Posted on 06/18/2018 8:49:38 AM PDT by Salvation
But know that Jesus commanded the presence of swords for defense only.
The presence of swords in the Garden of Gethsemane was to deter the Temple Guards from arresting all disciples and to agree to arrest only Jesus.
Jesus knew what would happen before it happened. To spread the Gospel, the disciples needed to be protected. In prison, they would be killed or they would be tried and then killed.
The swords were present to ensure the disciples remained free to spread the Gospel.
Exactly.
Maybe you should read the complete article before making such an ignorant comment, Oh Righteous One.
Fine and dandy! My weapons are for defense of myself and others undergoing attack as well.
Never forget as well that “WWJD” leaves “kicking over tables and chasing people with a whip” on the menu...
Msgr Pope does a good job on the topic. Cultural context is one rule of understanding scripture. Too much has been promulgated by folks reading only literally.
As far as “force in moderation” goes,the need to defend ends when the threat is removed. One stroke, shot or other means of reduction,or ten, which ever is needed. Modern defensive tactics for handgun essentially states that the defender is justified in applying lerhal force until the threat stops his attack or is renderned incapable.
“But there’s more to it than that. It’s a closely-reasoned article, and it deserves a very careful read.”
Theology for grown-ups, these days an avis most rara.
Wow. I never saw that before! Thank you!
“Sell your cloak and buy a sword.......................”
What he said!
KYPD
Excellent explanation of this. Thanks for the ping.
An exposition of Scripture would have given a definitive and authoratative answer...with less flailing around and making things up... but we can surmise the arch-pope is unfamiliar with such.
Like my Dad used to say, “Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but he didn’t say what to do after that”.
Except... (Luke 22:38):
...it was not the possession of swords that identified Jesus as a criminal but the false charges that He had claimed to be a king opposed to Caesar.
Best
Those tables were a violation of God’s law. The overturning of tables and the whip were symbolic of what must be done to those that violate God’s law in God’s house. It was also a challenge to the Sanhedrin to call them to account as to why they had not enforced God’s law.
Jesus was not violent, he was an enforcer. We do not call our LEOs ‘violent’. The word ‘violent’ shares the root with ‘violate’. Law-observant LEOs do not ‘violate’, they are not ‘violent’, they ‘enforce’.
Jesus was a Rabbi, he had every right as any Rabbi to enforce the law in the Temple. He did so, he enforced the law and the Sanhedrin did not. That was the point.
.
Luke 22:38 makes it plain that his call to buy a sword was strictly for self defense, and not a call to create an army.
.
I don't think in most self-defense situations there's a lot of time for reflection.
Usually you are called on to act quickly.
You can purpose to not get carried away and allow the self-defense turn into retaliation, just stop as soon as the situation is diffused or under control, but other than that, when split second decisions need to be made, you make them and then deal with it later.
The passage you are thinking of was Jesus fulfilling the Feast of Unleavened Bread. He was removing the "leaven" from His father's house. All over Jerusalem, Jews were doing the same thing in their own homes. Jesus tried extensively to show the Jews who He was. He fulfilled each and every Lev 23 Feast Day to the letter.
Having said all that, I think what Jesus was looking for with self defense was to not live by the sword. Their were people that only wanted to protect their family and property, while others, Like Barabbas robbed and killed people and rebelled against the Roman government. If you come into my home uninvited, there is a variety of weights and calibers of bullets coming your way. If I take the same weapon to the bank and steal their money, they have the right to take me out. God wants His people to not be robber, brawlers, and thugs. If you are saved, then you are part of the Bride of Christ. If someone came against your wife or child, would you not think God would want you to protect His family? Jesus was very careful to tell His followers that we were to be safe as doves, but as wise as serpents. If you have the right to shoot an aggressor, it makes no sense to fret over whether God would approve. Abraham took at least 300 of his servants and defeated 5 armies to get Lot out of trouble. For those that say, "Well, that was the Old Testament", God never changes. For church leaders to preach that we are supposed to cower in a closet while robbers assault our daughters and steal our property is just wrong. These are false prophets and will be judged more harshly in the day of Judgement. If you are assuming a position in clergy without reading and understanding the Bible, it is a weighty decision. I'm also speaking of Graduates of Seminary. Many Seminaries teach false doctrine. I've seen people that wouldn't step on a cockroach because they were taught "Thou shalt not kill" vs Thou shalt not commit murder or thou shalt not shed innocent blood. These are terrible misunderstandings of what God was teaching. Some denominations support abortion, but then are anti capital punishment. That is how screwed up modern Christianity is today.
If you or you family is threatened, protect them. Anyone that has even read a little bit of the Bible knows God's people fought many wars against aggressors. How do we have any conscientious objectors?
no sir- IF you care to honestly reflect on why you aren’t a Christian, the real reason you aren’t a Christian is because You reject Christ. The Holy spirit has prompted you- as He does every living soul, to accept Christ, but so far you have hardened your heart against Him and ignore the promptings of the Holy Spirit. When we stand before God on judgement day, we are not going to have any excuses. God will require blunt honest reasons for rejection- and that will require those who reject Him to honestly declare that those who Reject Christ simply do not accept That Christ is God’s Son and died for our sins- They felt no need for a Savior Even though the Holy Spirit prompted us to do so our whole lives- Those who rejected Christ ignored Him.
Yo may or may not despise Christians and Christianity (Despise what they stand for- such as ‘turn the other cheek’ etc)- but that is not the reason you reject Christ- that is only the symptom of your rejection. The reason you reject Christ is that you have determined until now that you will not be subject to servant hood- That you will not allow Him to be your master and Lord-
There it is in a nutshell- IF we’re to be honest- Those that reject Christ do so for only one reason- they refuse to bow their knee in submission to the Lord Creator- but one day every knee will bow-
“whipping the money changers out of the temple”
Always loved that story, even as a kid. It’s o, well...Righteous.
“For it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For it is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong.”
Under US law, I can carry a gun and use it to defend myself or others from serious injury or death. I am also allowed to use force to prevent crimes. Although I am not a cop, the idea of “militia” - the Constitutional term predates any police department in America - allows for common citizens to be ready to stop crime and protect others. That is why we have a right to arms, in part - because the ‘militia’ needed them!
IIRC, up thru the 1960s, it was technically illegal for a fit, able adult male to refuse to serve in a posse. The law would call on members of the ‘militia’ to join in a ‘posse’ to pursue and arrest criminals. This idea of a citizens personally enforcing the law isn’t practiced too often. But it lives on in our right to both self-defense and to stop others from hurting the innocent.
Like the article suggests, we are not to use force to protect our dignity or our pride - but we CAN use force, legitimately, with full government approval - to protect the innocent or ourselves from significant harm.
HOW significant depends on state laws, as does any ‘duty to retreat’.
I don't get it, are you opposed to people defending themselves?
Or am I misunderstanding you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.