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

[expos4ever]

You have ignored verse 35 of Luke 22 which provides important context for understanding the verses which immediately follow it.

Luke 22:35-36
35 And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing."
36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

When we take these verses together it becomes plain that Jesus is explaining to the disciples that they were about to enter a new circumstance of living that would require the things they had before eschewed.

Maybe so, but Jesus still explains that the reason for the instruction was to fulfill a prophecy that Jesus be seen as a transgressor.

...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'

How is it that you are not effectively saying: "Jesus, you are wrong, you are not giving the instruction to fulfill a prophecy about being seen as a transgressor; instead, you are giving the instruction for another reason."

Here is the very real problem you face: Your take on this passage requires that you basically expunge this from the text:

For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'

"For" means "because", so there is no ambiguity - even if you believe otherwise, Jesus is giving the instructions to fulfill prophecy.

On the other hand, my interpretation - which is really just taking Jesus at His word - works in the context of the instruction to prepare for a journey. Here is how (I did not get into this earlier because I thought it would make my explanation too complex): Jesus says the instruction is given so that Jesus will be seen as a transgressor. If His followers continue on after Jesus' death walking around with swords, they will indeed be seen as followers of, yes, a transgressor. So we can take Jesus at his word that the instructions were intended to fulfill a prophecy about being seen as a transgressor even in the broader context of instructions to prepare for a journey. The key point is this: it is clearly the presence of the sword - not the money bag or knapsack that would make Jesus appear to be a transgressor. So it simply has to be the case that this is the reason for the sword. Perhaps that is not clear, I will think about reformulating later.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe so, but Jesus still explains that the reason for the instruction was to fulfill a prophecy that Jesus be seen as a transgressor.

...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'

How is it that you are not effectively saying: "Jesus, you are wrong, you are not giving the instruction to fulfill a prophecy about being seen as a transgressor; instead, you are giving the instruction for another reason."

Here is the very real problem you face: Your take on this passage requires that you basically expunge this from the text:

For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'

"For" means "because", so there is no ambiguity - even if you believe otherwise, Jesus is giving the instructions to fulfill prophecy.

On the other hand, my interpretation - which is really just taking Jesus at His word - works in the context of the instruction to prepare for a journey. Here is how (I did not get into this earlier because I thought it would make my explanation too complex): Jesus says the instruction is given so that Jesus will be seen as a transgressor. If His followers continue on after Jesus' death walking around with swords, they will indeed be seen as followers of, yes, a transgressor. So we can take Jesus at his word that the instructions were intended to fulfill a prophecy about being seen as a transgressor even in the broader context of instructions to prepare for a journey. The key point is this: it is clearly the presence of the sword - not the money bag or knapsack that would make Jesus appear to be a transgressor. So it simply has to be the case that this is the reason for the sword. Perhaps that is not clear, I will think about reformulating later.

In contrast to what some of the others are saying here, I actually agree with you on this; it's a fulfillment of prophecy, not a mandate for carrying a weapon. However, I do have my 'centurion arguments.'

 

[aiki]

Maybe so, but Jesus still explains that the reason for the instruction was to fulfill a prophecy that Jesus be seen as a transgressor.

No, he was, in quoting the prophecy of Isaiah, explaining to his disciples that their situation as his disciples was about to change. Hence, his advice to them to begin to take up the usual necessities of those who traveled. His death (being "numbered with the transgressors") would result in his eventual ascension again into heaven and the need for his disciples to provide for their needs (and defense) in the more mundane way any other traveler would.

...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'

How is it that you are not effectively saying: "Jesus, you are wrong, you are not giving the instruction to fulfill a prophecy about being seen as a transgressor; instead, you are giving the instruction for another reason."

