What authority has the Christian freeman to
keep and bear arms ?
|
|
There are some among those who profess Christianity that advocate the disarmament of all but the police and military. They will not be swayed by the fact that the Constitution of the United States of America regards the right to keep and bear arms as a pre-existent prerogative of a free people. So be it. But then, how do they interpret our Lord's charge to buy a sword? | Vine
& Fig Tree advocates disarmament of all including
police and military.
The Constitution is not persuasive. The Constitution does not mention Jesus Christ. The Constitution was written by people who took up arms against officers of the British Empire, a clear violation of Romans 13. We are not made free and secure by guns, but by God. |
Most commentators take Christ at
His word concerning the inoffensive provisions:
When it comes to the sword, however, many commentators refuse to accept the words of Christ in the same sense.
|
The truth of a passage is not to be
determined by a majority vote of "the commentators."
Why was it that before Christ's arrest the disciples had no need for "purse and traveling bag?" Why is that after Christ's arrest they would? Why is there absolutely no evidence in Scripture that the disciples actually carried swords, and no evidence that they ever used them? Why were they in jail all the time? Why were they beaten so frequently? Why is there no record of them defending themselves against Jewish persecution using a sword? Could it be that Jesus was making another point, which the disciples did not understand until after His resurrection?
|
Some popular objections are : |
A Butcher Knife ?Some insist that the two swords produced by the disciples in the upper room were not swords at all, but rather knives. This argument declares that these were two specific knives to be used in the preparation of the Passover lamb - one to slit the lamb's throat, and the other to carve the roasted lamb. Before this time the needs of the disciples had been supplied by others. Their hosts would do the cutting and carving of the meat. Now they will have to do this themselves. This argument ignors the fact that the Passover lamb was but a foreshadow of Christ's Sacrifice, and that the shadow passes away when the reality has come.
Christ was not commanding His disciples to sell their garment to buy a butcher knife. The Greek word used here is commonly used to describe the short sword, the standard close combat weapon of the era. From STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE OF THE BIBLE -
If the knapsack and moneybag are to be taken literally, should not the sword be treated the same? Certainly, the disciples would need courage to face the events of the next 24 hours, but the admonition to sell one's cloak in order to buy a sword had to do with trials to be faced beyond the immediate future. Would the disciples need a moneybag and knapsack at Gethsemane? At the praetorium? Notice that the command to take provision is referenced to their previous mission. They were being told that in the future they would not be received warmly as they had been before, but rather would be considered as transgressors. They were warned to provide proper equipment to deal with contingencies. Christ has given those who are His a commission -
This commission is in nature the same as the previous one - to preach the Kingdom of God. But, whereas He sent His disciples out unprovisioned in the former, He stipulates that provision for contingencies be made in the latter. The fact that He (and His) would thenceforth be counted as "transgressors" was well understood by the early church. They suffered great tribulation at the hands of both the religious and civil authorities of the day. They would have need of the things Jesus told them to acquire. Through their perseverance, and the power of God, the gospel of the Kingdom was spread to the ends of the earth. |
No, it's not a knife. It's the same
weapon brought by the Jews against Jesus:
(As far as the Passover goes, the disciples observed the passover until AD70 and the destruction of the Jewish system.) Notice that at least one disciple already had a sword:
Others may have had swords, and were ready to use them against Judas and the Jews:
Jesus denounced this act of "self-defense." (See top of page.) John says that the one who used the sword was Peter
Peter's use of swords to "defend" the Messiah was completely out of character with Christ and His Mission. Peter had already been rebuked for this attitude:
After His Resurrection, Peter better understood the teachings of our Savior (1 Peter 2:18ff.). The early church did not take up swords. As the web page at left admits, "they suffered" martyrdom (see highlighted portion). |
top | objection list | GP homeProphecy FulfilledSome would argue for a literal interpretation of the sword, but that the sword was required only at Gethsemane - not to be used, but seen only as a fulfillment of prophesy.
Apart from the fact that the command to buy a sword was given in connection with a future sending out (apostello), the prophesy quoted from Isaiah is fulfilled AT THE CROSS, with Christ being crucified between two lawbreakers. It is at the cross that Christ poured out His soul unto death, where He was numbered among the transgressors, where He bore the sin of many, where He made intercession for the transgressors.
