Buying a Sword

[Guest]

Normally I am not one for commentaries, but like I said earlier. There are 4 or 5 differant views of this passage and this is the view that I hold to especially in the light of Matt 10....

Are you referring to a specific passage in Matt 10?

Yes, I am sure there are 4 or 5 differennt views on this passage or any passage in the Bible - the quest should be for the truth of the passage. Regardless of personal feelings.

For me, my pacifism comes to light from passages like Luke 22 and a whole host of others throughout the Bible. We should look to the Bible to shape our beliefs and actions, not in an attempt to find justification for what we 'want' to believe.

 

[jgredline]

We should look to the Bible to shape our beliefs and actions, not in an attempt to find justification for what we 'want' to believe.

This is exactly right....

 

[Veritas]

Okay... so this is going to be a long post... I have stuff for both aLoneVoice and jgredline in here. I've also expanded from the original post, hope no one minds!

aLoneVoice,
I'm sorry, I jumped to conclusions about what you meant about God's "violence". I agree Romans 13 should be kept in proper context, but I believe that is quite challenging. Especially considering that now, in modern times, we are the government too. I do believe there is both a time for war and a time for peace. Ecclesiastes 3:8

jgredline
I still disagree that Jesus was advocating the disciples to use the swords. I wouldn't mind being corrected if I'm wrong mind you. But even in light of Matthew 10 I believe the violence Jesus speaks of is all directed at us as Christians. And I don't think He is advocating that we return that violence. I don't see much evidence for the apostles using self defense in spreading the Word.

Don't get me wrong, I think they definately "Fought the good fight of faith" 1 Timothy 6:12

But just look at how they did it. They were all simply willing to die for their faith. They were more concerned about spreading the Word than they were about defending themselves:

-James was beheaded by King Herod.

-Peter was crucified upside-down.

-Matthew was killed in Ethiopia by either being burned, stoned, or beheaded.

-James the brother of Jesus, was thrown over the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Christ, survived the fall, so was then beat to death with a club.

-Nathanael, who preached in Asia, was finally martyred in Armenia. He was flayed to death by a whip.

-Andrew was whipped severly and crucified on an x-shaped cross in Greece. While on the cross, he preached to his tormentors for two days before he died.

-Thomas was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips there.

-Matthias was stoned and then beheaded.

-Paul was tortured and then beheaded by Nero in 67 AD.

-John was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persectution in Rome, and miraculously escaped, later he was sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos, then freed, and was the only apostle to die peacefully.

At the same time, I think Jesus understands, however, that we do, in fact, live in a fallen world. Jesus never criticizes the centurion for his "violent" life in Matthew 8:5-13 or in Luke 7:1-10. In fact Jesus says this of the centurion: he (Jesus) was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." Luke 7:9 Or look at Cornelius the centurion in Acts 10. He is described as a righteous God-fearing man and the angel of God spoke to Him directly in guiding Peter.

So aLoneVoice, I believe this sword of Jesus cuts both ways. I don't believe we are supposed to irrespectively criticize those who "take up the sword", the soldiers that protect us in this fallen world.

 

[Guest]

At the same time, I think Jesus understands, however, that we do, in fact, live in a fallen world. Jesus never criticizes the centurion for his "violent" life in Matthew 8:5-13 or in Luke 7:1-10. In fact Jesus says this of the centurion: he (Jesus) was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." Luke 7:9 Or look at Cornelius the centurion in Acts 10. He is described as a righteous God-fearing man and the angel of God spoke to Him directly in guiding Peter.

Yes, that is correct, Jesus doesn't criticize the centurion - nor does Jesus say that he approves or that either one continued in their "profession" after their conversion.

So aLoneVoice, I believe this sword of Jesus cuts both ways. I don't believe we are supposed to irrespectively criticize those who "take up the sword", the soldiers that protect us in this fallen world.

Have I given you the impression that I spoke 'irrespectively' of the soldiers?

 

[Veritas]

aLoneVoice wrote:
Have I given you the impression that I spoke 'irrespectively' of the soldiers?

Kind of. If that wasn't your intention, I'm sorry again. I've just jumped to another conclusion. I'm a little sensitive to this whole subject.

