Tag: pacifism

We Have Two Swords

What is meant by this passage in Luke? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was talking with someone yesterday who was curious what I thought of the passage in Luke 22:36-38. I figured I wouldn’t have time for a sit-down conversation so I would write a blog on it. If you don’t know, this is the passage.

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

Often times, this passage is brought up in the context of answering questions about pacifism or self-defense. The problem is this is a really difficult passage to understand for many what is going on. Usually if you want to argue for a position, you start with passages that are more clear.

So at the start, I do not hold to a pacifist interpretation. I think Jesus is more often talking about private situations and these are situations involving personal insults. He’s not talking about how a government should be run.

I also contend that if you see someone in danger and you are capable of doing something, if that means physical confrontation, then you do that. If you can’t, you at least alert those who can, such as by calling the police. (And really since I don’t want to encourage us all becoming vigilantes, generally if you have time always try to call the police first.)

So what is going on in this passage?

Jesus is getting ready to go to the cross and He knows from this point on that it’s going to be much harder for His apostles, and indeed it is. Persecution will be coming. Thus, he tells them to sell their cloak and buy a sword.

The sword here is not exactly first-rate military gear. It’s said to be a small sword as distinguished by a large sword. It could be used for cutting animals and a number of Jews typically carried one around. Hence, it is not surprising to hear that in the Gospels, the apostles do have at least two of them.

Despite that, it is not likely that Jesus meant this to be taken in a literal sense. After all, if they were trying to defend themselves, two swords are not going to be enough to defend twelve people. Jesus’s exasperation then would be because His disciples were again misunderstanding Him. Jesus has a recurring theme when He is taken literalistically when He doesn’t mean to be.

So in the end, what this is saying is simply Jesus knows hard times are coming and some changes are going to take place. Like the advice given to a scout troop, they need to be prepared.

We still need that advice today.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Debunking 9 Truly Evil Things Right Wing Christians Do Part 6

What is a good response to the question of war? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Once again, I hand the blog over to Allie to share one of her notes that she has written. Please enjoy and let me know what you think of her writing.

“We are now at Part 6. Promoting holy war is evil. I’ll go ahead and quote what they say in the article (http://www.alternet.org/belief/9-truly-evil-things-right-wing-christians-do?page=0%2C1):
“What first flipped my bit, what transformed me from an agnostic into an outspoken full-time antagonist of Bible worship was a conversation with my Evangelical relatives about the Iraq war. From the vantage of my relatives and my childhood church “family,” George Bush needed no diplomatic or cultural expertise; he was Born Again. He didn’t need to seek input from his earthly father about the invasion, because he asked his Heavenly Father. Besides, Jesus is coming soon and war in the Middle East is predicted in the Bible. That makes it not only inevitable, but—in a manner of speaking—desirable. Evangelical Christians have spent tens of millions of dollars funding the “return” of Jews to Israel and settlements in the West Bank “as it is written in the scripture”—with the perverse expectation that their presence will one day cause blood to flow in the streets as high as a horse’s bridle.”
So it seems the main thing they’re complaining about is President Bush Jr. and the Iraq war. I don’t think the writer of this article did very much research on this topic honestly and is just complaining on personal issues rather than factual issues. I do agree with the writer that if people are wanting to go to war for the sole purpose of the return of Christ, that is a mistake. First of all, Christ doesn’t need us to fulfill prophecies about himself. A prophecy is going to be fulfilled without us even trying to fulfill it. A prophecy is going to be fulfilled even if we try to prevent it from being fulfilled, especially if it’s about Christ! If you are going to go to war, it needs to be for reasons other than the for the hope of Jesus returning. Think of all the people who are going to be slaughtered because you are trying to bring Jesus back! You can’t bring Jesus back, only God chooses when he returns! Personally, I do believe we should be involved in the Iraqi War, but my reasons are not because I’m trying to bring Christ back, but because Israel is our ally and the terrorists attacked us on 9/11! Terrorists are bullies in a severe way, and I cannot stand bullies. These bullies will not give up until they are either dead or have killed us. Writer (author of the article), you may be willing to give up your freedom if it came down to it, but I’ll fight for my freedom – even if I have to die for it! The same thing applies to the return of the Jews to the West Bank. If you are only returning them for the sole purpose of the return of Jesus, your reasoning is wrong. Personally, I believe they should go there because Jews have the right to Israel as much as Americans have the right to the US and Indians have the right to India and Iranians have the right to Iran. Jews are being persecuted around the globe like Christians and Israel is one of the safest places, believe it or not, for them to be. I just saw something today even that Jews were having to flee from places in France because there were mobs yelling “Gas the Jews!” (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/france-jewish-shops-riot_n_5608612.html) Nazism is still around today it seems. So the writer complains we’re spending so much money helping protect the Jewish people. Let me ask you, writer, where do you want the money to go towards? Abortions? Sure, let’s spend more money on more killing! Sounds like a great idea! It’s interesting how so many people are opposed to wars because of all the money that goes into it and all the killing, yet so many people are for abortions. How much money goes into abortions/abortifications and the killing of innocent lives?
Next part will be 7. Abusing and killing queers is evil.”

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Is Buying A Sword About Self-Defense?

Why did Jesus tell his disciples to buy a sword? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently, a friend of Deeper Waters sent me a statement to comment on concerning the Zimmerman trial. What it was was the person saying that a man has a right to defend himself he used Luke 22:35-38 to make that point.

“35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.”

There are some times when a preacher is said to have a good message but to have the wrong text. This is the same case here. I do hold to a person having the right to defend themselves. In the past, that was a sword. Today, a gun would be more appropriate. Therefore, my contention is not against self-defense.

However, to say I support self-defense does not mean that I support every Scriptural argument given for self-defense. I don’t think this passage is talking about that at all. After all, let’s consider that Jesus would have eleven men by his side since Judas betrayed him. These eleven men would have two swords between them to fight off a crowd? (And why would Jesus want the crowd to be fought off? In the text, we see him surrendering to them and condemning Peter for getting a sword out in the first place!)

What Jesus is talking about is the future coming time when the disciples will face great peril and they need to be men of courage, men that would be the kind who would normally use a sword. If Jesus had literally meant for them to buy a sword, then it is a wonder we do not see the disciples engaging in hand-to-hand combat anywhere throughout the book of Acts!

When Jesus says “It is enough”, do we really take him to mean that the two swords the disciples have will be enough for them to be prepared when the Roman army comes? Of course not! Instead, it is a matter of exasperation. Jesus regularly has a problem with the disciples taking him in a wooden literal sense. (Please keep that in mind many of you today who think that the best way to take Jesus is always the wooden literal sense unless there are other reasons not to. Jesus himself has several problems with that approach.)

The best lesson to get from all this is that the right message does not mean the right passage. I am not saying the Bible condemns self-defense. I am just saying that this is not the right passage to go to and when we go to the wrong passage, we end up causing harm to our position as we make it look foolish and have it so that some think when they dispute our false interpretation, they’ve shown the Bible does not teach this at all. Not only that, the worst part is whenever we have a false interpretation, we miss the true interpretation we are to get out of Scripture.

In Christ,
Nick Peters