Notice, please, that Christ Jesus says that the prophesy must yet be ACCOMPLISHED in Him. Was this completed at Gesthemane or the cross? Was the end, the goal, the purpose - His arrest - or His atoning death? The argument for the sword as being necessary for the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy is false. The atonement on the cross fulfills the prophecy. The theological school that sees Peter's sword as being prophesied in Isaiah has molded the text to suit their assumption, ignoring the fact that the focus of both Isaiah and Christ Jesus is His crucifixion between two transgressors, shedding His blood at Calvary to discharge a debt not His own, paying the price for our transgression. |
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary is correct in noting that "two swords would be enough (v. 38), though these would hardly have been adequate to defend the entire group against an arresting party." The web page at left does not seem to have an adequate suggestion as to why Jesus said two swords would be "enough." (As we have shown elsewhere, Jesus was actually saying "I've had enough" with disciples who didn't understand His mission, and couldn't stay awake long enough to suffer with Him). Jesus cites the text from Isaiah. It is silly to say that it was not being fulfilled in the events that were transpiring in Gethemane. The entire process of being "numbered" among the transgressors includes His arrest, trial, and punishment.
At the Cross Jesus said "It is finished." But he was arrested in Gesthemane, and "numbered among the transgressors," "that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." This argument does not deny the centrality of what happened at the Cross, but that was not the only place spoken of by Isaiah. |
top | objection list | GP homeA Figurative Sword?Christian leaders of our day have no problem taking Christ's command to secure moneybag and knapsack literally. They are quick to admonish their congregations to provide for their family, and especially for the needs of the church. When it comes to the sword, however, these same men refuse to believe Christ meant what He said.
Some say Christ was speaking of the "sword of the Spirit" mentioned by Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians. In the passage cited, however, Paul is consistently metaphorical and self explanatory, i.e. "the breastplate of righteousness...the shield of faith...the helmet of salvation...the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;" -Eph 6:14-17. Christ did not say "take the moneybag of tax exempt status, the knapsack of frequent flyer miles". He spoke of a literal sword. Hendriksen appeals to verse 38 "It is enough." Those who reject the literal interpretation of the sword read a rebuke into this phrase.
THE INTERPRETER'S BIBLE, Pierce & Smith 1952 , dissents:
as does Lenski in his INTERPRETATION OF ST. LUKES GOSPEL, p.1068
|
No, Jesus was not talking about a figurative sword, but He was speaking figuratively about a literal sword. When He said sell your clothes to buy a sword, He didn't really mean to sell one's clothes and walk naked through Palestine with a literal sword, or even "the sword of the Spirit." When He said "you'll need a sword," He was only indicating that rough times were ahead, not that the disciples should literally buy and use swords. Arguments about the words in this passage will probably not convince the unconvinced. It is a broader world-and-life-view that is playing on the text. On another page I have excoriated John Calvin for his use of the sword against fellow Christians. Calvin was no pacifist, he was as much a murderer as Saul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul). But Calvin agrees that this passage in Luke does not support the use of the sword:
|
top | objection list | GP homeChristian = Pacifist?Christian pacifism has been around for a long time. Those who hold this position say that the teachings of Christ deny to Christians the use of force. This is patently false. While it is true that Christians are not to seek revenge of personal indignity, it is easily shown that God has ordained the sword in the cause of justice, in the defense of the weak, in judgment of wicked nations, and even in chastisement of His own people. |
Pacifism may be false, but it is not "patently false." The outlines of Christian pacifism may be found here. God has indeed "ordained" the sword, but those who use the sword are condemned by God. God sends evil, and judges those whom He sends to commit evil. |
|
God commanded Israel to execute the
inhabitants of the Promised Land. They were guilty of crimes worthy of death.
Their crimes polluted the land, and it was necessary to shed their blood to make
atonement, and cleanse the land of their bloodguiltiness.
It is no longer possible to make atonement by shedding the blood of Philistines, Mexicans, or commies. The only blood with any efficacy is that shed by Christ on Calvary. Find out more here. |
|
These two verses can be justified based on the necessity to shed blood in cases of capital crimes. Such bloodshed can no longer be justified. There is absolutely no evidence that Christians in the New Testament were armed with their swords, their spears, and their bows at any time prior to Constantine's "conversion" and reign. |
|
There are many ways to deliver the oppressed from the oppressor (Job 29:17; Ps 82:4; Pr 24:11,12; 31:8,9; Isa 1:17; Lu 18:3-5). Use of lethal force is never necessary. It is better to give one's own life than take the life of another. |
|
What is supposed to be the New
Testament analogue to this passage? The Spanish Inquisition? Where do we see
Christ and the Apostles employing this strategy?
David is operating under the "Holy War" paradigm, which called for Israel to cleanse the land by shedding the blood of covenant-breaking nations. That paradigm no longer holds. I challenge the author of that web page to list one post-Cross example of justifiable sword-bearing and execution. It won't be the American Revolution of 1776. |
|
More discussion of why the Holy War paradigm no longer applies is found here. |
|
Kidnapping required the shedding of
blood (Deut. 24:7).