 

[Guest]

Kind of. If that wasn't your intention, I'm sorry again. I've just jumped to another conclusion. I'm a little sensitive to this whole subject.

My intention was not to degrade anyone in the military. And I understand that it is a sensitive subject, but again I stress that we need to have the Bible shape our actions and beliefs, rather than search the Bible to justify what we already believe. Sometimes that Scriptures require to make hard decisions.

Early church teachings taught that military service and being a follower of Christ were not comptabile. It wasn't until after Constatine, when the church became 'friendly' with the state, that the early church softened it's stance.

 

[Veritas]

aLoneVoice, okay, now that I've had a little time... I'd like to address your comments to me.

I would also suggest that Romans 13 does not advocate for the believer to use violence - or even participate with violence done by the hand of the state...

But that would mean we leave justice to those who do not believe!
We should be involved to bring out justice, and I think we, as Christians, do have a better judgement of what that is. I do not believe it is wise to bow out of every violent behavior. As rough as this may sound, we can do good with "violence". Consider discipline, it is a "violence". And what does the Bible say of that?

For what son is not disciplined by his father?...Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it....Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best....No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. Hebrews 12:7-11 Edited to include only mention of earthly fathers

I see no reason why we should not be discipliners. And I see no reason this principle cannot be applied to the state in terms of criminal punishment and in terms of war. Put bluntly, war can produce peace in society. As far as waging war is concerned I think we have to keep the principle from Romans 12:18 in mind: If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. But when forced into it, fight to end it so there can be peace.

 

[Guest]

Veritas - I agree that we need to be advocates for justice and peace. I believe in discipline - but nowhere do I read that we are commanded or directed to use violence to reach those aims.

Rather, we are directed just the opposite. We are to 'turn the other cheek', we are to 'offer our cloak' as well. We are told to count it as a blessing to be persecuted for Christ's sake.

I provide discipline to my children daily - however, I do not need to use violence to do it.

Does hitting a child, because they hit another child, really teach them that it is not okay to hit?

Does killing someone as punishment, because they killed someone, really teach that killing is wrong?

I realize that this is a sensative subject for you - I would garner that means either you or someone you care about either is currently serving or has served in the armed forces. I do not mean to bring you frustration or hurt.

For me, and I speak only for myself, I cannot reconcile faith in Jesus Christ and discipleship under Christ with military service and/or violence.

I am willing to continue this discussion and provide more references for my understanding - only if you wish to continue.

I started this thread out of an exchange with Solo on another forum topic, in hopes that he would weigh in on the discussion - unfortunately for whatever reason, he has chosen not to particiapte.

 

[Veritas]

aLoneVoice,
I define violence fairly broadly. Anything that puts another person in somekind of physical (or emotional) discomfort, I would define as violence towards that person. And then there is also the threat of violence which I believe can be another component in discipline.

When I was a kid, I was spanked. It didn't make me think it was okay to go around spanking other kids, or even hit them (I was never much of a fighter), it just made me realize that what I had done was wrong and there were consequences to that. It also made me realize I was not in charge, my parents were. And I respected them.

As far as capital punishment goes I think it can teach the killer that killing is wrong. It is a consequence of their actions. Although I would think it would be far more punishment to lock them up in a dark, dank, uncomfortable cell, with minimal food for the rest of their life to think about what they've done.

Even so, I do have a deep respect for those that can live as the apostles did, those that just want to spread the good news and can simply take the violence towards them and turn the other cheek like you said. And I believe eventually we are all called to do that in some way, but at the same time I think some can be called to "violent" vocations like police officers, prison guards, and soldiers.

I don't mind you continuing with your references but what do you think of mine?

 

[Guest]

I don't mind you continuing with your references but what do you think of mine?

As I said, I agree with discipline - I jsut do not believe that you need to use violence to do that - spanking, etc.

I have two children that respect me and obey me - I have never spanked them - however I have needed to discipline them.

I do not see where we are called.commanded,directed (whichever word you wish to use) to use violence of any manner to bring about peace - or to even defend ourselves.

If you have verses/references that you believe show that, I would be more than willing to discuss them.

 

[TanNinety]

I jsut do not believe that you need to use violence to do that - spanking, etc.

...

If you have verses/references that you believe show that, I would be more than willing to discuss them.

