough.” Obviously, if Jesus ever intended for the disciples to use the swords, two swords would not be nearly enough in any kind of armed action. But it’s enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus appear to be participating in a violent revolutionary movement of some kind.

Unlike the “Jesus is supporting the right to bear arms” interpretation, note how the above interpretation makes sense of the entire account. If Jesus was really making some general statement about a “right to bear arms”, how exactly does that contribute to His being numbered with transgressors? And how does that make sense of the limit of two swords? Such a “right to bear arms” interpretation makes sense of neither. So it is almost certainly an incorrect interpretation of Jesus’ statement about buying a couple of swords.

 

[real tree]

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.

You have not proven anything.

 

[real tree]

I am sure lurkers and others are interested in how you explain that Jesus connects the sword instruction to a particular prophecy about Jesus being seen as a transgressor.

So please, forget sending us to commentaries; explain this connection to fulfilled prophecy in your own words.

Why do you keep on saying that Jesus pretended to be a thug.

 

[real tree]

I have explained this many times. It's not rocket science. If Jesus's followers walk around as an armed group, He, as their clear leader will most certainly be seen as a transgressor.

Please answer post 98.

He was pretending to be a criminal, lunacy.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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

Have you not read Foxes Book of Martyrs (free online several places).
True testimonies of believers martyred through the centuries,
willingly dying for their faith, instead of even considering denying their faith in Jesus.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why is this topic so bothersome to some folks?

This is basically 'classified' information - everyone may freely disclose why about themselves, but cannot as if for anyone else. (at least usually, it seems)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

He, as their clear leader will most certainly be seen as a transgressor.

Sorry about this slip-up on your part.
Jesus was already considered a transgressor, an alcoholic, crazy, and worse, BEFORE anything to do with the sword....
as clearly written in Scripture.

 

[real tree]

Have you not read Foxes Book of Martyrs (free online several places).
True testimonies of believers martyred through the centuries,
willingly dying for their faith, instead of even considering denying their faith in Jesus.

You want to be a Martyr go to Iran and do some missionary work, so how strong of a Christian you actually are.

 

[real tree]

You want to be a Martyr go to Iran and do some missionary work, so how strong of a Christian you actually are.

I guess the life of a hard criminal is more of value to you than the victim.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You want to be a Martyr go to Iran and do some missionary work, so how strong of a Christian you actually are.

I guess the life of a hard criminal is more of value to you than the victim.

I think that YHWH'S Blessing of martyrs is much more to be desired than what He does to mockers. A lot is written about both.

 

[real tree]

I think that YHWH'S Blessing of martyrs is much more to be desired than what He does to mockers. A lot is written about both.

Wow how dare I disagree with you. I am so sorry. Shame on me.

 

[real tree]

No mocking here, I know that you know it all, self righteous and pure. By the way what do you think of the MOAB.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Have you not read Foxes Book of Martyrs (free online several places).
True testimonies of believers martyred through the centuries,
willingly dying for their faith, instead of even considering denying their faith in Jesus.

Hello and thank you for your reply. I have not read that particular book. Thank you for the suggestion.

Dying for jesus - martyrdom - is one thing.

If someone said to me that if i did not reject Jesus or His doctrine he would kill me. I would choose to be murdered than to reject the beauty and saving grace of Jesus - i hope i have the strength to do so and its in Gods will - and I would recommend the same for others.

Sidenote.
Did Peters rejection of christ demand martyrdom?

No. Peter was to play a vital role for Jesus in establishing the church and for leadership. This is not to say Peter was correct or incorrect for doing so. This is between him or you and God.

Steven was the first martyr and was condemned by the law of the land. Paul similarly put himself at the mercy of the courts where he was at the time.

It is unlawful to kill someone outside of justice and the law of your land.

I dont want to kill anyone and would seek any other means to avoid that or do harm to others.

Outside of martyrdom, if the situation presented it self that no matter what i did, someone was going to kill me. No matter how hard i tried, a thief or a murderer was going to end my life. I would kill in self defense or defend myself.

If my family members were to suffer a similar fate one could argue that not doing anything might be cowardice.