The New Testament records the conversion of thousands (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 21:20). Surely their numbers were sufficient that when the apostles were kidnapped --
-- jailed on false charges -- oppressed and unfairly condemned (see verses above) -- they could have been sprung by thousands of well-armed Christians, just as when Lot had been kidnapped by a nearby civil magistrate. No, God had other ideas:
|
|
Judges brought salvation to God's people. In this case, "The stars in their courses fought against Sisera (a Baalistic ruler)." (Judges 5:24) "The stars" refer to the angels. The angels are amazed at the salvation which Christ has brought (1 Peter 1:12; Ephesians 3:10). It is not brought about by swords. |
God is not a pacifist !
|
The word "pacifism" is derived from the Latin word for "peace." Jesus is the "Prince of Peace." If God is so crazy about war, and we are to be holy as He is holy, then why didn't Jesus say "Blessed are the warmakers"? Other than this one mysterious verse in Luke, spoken to a band of disciples who had shown themselves virtually incapable of understanding the Savior's teachings, spoken to a band of followers who were going to desert the Captain of their Salvation in mere moments, is there one other verse in the New Testament which encourages Christians to take up arms? |
Christ revealed as Commander of the
LORD's army ...
|
The "Lord's Army"
revealed to Joshua is not something Christians can enlist in. There are no more
"holy wars" after the Cross.
Jesus, as commander of the army of the Lord, took vengeance on Israel, according to His sermon on the Mount of Olives, and His revelation to John. (See J Stuart Russell, The Parousia.) The disciples never did this, nor are we to engage in similar Holy War. "Vengeance is Mine," saith the Lord. |
assaulting moneychangers ...
|
This anti-pacifist web page is now
engaging in a typical strategy: throw out all kinds of verses which play on
people's emotions, and smother any chance for thoughtful, critical analysis.
Jesus did not use lethal force to expel those who were polluting His House. This passage cannot justify using lethal force to defend your own house. A fortiori it cannot justify my stealing money from you to defend my own house (which is what the State does). Even more so, if some foreign dictator threatens to raise my gas prices, this passage cannot justify your confiscating money from me to retaliate against a foreign dictator by destroying a million peasants over whom this dictator arbitrarily claims "jurisdiction." |
and Conquering King !
|
This passage refers to Christ's judgment of Israel. Christ used the Roman military to judge Israel. Any Christian who decided to take vengeance on the Jews would have been sinning. No Christians are recorded as having done so. This passage does not justify taking up arms in our day. |
Most Christian pacifists cite Christ's words from the Sermon on the Mount, "turn the other cheek...love your enemies" to justify their position. They conveniently ignore Biblical injunctions to defend the defenseless, uphold justice, provide for one's family, etc. One who truly seeks to do the will of God must find common ground in these seemingly incompatible mandates. | As someone who has been going to court to "defend the oppressed" for over 20 years, I find no contradiction between attempting to persuade a persecutor or oppressor to stop his threatened violence, and following the commands of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. I find "common ground" in these commands by leaving vengeance to God, and being willing to risk my own life in the defense of others. A gun-slinging machismo is not Biblical. |
|
Jesus says we are to give food and
drink (and, by extension, medical supplies) to our enemies. It doesn't sound
like Mr. Hammond agrees with Jesus.
Anyone who thinks 9 missionaries and 4 children can ultimately defend themselves against an army is a fool. This kind of thinking was seen in Waco, Texas. I would rather die like Christ -- not "defending myself," but giving my life for my enemies' -- than die trying to kill others. Hundreds of thousands of Christians have been murdered in the pagan outposts of Africa. If a Marxist army wants to kill you and your fellow missionaries, you are dead meat unless God miraculously intervenes. Why bother killing a few Marxists on your way out? There may have been "no attempt at resistance" using iron swords or M-16's, but obviously there had been intense spiritual resistance, or the Marxists would have allowed the missionaries to live. Marxists were confronted with the image of Christ, and they treated the missionaries as they would have treated Christ, and the missionaries followed Christ's example. "Neutralized?" I don't think so. Who knows what seeds were planted by the deaths of those pacifist missionaries? |
Did Christ wish His disciples to allow an aggressor to torture, rape, and murder without fear of being brought to justice? Shall the Christian offer no resistance when innocents are brutalized? Will you stand passively while your wife and children suffer atrocities at the hand of the wicked? If so, you have misunderstood Christ's intent. | Lots of questions. See John Howard Yoder's book, What Would You Do If . . . . Did Christ wish His Roman persecutors to torture and murder the Sinless Son of God without fear of being brought to justice? Then why did He not put the fear of God into them with a hidden dagger, a violent outburst, or with the orchestrated resistance of thousands of His followers? Why did Peter tell us to "follow in His [pacifistic] steps" (1 Peter 2:21)? Shall the Christian offer no resistance when innocents are brutalized? We resist with the Word of God. We proclaim the holiness and mercy of God. We allow God to save our attacker, but we will not take the life of an attacker merely to preserve our own life. Will you stand passively while your wife and children suffer atrocities at the hand of the wicked? If so, you have misunderstood Christ's intent. Did Christ "stand by passively" while He suffered atrocities at the hand of the wicked? Fine, then so will I. And I hope I will be attacked because I am guilty of assaulting the gospel of violence preached by "Christians," Nazis, Marxists, and others who reject the teachings and example of the Prince of Peace. |
|
Jesus did not "give way" to the wicked just because He did not take up arms against a pagan empire. The one who refuses to follow the docile patriotic crowd obeying the orders of the murderous state is the one who stands his ground. Those missionaries in Africa demonstrated far more faith than the armchair soldier who insults pacifists and dutifully pays his war taxes. The coward who picks up a gun simply because Janet Reno orders him to is a dog and an adulterer who makes Christ puke (James 4:4; Revelation 22:15; 3:16). |
Christ was addressing the attitude
of the heart in His Sermon on the Mount. We are to go the "extra mile"
in avoiding conflict. We are not to take personal insult or offense as
justification for retaliation. We are not to hate those who despitefully use us.