Since you mentioned spanking, how about these verses for starters.
Proverbs 13:24; Proverbs 23:13-14?

 

[Guest]

Since you mentioned spanking, how about these verses for starters.
Proverbs 13:24; Proverbs 23:13-14?

Sure - let's look at them. Arguably the two verses used the most to support the physical punishment of spanking. Both ot them refer to a 'rod' that that it should not be 'spared.

He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

What we have here is a contrast between a father who loves his son, and a father who does not. The father that loves his son provides discipline to his son, and does so diligently. In contrast, the father that does not love his son, does not provide discipline.

Nowhere does this suggest that we are to use physical means for discipline. The 'rod' was used by shephards to provide correction to the sheep, to herd them. The intent of the rod was not to provide physical harm to the sheep. When Proverbs refer's to the 'rod' it is with this understanding - it is a metaphor, an illustration, for discipline.

To understand the Pslams and Proverbs, one needs to understand Hebrew Poetry - whereby the stanzas provide either comparison or contrast. In other words, both lines taken together help to explain the passage.

If you look at Proverbs 23:13-14:

Do not hold back discipline from the child,
Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.
You shall strike him with the rod
and rescue his soul from Sheol.

Again, what we have hear is the instruction to provide discipline and the benefits of discipline. You have a A-B-B-A (not the band!)structure. Notice how the 2nd and 3rd line refer to the rod. Line 1 "do not hold back discipline" explains the phrase of "strike him with the rod" in line 2. Line 3 repeats, with line 4 providing the benefit "rescue his soul.

Again, I believe in discipline - however, I do not believe one needs to resort to physical violence to accomplish it.

 

[TanNinety]

Great, love that explanation. I agree until one can delve into the original language, the beauty of the truth in the message will not be easily apparent.

 

[Solo]

Don't forget about the shepherd breaking the leg of the sheep that continues to wander away from the flock. This means of "discipline" saves the sheep from becoming wolf poop.

 

[Guest]

Don't forget about the shepherd breaking the leg of the sheep that continues to wander away from the flock. This means of "discipline" saves the sheep from becoming wolf poop.

It is good to see that you have finally weighed in on this discussion. I must have misunderstood our discussion in the "Other Religions" forum to mean that we would discuss "buying a sword'.

However, are you suggesting that Proverbs is saying that parents have the responsiblity to 'break the leg' of our children? Again, the 'rod' is a methaphor for discipline - not an instruction on HOW to discipline (ie: physical force/violence).

Rather, as I explained above, it teaches us that we need to discipline, but does not provide justification for physical force.

 

[Solo]

It is good to see that you have finally weighed in on this discussion. I must have misunderstood our discussion in the "Other Religions" forum to mean that we would discuss "buying a sword'.

However, are you suggesting that Proverbs is saying that parents have the responsiblity to 'break the leg' of our children? Again, the 'rod' is a methaphor for discipline - not an instruction on HOW to discipline (ie: physical force/violence).

Rather, as I explained above, it teaches us that we need to discipline, but does not provide justification for physical force.

What chastisement or discipline does God utilize in the correction of his children? Does God ever use physical force in His chastisement of His children? Does God chastise His children from a negative perspective or a positive perspective? From a position of hyperbole only, If breaking your child's leg was the only way that you could keep him from going to hell, would you break his leg or let him go to hell?

When rules were setup at my house, my five sons knew that certain things would bring a spanking. The spanking was done with a paddle, and the spanking would entail one or two swats depending on the infraction. A conversation would be entered into prior to the spanking whereby the boys would discuss their position and if after this discussion they felt that a rule was broken they would determine whether a spanking was necessary. At no time should a parent spank a child in anger. After the spanking, the child can then be allowed to endure and learn from the penalty of breaking the rule afterwhich love should be confirmed to the child. One time I took two of my sons into their room after they were fighting with each other, and I explained that they would be getting a spanking for their actions. I then explained that Jesus took the penalty of sin away from us, and he died so that we could live. I then explained this truth by paying their spanking penalty by spanking myself on the leg as I was sitting down. I took one spanking for each of them. In the process the paddle broke on my leg which opened their eyes as they were glad that it was not on their bottom. I did not have to spank my sons very much as they learned that what I said, I meant. My sons continually come up to me and their mother out of the blue and hug us both telling us that they love us. Their ages range from 22 to 11. The oldest would have been 25 this year but was killed in a car accident when he was 18. Three days before he was killed, he leaned over the couch and gave me a big hug and told me that he loved me. My second son plays minor league baseball and he continually tells me that he loves me, and he was the poor soul that received the most spankings. All of my sons are born again, and each one of them appreciates their bringing up.