I am not saying anything about Jesus being wrong; I am saying you are wrong. You are misrepresenting what Jesus is saying when he quotes from Isaiah 53. Being "numbered with the transgressors" was how Isaiah described an aspect of the death of Christ, not the reason for his arrest. This is glaringly obvious from the context of chapter 53. Remember, Christ was crucified - a death typically reserved for the very worst criminals (aka - transgressors). And he hung from his cross between two lawbreakers (aka - transgressors). He also took upon himself the guilt of the sin of all of us who are transgressors of God's law. Thus, He became a transgressor himself ("numbered with the transgressors") that he might cleanse and perfect all other transgressors. (2 Cor. 5:21)

On the other hand, my interpretation - which is really just taking Jesus at His word - works in the context of the instruction to prepare for a journey.

No, I don't think it does (see above). In fact, it seems rather eisegetical.

Jesus says the instruction is given so that Jesus will be seen as a transgressor.

And this is the very eisegesis I'm talking about. If you understood Isaiah 53 a little better, you would not be reading into Jesus' prophetic quotation the way you are.

Selah.

 

[expos4ever]

I am not saying anything about Jesus being wrong; I am saying you are wrong. You are misrepresenting what Jesus is saying when he quotes from Isaiah 53. Being "numbered with the transgressors" was how Isaiah described an aspect of the death of Christ,...

I will get back in more detail later. I really don't understand, however, how you justify effectively denying Jesus' clear statement that the reason for the sword (and all the other stuff) was to, yes, fulfill a prophecy about Jesus being numbered with transgressors. These are Jesus's words, not my "incorrect" interpretation:

...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'

I trust you understand that "for" means "because":

I will buy a coat, for it is going to be a cold winter

No rational person would say that I am claiming to get that coat for a reason other than what I claimed: that the winter is expected to be cold.

Yet you guys are doing the same thing here! Jesus tells us why the provisioning instruction was given!

Yes, it would make sense to give such a provisioning instruction in order to set the followers up for safe life on the road. But, if that were Jesus' intent, we would get this:

...whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37"For I tell you that you will face threats on the road.'

But Jesus doesn't say this, he says this:

...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'

It doesn't matter that the prophecy is also fulfilled in his death - it all part of one package - Jesus ending up on the cross as a "transgressor" obviously didn't happen out of the blue! He had to have been seen as such or He would never have gotten in trouble in the first place!

 

[expos4ever]

No, I don't think it does (see above). In fact, it seems rather eisegetical.

Please. I am simply quoting Jesus! That is precisely the opposite of eisegesis.

Eisegesis involves reading in stuff that isn't there. Like that the swords are for self-defence. That is clearly an inference. It seems like a reasonable inference but it is an inference at odds with what Jesus actually says. Again:

...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'

 

[expos4ever]

Here are the problems with argument that the “be numbered with transgressors prophecy refers solely to Jesus’ death and cannot be fulfilled by the instruction to get a sword” argument:

1. First, and stunningly obviously: Jesus says otherwise! He clearly says the provisioning instruction, including but not limited to the sword, fulfills the prophecy about being seen as a transgressor. That should end the discussion. Frankly, I cannot see how you guys are not telling Jesus that He is mistaken in connecting the provisioning instruction to the fulfillment of this “seen as a transgressor” prophecy.
   
   
2. Second, and more subtly, one cannot view Jesus death in isolation to the events that surrounded it. Jesus was not picked at random to go to the cross! He was seen as a trouble-maker and, yes, as a transgressor to Jewish law and to the general wish of the Romans to preserve order. So even though the Isaianic prophecy is given in an overall account of the death of the suffering servant, He wound up next to two other transgressors for a reason. So it is patently incorrect to try to argue that before the Cross, He was not “numbered with the transgressors”. He clearly was! He did not suddenly become seen as a transgressor on the Cross.
   

 

[expos4ever]

Being "numbered with the transgressors" was how Isaiah described an aspect of the death of Christ, not the reason for his arrest.

Would Jesus have been sent to the Cross if He had not:

1. Been perceived to have violated (transgressed) Jewish Law (e.g. threaten the Temple, heal on the Sabbath,..etc.)?
2. Been seen by the Romans as one who was threatened peace and good order and was, in that sense, someone who "transgressed" the Roman rules about keeping the peace?

The point is this: Jesus' status as a "transgressor" cannot, repeat cannot, have come into existence on the Cross. This is obvious - people are not sent to the cross based on picking names out of a hat.