It is entirely possible, though not according to our fallen nature, to obey
Christ in all these things.
One may ignore personal insult, yet retain Christian dignity. The Christian may uphold justice without demanding "an eye for an eye". One may defend the defenseless without undue cruelty toward the evildoer. |
Christ was not just addressing the attitude of the heart. He was addressing concrete actions. Just as pacifists are accused of "spiritualizing" the sword in Luke 22, the pro-war crowd spiritualizes Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says when a soldier in a Marxist occupational army orders you to carry his weapons for a mile, you should carry his weapons two miles. It isn't just acting like Emily Post when insulted, it means giving money and slave labor to anti-Christian guerillas who act on behalf of a despotic regime dedicated to overturning the rule of law. |
|
There is no such thing as a
"just war."
John the Baptists accurately prophesied the impossible requirements of God's Law to soldiers in his day:
|
Christians repelled the invasions
of the Moors and Turks, else Islam's doctrine of annihilation of the Infidel
would have succeeded. During the Reformation era Christians with force of arms
resisted antichrist forces and the gospel was restored. Oliver Cromwell's
Christian "New Model Army" used the sword to depose a tyrannical
monarchy and establish the first parliamentary republic placing even the Crown
under the rule of law. As the "Black Regiment" preached liberty and
resistance to tyranny from the pulpits of the colonies, American Christians took
their muskets and sabers and established a Christian nation from which the
gospel has been spread throughout the world.
Christians have faced antichrist forces throughout history. We shall do battle with the enemy till the Commander returns...
GP home | GP resources | previous | nextThis document is provided by Gospel Plow for the purpose of educating the remnant. If you would like to help us continue this effort send donations to: Gospel Plow Last update - Saturday, Jan 9, 1999 - 9:38:42 PM |
"Christians repelled the
invasions of the Romans, else' Rome's doctrine of Man the Measure of All Things
would have succeeded."
God sends Romans and Muslims to nations that think they're Christian.
Cromwell did not pull down strongholds, and the monarchy resumed power, later to give birth to the American revolution, and the death of a quarter of a million people. The idea that Christ our Commander cannot carry out His Great Commission without resorting to arms is the doctrine of AntiChrist. The idea that His Glory must wait for a second coming is a denial that Jesus is the Christ. We explain why here. In a nutshell, it says that Christ was not made fully King. It says that the power of our muskets is greater than the power of the Holy Spirit to convert or the Hand of God to rescue. Rejecting the pacifism of the Sermon on the Mount, Romans 12, and in 1 Peter 2, is the cause of tyranny and war in our day. Over the last century, those who do not believe in pacifism have murdered on average over 10,000 people every single day. Humanists have proposed murdering an additional 15,000 per hour in order to further their goals of global dictatorship. People who carry out the orders of the United Nations, as in Vietnam and the Gulf War, are people who lack the guts to be pacifists. It doesn't take much guts to depersonalize "the enemy" and pull the hi-tech trigger. It takes guts to go to the Cross. It takes faith to trust God while watching non-pacifists light fellow believers on fire. Above all, it takes a "paradigm shift" to see through the myths of the principalities and powers of the Old Age. |
Jesus and Swords: John W. Whitehead Responds
|
Vine & Fig Tree
12314 Palm Dr. #107
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
[e-mail to V&FT]
[V&FT Home Page]