 

[Guest]

What chastisement or discipline does God utilize in the correction of his children? Does God ever use physical force in His chastisement of His children? Does God chastise His children from a negative perspective or a positive perspective? From a position of hyperbole only, If breaking your child's leg was the only way that you could keep him from going to hell, would you break his leg or let him go to hell?

Because God and God alone can act of complete accordance with His attributes without sin - then I would suggest that IF He deems physical discipline appropiate - then it is within His rights to do so.

However, not one of us can act like God.

Not to mention that Christs teachings are of non-violence.

When rules were setup at my house, my five sons knew that certain things would bring a spanking. The spanking was done with a paddle, and the spanking would entail one or two swats depending on the infraction. A conversation would be entered into prior to the spanking whereby the boys would discuss their position and if after this discussion they felt that a rule was broken they would determine whether a spanking was necessary. At no time should a parent spank a child in anger. After the spanking, the child can then be allowed to endure and learn from the penalty of breaking the rule afterwhich love should be confirmed to the child. One time I took two of my sons into their room after they were fighting with each other, and I explained that they would be getting a spanking for their actions. I then explained that Jesus took the penalty of sin away from us, and he died so that we could live. I then explained this truth by paying their spanking penalty by spanking myself on the leg as I was sitting down. I took one spanking for each of them. In the process the paddle broke on my leg which opened their eyes as they were glad that it was not on their bottom. I did not have to spank my sons very much as they learned that what I said, I meant. My sons continually come up to me and their mother out of the blue and hug us both telling us that they love us. Their ages range from 22 to 11. The oldest would have been 25 this year but was killed in a car accident when he was 18. Three days before he was killed, he leaned over the couch and gave me a big hug and told me that he loved me. My second son plays minor league baseball and he continually tells me that he loves me, and he was the poor soul that received the most spankings. All of my sons are born again, and each one of them appreciates their bringing up.

One does not need to restort to physical violence to achieve the same goal.

The ends do not justify the means.

 

[Solo]

What chastisement or discipline does God utilize in the correction of his children? Does God ever use physical force in His chastisement of His children? Does God chastise His children from a negative perspective or a positive perspective? From a position of hyperbole only, If breaking your child's leg was the only way that you could keep him from going to hell, would you break his leg or let him go to hell?

Because God and God alone can act of complete accordance with His attributes without sin - then I would suggest that IF He deems physical discipline appropiate - then it is within His rights to do so.

However, not one of us can act like God.

Not to mention that Christs teachings are of non-violence.

God dwells within each believer. Each believer has the mind of Christ. God's Spirit directs each of us in our bringing up our children as long as we are listening. When we walk in the spirit my friend it is amazing how all things fit into place, even if one has a liberal leaning on life.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:14-16

Your understanding of violence is completely void of a Scriptural understanding in my humble opinion. Did Jesus sin? No. Did Jesus whip the money changers at the temple? Yes. Was this an act of violence? To some it would be. Was it an act of sin? No. Will Jesus come to fight with a sword? Yes. Will he destroy evil by using a liberal dialog with those against God? No. Will he destroy evil in a physical manner? Yes. Here is an exerpt from an article that answers whether Jesus is a Pacifist or not:

• People who claim that Jesus was a pacifist are ignoring more than half the Bible. Jesus was not a prophet with His own agenda; Jesus was and is God. He is the God of the Old Testament. Jesus is Jehovah, the God who commanded the Israelites to go to war. David said, "Blessed be the LORD my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle (Psalm 144:1)." We know that Jesus was not a pacifist (someone who denounces all forms of violence for any reason) because the Bible says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore (Hebrews 13:8). He did not change His mind suddenly in the New Testament, so any teachings must be taken in that context.
  