 

[joshhuntnm]

I am not a gun guy, but Id say if someone is going to die, it ought to be the bad guy, not me.

 

[381465]

I'm not a bible scholar and this is a serious question.
Are there any scriptures indicating if the accusations, arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the sanhedrin. Pilate or Herod had any refrence to weapons?

I recall drunkeness, blasphemy and sedition, but nothing about weapons or violence.

I just think if the reference to being numbered with transgressors is undoubtedly linked to swords that the proceeding trial would have a reference to swords.

No snarky answers are appreciated.

 

[aiki]

Yes, it would make sense to give such a provisioning instruction in order to set the followers up for safe life on the road. But, if that were Jesus' intent, we would get this:

...whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37"For I tell you that you will face threats on the road.'

Not, as I've already pointed out, if one understands the reference Jesus makes to Isaiah's prophecy. You want to argue via a rather convoluted line of reasoning that Christ's reference to Isaiah's words was not only a reference to his soon-to-come death but to the need for his disciples to appear as a gang of lawbreakers. This does not handle Isaiah's prophecy well, nor does it make sense in light of Christ's contrast between the past and future that he makes in the passage in question. When one takes verse 35 into account, it is clear Christ is not talking to his disciples about play-acting as thugs so he can be arrested, but explaining to them that their future as itinerant disciples will differ significantly from how things were for them in the past. And the reason for this difference is explained by Christ by quoting Isaiah's prophecy of atoning death (NOT arrest).

But Jesus doesn't say this, he says this:

...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'

It doesn't matter that the prophecy is also fulfilled in his death - it all part of one package - Jesus ending up on the cross as a "transgressor" obviously didn't happen out of the blue! He had to have been seen as such or He would never have gotten in trouble in the first place!

But if Christ intended to communicate what you're arguing for, then he would have been guilty of misusing Isaiah's prophecy, too. In the context of Isaiah 53, "numbered with the transgressors" is very obviously a reference to the things I mentioned in my last post, not to a tricky maneuver Christ had to employ to manipulate the Jews into arresting him. Besides, the Jewish leaders had no need for further provocation from Christ in order to arrest him in Gethsemane. Christ's disciples carrying swords would do nothing to further the fulfillment of biblical prophecy concerning his death. And no where in Scripture do you read of the Pharisees referring to such a thing as the cause of his arrest and/or of their demands for his execution.

Selah.

 

[expos4ever]

I'm not a bible scholar and this is a serious question.
Are there any scriptures indicating if the accusations, arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the sanhedrin. Pilate or Herod had any refrence to weapons?

I recall drunkeness, blasphemy and sedition, but nothing about weapons or violence.

I just think if the reference to being numbered with transgressors is undoubtedly linked to swords that the proceeding trial would have a reference to swords.

No snarky answers are appreciated.

I am confident there are no references to swords at any of the proceedings against Jesus. But silence on this issue is not very conclusive - it would be very unrealistic to presume that the gospels would capture all the details.

In a sense, though, my point remains what it has been from the start. Regardless of what we think makes sense, there is simply no question: Jesus explains the provisioning instruction (including the swords) as fulfillment of a prophecy that Jesus would be numbered with transgressors. So, if we take the Scripture seriously, this settles the matter. Strange as it may seem to us, and even in the absence of the corroborating evidence you ask about, we should take Jesus at his words.

 

[danstribe]

You are aware, I assume, that the Old Testament has God ordering complete genocides - men, women, children. And consider this from Numbers 20:

When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. 14 Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you.

You think that God - and more specifically God as we see revealed in Jesus of Nazareth - is really OK with slaughtering men and taking women and children as "booty"?

I do not say this to be antagonistic, but I really am looking forward to how you will answer this question - I cannot possibly imagine how you (or anyone) would justify this. But I will, of course, let you speak for yourself.

These verses in the OT are certainly valid for the time they were ordered, but after Christ no such commands are given to humans again. The children of Israel were given the land, told to cleanse it of idol worshipers and show the world the way to the only true God....they failed to follow God's instructions. Now we have God's instructions to follow through Christ by faith. If you read Revelation you will find that God again commands full and complete force to cleanse the world of all idol worship and false gods only this time it will be carried out by His Son and His Holy Angels.

