should christians be pacifists

[Drew]

Let's say that Jesus is indeed telling his disciples that they should arm themselves because they are going to face threats in the future. Then Jesus makes his statement about seen "as a transgressor". He begins it with a "for" as in:

For I tell you...

This indicates that what He is about to say explains what He has just said about getting a sword. I trust the problem is obvious - there is clearly no sense in which being seen as an armed transgressor promotes the objective that you (handy) suggest Jesus is actually pursuing - that the disciples be "provisioned".

On the other hand the entire account is sensible if, indeed, Jesus is instructing them to be armed so that they will be seen as armed revolutionaries.

 

[handy]

They already had their grounds to arrest Him. Judas has already betrayed Christ by then.

I should have not given the impression that to be seen as an armed revolutionary was the only basis for the arrest of Jesus, but it is part of it. When Judas goes the priests, the priests need some motivation, some reason to want to arrest Jesus in the first place. Judas is the means, of course, but the priests do not arrest Jesus simply because Judas wants money. There has to be a credible reason to explain their desire to arrest Jesus. And, of course, if He appears to be an armed revolutionary, that powerfully adds to other reasons they had to want his arrest. And there were others of course. I am not suggesting otherwise.

I don't believe that Jesus was setting the disciples up to be seen as transgressors here. When He said:

37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

He was speaking solely of Himself. And, in His death upon the cross, and by His taking the sin of the world upon Himself, He was indeed numbered with the transgressors.

This does not really work. Jesus wants to be part of armed group. It is really only an armed group that will be seen as a threat. A single "deranged" (from the perpective of the priests) Messiah with a sword is nothing to worry about. But if Jesus is part of a group of people with swords, this shows that His subversive movement has gathered followers and needs to be stopped.

Let's be clear here: Jesus specifically explains his instruction to buy a sword as being related to the fulfillment of a prophecy that Jesus be seen as a transgressor. This, alone, shows that Jesus is not making some of general endorsement of the Christian to use weapons.

I'm sorry Drew, but I think you are reading far more into the text than what is warranted. Verses 3-5 of the chapter tells us that Judas and the priests conspired together on how they were going to capture Him. Also, if Jesus deliberately set out to set the disicples up as transgressors, why then were none of them arrested. And, why destroy the whole (really deceitful) senario by healing the guards ear. Jesus did not say "You will be numbered with transgressors" He said "I will be numbered..."

I mentioned that the senario is deceitful, and if it is what you are saying it is, that Jesus was trying to pass of Himself and His disciples as some kind of armed insurgency, then that would be deceit, because we know that Jesus and the disciples were no such thing. That is just a fatal flaw to me in this interpretation.

 

[Drew]

handy, can you please explain to me how the following statement makes sense in the context of your belief that Jesus is instructing the disciples that they should arm themselves in order to face the world after the cross:

For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, '(AL)AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for (AM)that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."

How, and please be specific, is this connected to any kind of case Jesus is making that the disciples need protection in the world they will face?

I suggest that my explanation makes perfect sense of this statement. Jesus has told his disciple to buy a sword for .......I (Jesus) must be seen as a transgressor. I am taking Jesus at his word - "buy a sword for the reason stated".

If your view is correct, the "for" statement should be some prophecy about how Jesus would arrange for the protection of his followers"

So, how does your position make sense of the clear statement the buying of the swords fulfills the prophecy about Jesus being numbered as a transgressor?

 

[handy]

I believe that the word "For" simply means that what had been prophecied was about to take place, that Jesus was about to be numbered with the transgressors, that He was going to be taken from the disciples and the disciples would be on their own for a while.

Maybe this helps:

Me speaking here, to my mother-in-law: "Please make sure the cat's bowls are filled. There is a bowl in the house and out on the back porch as well. Also, the dog's food is in the cannister in the pantry. I normally do these things on my own, but I need you to take care of this for I am going to my sister's tonight.

How do you get around the idea that if Jesus was arming the disciple to give the impression that they were an armed insurgency, then He was being deceitful?

 

[Drew]

I'm sorry Drew, but I think you are reading far more into the text than what is warranted. Verses 3-5 of the chapter tells us that Judas and the priests conspired together on how they were going to capture Him.

At least my explanation makes some sense out of the connection between the instruction to buy a sword and the stated reason that this fulfills prophecy that Jesus will be seen as a transgressor. Besides, I have made it clear that, yes, there are other reasons for the priests to want Jesus arrested. But to appear to be an armed group strengthens the case.

Also, if Jesus deliberately set out to set the disicples up as transgressors, why then were none of them arrested.

Because they ran away. Remember-I stated that Jesus' intent that He be arrested, not the disciples.

I mentioned that the senario is deceitful, and if it is what you are saying it is, that Jesus was trying to pass of Himself and His disciples as some kind of armed insurgency, then that would be deceit, because we know that Jesus and the disciples were no such thing. That is just a fatal flaw to me in this interpretation.

Absolutely not. If you are going to take this line, you have to explain a whole range of other things Jesus did that would meet your criteria of deceitfulness.

Consider the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, on Passover week no less. I trust I need not explain the impression that this deliberately calculated act on the part of Jesus is intended to give. Jesus is intentionally entering Jerusalem giving the impression that He is the Messianic king. Now Jesus is no fool - He knows that the authorities will see this as a direct precursor to Jesus overthrowing the present Jewish leadership and claiming the Davidic crown.

Is Jesus really planning on doing this? Obviously not - He is heading for the cross, not the throne. Yet He is endorsing and playing right into a certain expectation, knowing full well that things will turn out differently. And he is inviting all sorts of people to buy into this - not least the chief priests.

In modern terms - He is "bluffing". And that would be "deceit" by your cirtiera.

 

[jasoncran]

There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that Christians must be pacifists. Nowhere is being a soldier equated to doing something sinful or shameful. Jesus praised the faith of the centurion. David was a man after God's own heart. In the "lists" of those who engage of sinful behaviors, such as drunkeness, adultery, idol worship, and homosexuality, being a soldier is not mentioned.

I believe that this is an area in which one must follow the convictions of the Holy Spirit. For you, to be a soldier would be a bad thing. But, not for all, certainly not for all.

thanks i was going to say that as i know some u couldnt do it ans that's ok with but dont force ur view without a biblical backing, and reasonable why a blanket statement should all christians be a pacifist.

jason

 

[handy]

Consider the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, on Passover week no less. I trust I need not explain the impression that this deliberately calculated act on the part of Jesus is intended to give. Jesus is intentionally entering Jerusalem giving the impression that He is the Messianic king. Now Jesus is no fool - He knows that the authorities will see this as a direct precursor to Jesus overthrowing the present Jewish leadership and claiming the Davidic crown.

Is Jesus really planning on doing this? Obviously not - He is heading for the cross, not the throne. Yet He is endorsing and playing right into a certain expectation, knowing full well that things will turn out differently. And he is inviting all sorts of people to buy into this - not least the chief priests.

In modern terms - He is "bluffing". And that would be "deceit" by your cirtiera.

However, we do need to remember that it was prophesied that the Messiah would enter into Jerusalem upon the back of an unbroken donkey. Now, the donkey was a symbol of peace, not war. I believe the message that Jesus was sending to all, not just the political leaders but all, was that He was exactly who He said He was, the Messiah, but coming in peace, not in a hostile takeover.

At any rate, I really have to wrap up this conversation. I've enjoyed it Drew. Too often around here people get worked up when one disagree's. It's nice to be able to simply discuss!