  Some pacifists have objected to this reasoning by proposing the heretical idea that God's dealings with the ancient Israelites took into consideration their "uncivilized" nature. Not only does this ignore the simple fact that the ancients were just as civilized as we are today, it forces us to conclude that our holy God lowers His standards when we can't meet them. This would negate the need for a Saviour and therefore must be rejected as heresy.
  
  We have a record of Jesus meeting a Roman centurion--an army officer who most likely achieved his rank because he was skilled at battle. After talking with this soldier for a few minutes, Jesus did not tell him to put down his sword, nor did he tell him to retire from the military. Instead, he praised the man's faith, saying that he had more faith than anyone He had met (Matthew 8:5-13).
  
  Retrieved from http://www.carmical.net/

When rules were setup at my house, my five sons knew that certain things would bring a spanking. The spanking was done with a paddle, and the spanking would entail one or two swats depending on the infraction. A conversation would be entered into prior to the spanking whereby the boys would discuss their position and if after this discussion they felt that a rule was broken they would determine whether a spanking was necessary. At no time should a parent spank a child in anger. After the spanking, the child can then be allowed to endure and learn from the penalty of breaking the rule afterwhich love should be confirmed to the child. One time I took two of my sons into their room after they were fighting with each other, and I explained that they would be getting a spanking for their actions. I then explained that Jesus took the penalty of sin away from us, and he died so that we could live. I then explained this truth by paying their spanking penalty by spanking myself on the leg as I was sitting down. I took one spanking for each of them. In the process the paddle broke on my leg which opened their eyes as they were glad that it was not on their bottom. I did not have to spank my sons very much as they learned that what I said, I meant. My sons continually come up to me and their mother out of the blue and hug us both telling us that they love us. Their ages range from 22 to 11. The oldest would have been 25 this year but was killed in a car accident when he was 18. Three days before he was killed, he leaned over the couch and gave me a big hug and told me that he loved me. My second son plays minor league baseball and he continually tells me that he loves me, and he was the poor soul that received the most spankings. All of my sons are born again, and each one of them appreciates their bringing up.

One does not need to restort to physical violence to achieve the same goal.

The ends do not justify the means.

Your perspective is askewed by thinking that a spanking can be defined as physical violence. I could declare that you are committing emotional harm and unnecessary psychological damage by the way that you are disciplining your children; however, that may or may not be true. Your assessment that the ends do not justify the means is in error, and until you have completed your child rearing days, you will not know.

 

[Guest]

Did Jesus whip the money changers at the temple? Yes. Was this an act of violence? To some it would be. Was it an act of sin? No.

The passage you refer to does not say that Jesus whipped the money changers. Rather it says that he made a whip of cords and drove out the sheep and lambs.

And I agree, Jesus did not commit an act of sin.

[/quote]Your perspective is askewed by thinking that a spanking can be defined as physical violence. I could declare that you are committing emotional harm and unnecessary psychological damage by the way that you are disciplining your children; however, that may or may not be true. Your assessment that the ends do not justify the means is in error, and until you have completed your child rearing days, you will not know.[/quote]

The ends never justify the means. The Bible is our moral compass and provides moral absolutes - not situational ethics that can change based on the circumstance.

My understanding of violene is found and rooted in the Holy Scripture:

1 Chronicles 28:3 ; James 4:1,2; Gal 5:19-21; 1 John 3:1; Exodus 20:13; Proverbs 20:22; Proverbs 25:21; Exodus 23:4,5; Genesis 13:8,9; Genesis 26:20-22; Genesis 37:28; 45:4-5; 2 Cor 10:3-5 and I could go on.

Please try not to pre-judge Solo - you will find that when one does, one is usually wrong.

 

[Solo]

Did Jesus whip the money changers at the temple? Yes. Was this an act of violence? To some it would be. Was it an act of sin? No.

The passage you refer to does not say that Jesus whipped the money changers. Rather it says that he made a whip of cords and drove out the sheep and lambs.

And I agree, Jesus did not commit an act of sin.

You really ought to read a little closer when studying the Scriptures. Let me post the Scripture where Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the Temple along with the sheep and oxen. Jesus also overthrew the tables and poured out the changer's money. If you need further insight, give me a holler and I will continue to correct your error.

13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; 16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. John 2:13-16