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

[GingerBeer]

Yes, I have. I served two years in Vietnam before discovering the truth, and like David, I have killed, cheated, lied, and deserve to go to Hell. For all of these reasons I have thrown myself on the mercy of the Cross and have been accepted.

I see.

How do you know you are accepted?

 

[expos4ever]

When I was drafted, I took a day off work to see if I could find a biblical justification for pacifism. I could not.

But I just provided one.

Jesus explains the non-violent response of His followers by explaining that they were citizens of a new kingdom where the conventional principles of using force in the defence of the innocent do not apply.

Jesus is clearly saying "If my kingdom were like all normal earthly Kingdoms, my followers would be fighting; but mine is a different kind of Kingdom".

And by obvious implication, the citizens of this new Kingdom do not take up arms as would the citizens of a "this-worldly" kingdom.

I do not see how Jesus' teaching in John 18 can be read any other way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

2PV (is this how people refer to other commenters here?)

Not specifically. I just like to abbreviate; and I don't mind if people do the same to me in return.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[aiki]

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

The whole central thrust of my comments to you has been that Christ's words to his disciples in Luke 22:35-38 are not at all concerned with your odd notion that he appear to those about to arrest him in Gethsemane as a criminal in need of arresting. I don't concede at all what you think is self-evident, so finishing the sentence you've constructed above is, to me, rather silly. It is not "taking Jesus at his word" when you twist the quotation from Isaiah that Jesus gives to his disciples to make it fit your preconceived ideas about pacifism. As I have taken pains to explain to you, in quoting Isaiah, Jesus never intended to communicate to his disciples what you contend he was. I have already offered my reasons as to why in earlier posts.

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?

While this makes me want to chuckle it also concerns me how thoroughly you've blinded yourself to the actual meaning of Christ's words. If you feel the need to spike something, feel free. But you won't, to use your analogy, be doing so in my end zone, but your own. It is an...interesting rhetorical maneuver to carry on as though it is so evident that your position is also Christ's that any opposition to your view is tantamount to being at odds with him, too. But a rhetorical maneuver is all this is. It is not, in fact, at all obvious that the way you have stretched Christ's meaning in his comments to his disciples is legitimate or warranted. And your camping on the word "for" does nothing, really, to aid your case. In fact, in verse 37 where Christ explains his purpose in referring to Isaiah's prophecy, he says quite plainly, "For the things concerning me have an end" - which is exactly what Isaiah was going on about in Isaiah chapter 53. From this we understand that Christ was thinking of his coming crucifixion and his departure from his disciples, not how best to get himself arrested. And this means that Christ was, indeed, implying that self-defense with a sword was perfectly all right.

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.

This is the whole crux of our disagreement. The issue isn't one of translation but of interpretation. You're playing a bit fast-and-loose with Christ's words and I'm simply pointing this out. It seems quite obvious - as I've explained - that Jesus' words have nothing to do with getting himself seen as a transgressor in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. As I've already explained quite well, Isaiah's prophecy was not about Jesus' arrest but his death.

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".

What "general status"? Seen by whom as a transgressor? A transgressor of what, exactly? To answer these questions, to understand what Jesus intended when he quoted Isaiah, we have to understand what Isaiah wrote. And when one looks at Isaiah 53 they see that the prophet was occupied with describing the manner of Jesus' death. Isaiah says not one word about Jesus' arrest. In whose eyes was Jesus seen as a transgressor? Does Isaiah identify the Pharisees as the ones regarding Christ as a transgressor? No. Particularly in the last half of Isaiah 53, the prophet speaks of God's view of Christ as he served as the atonement for our sins:

Isaiah 53:10-12
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors.

In the above passage, Isaiah was speaking entirely about God and His attitude and actions toward Jesus as Jesus atoned for our sin. No mention of Pharisees at all by Isaiah. No mention of arrests, either. So, when you come to the instance in Luke 22 where Jesus quotes Isaiah's words above, it is a contortion or a stretching of Isaiah's words to say they referred to Christ being seen and arrested as a transgressor, and a further contortion/stretching of Christ's words to assert this is how he was employing Isaiah's prophecy. I don't, therefore, think you have any cause at all to reject Christ's words to his disciples to arm themselves with swords as his tacit approval of them defending themselves.

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.

See above.

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 ________________________________.

See above (and my last few posts).

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

Sure it does. But not in the way you contend it does.

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

Not at all. I have not had to resort at any point to any hokey-pokey in making my case for what Christ meant in Luke 22:35-37. Really, I think the "hokey-pokey" is all on your side. See above.

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).

I have explained now several times what Jesus meant by what he said in Luke 22:35-37. Finishing your sentence is just a rather silly maneuver by which you are trying to control the flow of our discussion and assert a sort of dominant position in our interaction. I'm not going to oblige.

I am not sure you are being honest since this answer clearly evades the force of an argument that is, frankly, irrefutable.

As I think my comments demonstrate, it is not anywhere near "irrefutable."

Jesus was obviously seen as a "transgressor" before He went to the cross

So? See above.

Selah.