Again i do not want to do harm to anyone. Pacifism is not a christian teaching. We are to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us. It does not say allow your enemies to murder you.

Jesus said sell your garments and get a sword. I have read in this thread some who say this is not in context with self defense. Please correct me if im wrong, Christians prior to the 20th and 21st century knew otherwise.

I would recommend reading matthew henry on this. What we choose to do in this life is going to be judged by God, Who is perfect and just.

I am not satisfied that it is a christian teaching to allow a thief or stranger to murder you. We are told to adhear to governments and laws - martyrdom - but that is the only exception i see.

Thank you reading and may God bless you through Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit.

 

[real tree]

Denial is fascinating. We see it here. The text tells us why Jesus ordered the swords. So that a prophecy about Jesus being seen as a transgressor will be fulfilled.

This is a fact.

It is not open to debate.

It is not a fact and apparently it is open for debate.

 

[SteveIndy]

Where in the new testament does it say christians can not work in positions such as police military or government.

"You cannot serve two masters" and "do not swear at all by heaven or by earth..." Every politician has to take an oath to abide by the will of the majority and by the constitution. There, that was simple.

 

[SteveIndy]

Jesus didn't defend himself because he had to die in order for prophecy to be fulfilled.

Did the Apostles have to die to fulfill prophecy?

 

[real tree]

"You cannot serve two masters" and "do not swear at all by heaven or by earth..." Every politician has to take an oath to abide by the will of the majority and by the constitution. There, that was simple.

Again where does it say they can not serve in these roles. God does not have different laws for believers and non believers.

Upon whose authority does government exist?

A. Paul makes it very clear that governments exist by the authority of God - Romans 13:1-2

B. To argue that a Christian may not serve in government is to argue that government offices violate the will of God.

C. Though Matthew left his job as a tax collector to follow Jesus, other tax collectors remained in their position.

1. Zacchaeus was a head tax collector - Luke 19:2

2. Zacchaeus repented of his sinful ways, but there is no indication that he left his job - Luke 19:8-10

3.The tax collector was praised for his humility - Luke 18:13-14

D. Paul sent greetings from Christians in Caesar’s household - Philippians 4:22

1. According to William Barclay, the phrase does not mean those who were kin to Caesar. Caesar’s household was the imperial civil service with members throughout the world. The palace officials, secretaries, revenue officials, and administrators were all members of Caesar’s household.

E. Recall the occupation of the Ethiopian eunuch - Acts 8:27

1. Again there is no indication that eunuch was required to leave his position to become a child of God.

2. Another treasurer was Erastus - Romans 16:23

III. What about positions that might involve killing?

A. Once again, Paul states that governments were granted the right of enforcement -Romans 13:4

1. True, vengeance belongs to God - Romans 12:19

2. But government does not take its own vengeance, it was granted this authority by God.

a. Albert Barnes once said, “When a magistrate inflicts punishment on the guilty, it is to be regarded as the act of God taking vengeance on him; and on this principle alone is it right for a judge to condemn a man to death. It is not because one man has by nature the right over the life of another, or because society has any right collectively which it does not as individuals; but because God gave life, and because he has chosen to take it away when a crime is committed, by the appointment of magistrates, and not by coming forth himself visibly to execute the laws.”

b. It is a requirement of the covenant with Noah - Genesis 9:5-6

3. Jesus in his discussion with Pilate confirmed this - John 19:10-11

4. Peter also states that governments exist to punish the wicked - I Peter 2:14

B. Again, we find examples of people in punitive occupations

1. John’s instructions for repentance - Luke 3:7-14

a. Again notice that John did not include tax collectors or soldiers leaving their occupation to show proper repentance from sin.

2. Cornelius was described as a godfearing man while serving as soldier - Acts 10:1-2

a. True, at that time he was not saved, but nothing indicates that he left his position after becoming a Christian.

3. The jailer in Philippi retained his position after his conversion - Acts 16:35-36

 

[real tree]

Did the Apostles have to die to fulfill prophecy?

If you feel that anyone should be able to what ever they want to you and you should do nothing to defend yourself go for it. There is a huge difference between between a smite on a cheek than there is being stabbed, shot, beheaded ETC. I will take precautions to protect myself and the innocent ole righteous one.