I actually agree that this is what Jesus meant. But "it is enough" carries with it the point of, "enough of that", as in they were taking Him too literally. He wasn't telling them to literally carry swords around to use violence, but that they needed to be prepared for what was going to happen to them: The time was coming when they were going to face hardship. After His ascension, they were going to face violence, and they needed to be prepared for that.
But that doesn't mean that the Lord was saying, "Use violence too".
I guess I just don't consider it likely that the Church was storehousing a bunch of weapons. All evidence points to that not being the case.
So Jesus saying not to retaliate against an evil person only applies to slapping?
This comes across as simply wanting to ignore Jesus because Jesus' way is difficult and means having to deny ourselves.
Yes, that's probably it. The reason why the apostles weren't armed to the teeth was simply because they couldn't afford it. But boy howdy, if they had the money, they'd've been busting at the seams with weaponry.
It's a lot simpler. Jesus wasn't telling them to actually carry swords. He was telling them times were going to get rough.
So the martyrs are only martyrs because they didn't have the firepower to properly take on the Roman legions?
So is your position that if a mob attacks a person they shouldn't use self-defense? So if a single person attacks, then self-defense is okay; but if a mob of people attacks then one shouldn't fight back?
Clearly I'm missing your point here because that can't be what you're trying to say.
Why does Paul have to take on the entire Roman military in order to use violence for self defense. Surely he could have just taken his sword and fought off one or two people to get away safely. I mean if Paul was there with a few others, such Mark and Barnabas, the three of them could take on a couple people, or fight long enough to escape. They don't have to face off the entirety of the Roman legions just to fight back long enough to live another day.
But they don't fight back. At all. And they never tell anyone to fight back.
And the fact of the matter is, according to everyone in the early Church Christians simply weren't permitted to use violence.
In fact St. Hippolytus in his treatment about baptism says that a military officer who refuses to recant of his military oath and throw off his belt is to be denied receiving baptism--because it demonstrated a refusal to accept Christian discipline.
All the evidence points to Christianity being contrary to the sword. It is only the State that has permission to exercise the sword (Romans 13:4), not the Church.
He's Almighty God, He could have summoned all the hosts of heaven, or simply willed all His enemies out of existence. Of course He was capable of defending Himself against a group of soldiers.
But He still disarmed Peter, and showed us how to live, by going to Calvary out of His own volition, because of the love with which He loves us sinners.
-CryptoLutheran