 

[expos4ever]

The whole central thrust of my comments to you has been that Christ's words to his disciples in Luke 22:35-38 are not at all concerned with your odd notion that he appear to those about to arrest him in Gethsemane as a criminal in need of arresting. I don't concede at all what you think is self-evident, so finishing the sentence you've constructed above is, to me, rather silly.

So you are telling us you are unwilling to complete a well-framed, perfectly coherent request? This speaks volumes. You cannot argue that my request is ill-posed or otherwise legitimate.

Jesus says something - He says that the provisioning instruction is given to fulfill a prophecy about Jesus being numbered with transgressors.

This is an indisputable fact.

My request is therefore clearly legitimate: I simply ask you to explain why we should not believe what He said, since you have clearly denied what Jesus unambiguously claims: that fulfillment of the "transgressor" prophecy was the motive for the provisioning instruction.

You may have all sorts of reasonable arguments, but you must, repeat must, answer a well-posed question in order to participate in proper debate. Evasion is not an option for a serious debater.

Do you deny that Jesus explains the provisioning instruction as fulfilling the transgressor prophecy? How can you possibly answer "yes", since the text reads unambiguously to the effect that He does.

So since Jesus is indeed saying this, you either accept Him at His word or you don't. Since you don't, you need to provide a credible explanation as to why Jesus would connect the provisioning to the prophecy if that were not the case.

If you do not address this in your next response to me, I will place you on ignore.

 

[aiki]

So you are telling us you are unwilling to complete a well-framed, perfectly coherent request? This speaks volumes. You cannot argue that my request is ill-posed or otherwise legitimate.

I already explained why I am not going to let you dictate the course of our discussion by this maneuver. If you cannot have this discussion without your hoop being jumped through, well, that's "speaks volumes," too. And I most certainly can argue against your request as illegitimate and manipulative. That you are asserting that I cannot further attests to my observation that you are trying to exert control over my side of the discussion we're having. Please understand: I'm not going to let you (or anyone else) dictate how I will argue.

Jesus says something - He says that the provisioning instruction is given to fulfill a prophecy about Jesus being numbered with transgressors.

No, Jesus was advising his disciples to equip themselves with clothing, sandals and swords, etc. as they continued to labor as the establishers of the Early Church because he was about to leave them (first by crucifixion and then by his ascension into heaven) and with his departure would come an end to the sort of supernatural supply they had been enjoying. This is what is clearly and easily discerned in Jesus' comments to his disciples and in his quotation of Isaiah.

You may have all sorts of reasonable arguments, but you must, repeat must, answer a well-posed question in order to participate in proper debate. Evasion is not an option for a serious debater.

I have not evaded. I have submitted a counter perspective to your own which you will not accept.

Do you deny that Jesus explains the provisioning instruction as fulfilling the transgressor prophecy? How can you possibly answer "yes", since the text reads unambiguously to the effect that He does.

Why pose a question to me when you intend to answer it for me? In any case, I deny that your take on what Jesus meant by his reference to Isaiah's prophecy is true. See above.

So since Jesus is indeed saying this,

In your (mistaken) opinion.

you either accept Him at His word or you don't.

I do accept him at his word - just not after its been filtered through your pacifistic ideas.

If you do not address in your next response to me, I will place you on ignore.

Ah, the "ignore" button. The final refuge of the defeated arguer.

Selah.

 

[SteveIndy]

HC, I don't think you have to know XenForo to know that we can many times discern the meaning of various texts in the Bible using our God-given intelligence (which Steve said is a "dangerous thing").

Granted, we can't discern the meaning of all the biblical text, but we can be aware of our reading and notice that there may be contexts and intertextual considerations to account for.

We can only have proper discernment when we have an understanding of the Biblical text and we cannot have an understanding of the Biblical text unless we are filled with the Holy Spirit at which time understanding becomes a revelation from God. Paul understood the problem of leaning on our own understanding and cautioned against it as did Solomon.

 

[expos4ever]

Is anyone who believes that Jesus's "get a sword" instruction from Luke 22 has to do with self-defence going to deal with post 98?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We can only have proper discernment when we have an understanding of the Biblical text and we cannot have an understanding of the Biblical text unless we are filled with the Holy Spirit at which time understanding becomes a revelation from God. Paul understood the problem of leaning on our own understanding and cautioned against it as did Solomon.

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?

 

[Historical Christianity]

Jesus is clearly saying "If my kingdom were like all normal earthly Kingdoms, my followers would be fighting; but mine is a different kind of Kingdom".

And by obvious implication, the citizens of this new Kingdom do not take up arms as would the citizens of a "this-worldly" kingdom.

I do not see how Jesus' teaching in John 18 can be read any other way.

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.

 

[BukiRob]

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?

Nope, no issue at all. There is absolutely nothing in scripture that even begins to suggest that there is anything wrong at all with self-defense.

The commandment is to not commit murder.

You're mixing a spiritual reality with something Yeshua is not speaking about.

No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his friends. He was speaking of his own sacrificial death to break the power of the wages of sin over mankind.