 

[noam burde]

I agree that the commandment is "do not murder", not "do not kill". But it doesn't logically follow that its Ok to kill "with justification".

It may be OK to kill in certain cases, but one can certainly not draw that inference from the absence of a command that forbids killing in any circumstance.

There is no command to not ridicule fat people, but that does not mean its OK to ridicule them.

why else would he make this distinction?.
you can see any human society cant survive in a pacifist way.
a minority inside a country like Amish in the US can. but that just because they enjoy the protection and the functioning country created by it. that the rest of the people around them created. and than label them sinners for that. its like poisoning the well you drink from.
so the whole idea is against common sense. and I do believe God want us be reasonable. as he is using reasons for everything he says and does. so he wouldn't ask to do something that don't make sense.

 

[aiki]

Would Jesus have been sent to the Cross if He had not:

1. Been perceived to have violated (transgressed) Jewish Law (e.g. threaten the Temple, heal on the Sabbath,..etc.)?

We know from the Gospel accounts that Jesus was railroaded to the cross because he threatened the power and authority of the Pharisees and was frequently humiliating them in public. Their desire to kill Christ was not motivated by genuine religious legal concerns but by political and self-centered ones (hence the Pharisees conspiring with the Herodians - a political group - about how to kill Jesus). Christ knew in Gethsemane that his death was near; he knew the Pharisees were sufficiently in a lather already to want to kill him. Having his disciples fetch swords in order to provoke his arrest would have been a kind of bizarre "gilding of the lily," a totally unnecessary tactic.

Would Jesus have been sent to the Cross if He had not:

...2. Been seen by the Romans as one who was threatened peace and good order and was, in that sense, someone who "transgressed" the Roman rules about keeping the peace?

I'm afraid this is an obvious stretching of the facts to make your point. As a representative of the Roman government, Pilate found no transgression of Roman rule when he examined Jesus. He even clearly declared, "I find no fault in him." (Lu. 23:4; Jn. 18:38)

The point is this: Jesus' status as a "transgressor" cannot, repeat cannot, have come into existence on the Cross. This is obvious - people are not sent to the cross based on picking names out of a hat.

Jesus was not ultimately sent to the cross by the Pharisees - or any human agency. He willing laid down his life as the prophesied "lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

John 10:17-18
17 Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.
18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."

Christ was on the cross ultimately as a consequence of God's will, not the maneuvering and hatred of the Pharisees. And insofar as God was concerned, it was only on the cross that Jesus was "numbered with the transgressors"; for it was only when Christ hung on the cross that he "made intercession for the transgressors," as Isaiah prophesied, by "being made sin for us who knew no sin" (aka - a transgressor). When one reads Isaiah, there is certainly no sense whatever in his prophecy of the kind of manipulation you think Christ's quotation of Isaiah was meant to communicate to his disciples.

Selah.

 

[1213]

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

I think this is the best way:

But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and don't turn away him who desires to borrow from you.
Matt. 5:39-42

Not easy, and I think self-defense is not bad, but it is not the best way.

 

[expos4ever]

Not, as I've already pointed out, if one understands the reference Jesus makes to Isaiah's prophecy. You want to argue via a rather convoluted line of reasoning that Christ's reference to Isaiah's words was not only a reference to his soon-to-come death but to the need for his disciples to appear as a gang of lawbreakers. This does not handle Isaiah's prophecy well, nor does it make sense in light of Christ's contrast between the past and future that he makes in the passage in question.

Please complete this sentence: When Jesus explains that the provisioning instruction is given to fulfill the prophecy that Jesus be seen a as a transgressor, we need not take Him at his word because ____________________________________________.

I don't want to "spike the football" but I suggest you will simply not be able to complete this sentence. Can you see how, all other considerations aside, you are denying a clear claim made by Jesus?