The verse about losing your life... The old man/self MUST DIE. Romans tells us that we are a new creation and that we are buried with Messiah. He is speaking about spiritual truths not physical things

 

[expos4ever]

A sad and familiar pattern has recurred in this thread. Here is the pattern:

1. I point out that Jesus or Paul says or writes statement X, and that X unambiguously supports position Y;
2. I challenge people who disbelieve position Y to explain why X is there in Scripture if Y is in fact false, as the challengers believe;
3. The challengers engage in a complex set of evasions during which they construct all sorts of arguments attacking position Y. Some of these arguments in and of themselves have merit but the relevant point is that the challengers simply refuse to offer an explanation for the existence of statement X.

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.

And, obviously, in so doing, they are implicitly denying the words of our Lord. I am, frankly, fascinated by the psychology of this. People are not dumb. People can read. And so people know that Jesus makes the connection he makes.

And yet they believe they don't need to deal with that.

Another example: In Romans 2:6-7, Paul clearly says that eternal life is granted according to the quality of our lives. This is clear and indisputable. And yet many people refuse to actually explain why Paul would make a statement endorsing "salvation by good works", if he believed otherwise. The most common technique is to refer to statements Jesus makes about "salvation by faith".

Fair enough, but that does not relieve them of the obligation to explain why Paul writes what he writes in Romans 2:6-7.

 

[expos4ever]

deleted own post.

 

[Historical Christianity]

1. I point out that Jesus or Paul says or writes statement X, and that X unambiguously supports position Y;
2. I challenge people who disbelieve position Y to explain why X is there in Scripture if Y is in fact false, as the challengers believe;
3. The challengers engage in a complex set of evasions during which they construct all sorts of arguments attacking position Y. Some of these arguments in and of themselves have merit but the relevant point is that the challengers simply refuse to offer an explanation for the existence of statement X.

1. Sometimes that 'support' is not unambiguous.
2 and 3. In all cases, an idea appears in a biblical text because the author believes it to be true, or he's presenting the idea (or a caricature of the idea) in order to then refute it. Conflicting ideas exist in biblical texts simply because different people have different ideas. If I say something in a forest with no woman present, is it still wrong?

 

[Historical Christianity]

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

Thanks for citing the comment number! That made it easy to find.

Mark 15:28 is not found in the earliest or best manuscripts. Whoever inserted it seems to be saying also that to defend Jesus and prevent his execution would hinder his destiny.

And yes, the author of Luke thinks Isaiah 53 is talking about Jesus, whereas the text itself shows clearly that it's talking about Israel. That's in the context, and consistent with all the books of Isaiah.

 

[Historical Christianity]

aiki makes many good points in comment #164 above. Christian publishers capitalize pronouns when their doctrine dictates that the author is talking about Jesus. That's blatant interpretation, and has no place in honest translation.

Even if you pretend Isaiah is talking about Jesus, numbered with the transgressors would likely mean nothing more than that he was executed by Rome by a method they reserved for slaves, pirates, enemies of the state, or as a way to declare a person of a low class. The gospel narratives show him accused of being a Zealot but declared innocent of that charge. A Roman governor would not hesitate to execute someone to prevent a riot (as the narratives portray), but they typically would not use crucifixion for that.

The author of Deutero-Isaiah is personifying Israel and their suffering in beautiful Hebrew poetic style. Read the context of that chapter (not just that chapter 53) to see what the author is talking about.

 

[Historical Christianity]

You are not entitled to revenge because the OT has been abrogated by the NT. In Matthew 5 Jesus says about 5 or 6 times, You have heard it said . . . But I say . . ." and with these words He has re-written the contract. Read Hebrews 8:7 "For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another." And, also 9:16-17 "In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living." You will not be able to use that old contract to justify your deeds before the Judge of all creation because it has been overridden. Christ was no doormat. Good luck in front of the Judge.

Sorry, I was a bit careless with my language. Under Torah, a Jew was entitled to take revenge. He was often required to take revenge, especially for the murder of a family member. The strongest single theme of SOM (Sermon on the Mount) is the Hedge of Hillel. It's the opposite of brinksmanship. Torah forbids murder, so choose not to harbor anger, to reduce the chances that your anger will escalate to murder. Don't dwell on having women when that increases the risk that you will commit adultery. He was teaching obedience to Torah to Jews, just as Hillel his predecessor did, and as John the Baptist his mentor did. Torah was a contract between Yahweh / Elohim and Israel. It was irrelevant to anyone else.

The author of Hebrews said that all other religions are inferior to Christianity, so don't leave Christianity for another religion just to escape persecution.

 

[381465]

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.

 

[-57]

So, what you are saying is, "How can eleven men be wrong." Don't you know that, "the whole WORLD lies in darkness"? It would appear that common sense is on your side, but don't you see that the common sense and reasoning of men are the problem? It was through the wisdom of men that Christ was hung on the cross.

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?

 

[-57]

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.

I can hear Jesus now....Hey fellows, go buy a couple of swords...we have to pose as a band of sinning rebels so i can get arrested.