I have tried to argue that one cannot isolate Jesus' status as transgressor to the events on Good Friday. With all respect, this should be obvious - in order to be "numbered with the other two transgressors" on the cross, Jesus would most certainly have to been deemed to be a transgressor before the moment of his crucifixion. I simply do not see how this can counter-argued.

Yes, Jesus does draw the contrast between past and future, and yes your take on it is plausible in the absence of other information. But we have other information. And it is this:

...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'

Here is the difference between our respective positions as I see it:

1. Your explanation is plausible in the sense that it could be the case that Jesus is giving the provisioning instruction for the reason you cite. Obviously I am not going to repeat your argument for you. But it certainly is plausible, in the absence of other information. However, your explanations forces you to dismiss Jesus' claim that, in giving the instruction, He is fulfilling the prophecy about transgressing. I don't believe you have explained this rather obvious difficulty.

2. My explanation first and foremost simply takes Jesus at His word! Unless there is a translation issue, there is no getting around the stark fact that Jesus explains the provisioning instruction as fulfillment of the "transgressor" prophecy. So even if you and others insist this prophecy is restricted to the cross, Jesus clearly thinks otherwise. But my position also works with the "past and future" dimension of the broader text. Jesus knows, I suggest, that if His followers will be seen carrying swords as they go about after His death, this will obviously contribute to Jesus being seen as a transgressor.

I suggest that my explanation works with all the data we have and, unlike yours, does not require us to ignore a patently clear assertion by Jesus.

 

[expos4ever]

You want to argue via a rather convoluted line of reasoning that Christ's reference to Isaiah's words was not only a reference to his soon-to-come death but to the need for his disciples to appear as a gang of lawbreakers.

At the end of the day, it is Jesus you are arguing with. Who said this, me or Jesus of Nazareth?:

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. 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.”

Can you explain to us linguistically how this can be read as anything other than a clear assertion that the provisioning instruction fulfills the transgressor prophecy? I am mystified that you and others do not recognize how this statement by Jesus cannot be reconciled with your position. Sure, your position makes sense given other things in the broader passage. But I suggest your take cannot survive these simple, clear words of Jesus.

To the specifics of what you have posted above: I have pointed out that Jesus's status at the cross (crucified with transgressors) cannot be decoupled from His more general status of being seen as a "transgressor". So it's not an either/or - Jesus was clearly "numbered with transgressors" in the days leading up to the crucifixion as he increasingly was seen as a threat to the Jewish status quo. I cannot imagine how you will dispute this.

 

[expos4ever]

I will not debate further with anyone who will not complete this sentence:

When Jesus says this: "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. 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", He is telling us that ________________________________.

Please no cheating by erasing the word "for" - that key word clearly connects the provisioning instruction to "be seen as a transgressor" prophecy.

It certainly seems to me that you are doing the hokey-pokey around these very particular words.

Yes, it's fine to talk about the particulars of the Isaiah 53 prophecy.
Yes, it's OK to introduce the "past" vs "future" dimension of Jesus' broader statement.

But you must, repeat must, be able to give a coherent ending to the open-ended sentence above to retain any credibility (assuming you are not arguing that there has been a translation error).

 

[expos4ever]

Jesus was not ultimately sent to the cross by the Pharisees - or any human agency. He willing laid down his life as the prophesied "lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

I am not sure you are being honest since this answer clearly evades the force of an argument that is, frankly, irrefutable. Jesus was obviously seen as a "transgressor" before He went to the cross, notwithstanding the other things you say in your post. It is all over the gospel accounts!! Do I need to list all the claims the Pharisees made against Jesus?

 

[SteveIndy]

Why do you think Jesus said the following?
Luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

Please don't quote Jesus' words out of context.

36 Then He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money-bag should take it, and also a traveling bag. And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one. 37 For I tell you, what is written must be fulfilled in Me: And He was counted among the outlaws. Yes, what is written about Me is coming to its fulfillment.”

Jesus plainly states the purpose of the swords and it wasn't for self-protection. Anyway, what good would only two swords do except to fulfill the prophecy? Immediately we find Jesus with His disciples in the Garden and Peter attacking the High Priest servant; prophecy fulfilled.