Literal Swords vs Spiritual Weapons

[BlessedByTheBest]

thank you Willamina, for your insightful and refreshing perspective.

at risk of what i fear this topic could turn into, i will state this only to respond to what you have said.

i personally don't feel i have the authority in Christ to take another's life, in defense or not.

i don't believe i am able to find anything in Christ's words or His life's example that justifies it.

not seeking to debate, just my personal admission.

[Guest]

I don't see how he was speaking figuratively blessed, I really don't that's what I'm saying. In those passages, the context suggests real, literal swords. There may be more to what He was trying to teach, and He certainly used the swords, I think as an example to teach, like later on with Peter, on when not to use one, but they were actual literal swords.

I cannot think of anyway where they could be figurative swords in that passage without taking it completely out of context, and putting my own beliefs into it. If your seeing something I'm not, then say so, but I don't see how Jesus could be talking about figurative swords here, from what I'm seeing, they are actual swords-the only question is what the purpose of them being there is.

And enoob. While I agree with your statement we need to live as Christ does, but your still ignoring Romans 7:7 and 2 Timothy 3:16. You can't live as Christ would, unless you know what Christ has taught.

Christ has taught us a great many things-He gave us the entire Bible so that we can learn how to live like Christ. If we could follow Christ from a few verse, then there would be no need for the OT or even the law to be included in the final canon, or for Romans 7:7 or 2 Timothy 3:16.

The entire Bible, law and everything, is there, to help us live like Christ would. The principles of self defense, and defending others, is not a secular thing, they are Biblical principles.

~

Jesus Is The Mighty LORD Of Armies

Your words were found, and I devoured them. Your words are my joy and my heart's delight, because I am called by your name, O LORD God of Armies. Jeremiah 15:16 (GOD'S WORD ® Translation)

And One Not To Be Trifled With

“See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand. I lift my hand to heaven and solemnly swear:

As surely as I live forever, when I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me.

I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders.”

Rejoice, you nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people. Deuteronomy 32:39-43 (NIV)

(IMHO)

And I saw another Angel standing in the sun and crying with a loud voice, and he said to the birds flying in the midst of the sky, “Come, gather to the great supper of God”, “To eat the flesh of Kings and the flesh of Captains of thousands and the flesh of Warriors and the flesh of horses and of those sitting upon them, and the flesh of Freemen and of Servants, and of small and of great.”

And I saw The Beast and its armies and the Kings of The Earth and their Soldiers who gathered to make war with him who sat upon the horse, and with his Soldiers. And The Beast was captured and The False Prophet with it, who did signs before it by which he seduced those who received the mark of The Beast, and those who worshiped its image; and both went down and were cast into The Lake of Fire that burns also with brimstone.

But the rest were killed with the sword of him who sat upon the horse, by that which proceeded from his mouth, and all the birds of prey were filled with their flesh. Revelation 19:17-20 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)

~

And Thus We Plead With Our Earthly Brothers And Sisters

We are ambassadors therefore for Christ, God as it were beseeching by us, we entreat for Christ, Be reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5:20 (Darby Bible Translation)

Come To Jesus The Christ

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Revelation 22:16-17

And Know Peace

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. John 14:27

Love, Joe

[Elhanan]

enoob57 Sorry but it is difficult for me to understand your argument. You make a point of citing dispensational difference between the OT and NT and yet when I point out to you that the NT is the fulfillment of the OT you apparently agree and so contradict your argument. It is obvious that we interpret Scripture differently so this discussion is going to end up by agreeing to disagree. I will answer your last question though: "I will ask you this- if perfect love is perfect obedience to Jesus and that obedience is to die to one's self... what exactly is there to defend?" The short answer: DEFEND OTHERS. Jesus said: "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." (Jn 15:12-13) You can engage in all the spiritual warfare praying you like but dying to oneself does mean that there may be times when we choose to take action to save the lives of others even at the expense of our own lives.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Elhanan

[Elhanan]

my pleasure, thank you for the opportunity to further reflect on this with you.

we are in agreement concerning Scripture's dual meanings, and is why we are addressing the context in this episode of Christ's life.

i don't believe it is speculation to question whether they had enough time, considering you yourself made the distinction that Jesus commanded them to go prepare. i believe the question is valid pertaining to the context.

i am on the other end of your proposition. if we are to examine His commands here as strictly literal, then it begs the question of why He did not insist on them doing exactly that, instead of settling for..."we have 2 swords here, Lord."

in light of this, i believe His response to this is very significant indeed.

"It is enough."

surely, stating you do not know is an answer. but i would say of course they didn't have enough time to 'prepare' before His capture, and would venture to 'speculate' that Christ knew this.

i'll mention again, i believe the hasty use of the weapon was allowed, just as all things are allowed that may lead to our or another's benefit, for reasons we cannot know of in advance.

the Lord is all-knowing, and by His omniscience and providence, all our decisions are put to good use in order that His glory may be made known.

by all means, we can liken the purses and bags to figurative notions of preparation as well and it would even further support my view.. but i make the distinction of the weapons because of the fact one was used during His apprehension, and the others were not.

love to you.

I agree that all of his disciples did not have enough time to buy themselves swords and Jesus was aware of this. I don't think this is a critical matter because I don't interpret Jesus' directive to them as being one of immediacy. Jesus could be saying "it is enough" [for now] with the expectation that the rest would purchase their swords later. Again, the overriding factor for me is that if Jesus did not mean literal swords then why did he not correct them as he had the opportunity to do so especially when someone loses an ear. If there was ever a teachable moment, that would qualify in my book. After all, Jesus is not known to not correct his disciples when they failed to grasp the difference between the literal and the figurative on other occasions. In Matthew 16:5-12, Jesus warns them to be on “guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” The disciples then begin to discuss literal bread, to which Jesus replies“How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” If Jesus was speaking figuratively when he prescribed the sword, we would have expected the same kind of correction. That is my take on it and the difference between you and I is what details we prefer to put emphasis on - nevertheless a good discussion.

[BlessedByTheBest]

I agree that all of his disciples did not have enough time to buy themselves swords and Jesus was aware of this.

I don't think this is a critical matter because I don't interpret Jesus' directive to them as being one of immediacy.

Jesus could be saying "it is enough" [for now] with the expectation that the rest would purchase their swords later. Again, the overriding factor for me is that if Jesus did not mean literal swords then why did he not correct them as he had the opportunity to do so especially when someone loses an ear. If there was ever a teachable moment, that would qualify in my book. After all, Jesus is not known to not correct his disciples when they failed to grasp the difference between the literal and the figurative on other occasions.

In Matthew 16:5-12, Jesus warns them to be on “guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

The disciples then begin to discuss literal bread, to which Jesus replies“How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

If Jesus was speaking figuratively when he prescribed the sword, we would have expected the same kind of correction. That is my take on it and the difference between you and I is what details we prefer to put emphasis on - nevertheless a good discussion.

thank you.

if He spoke literally, then a lack of urgency is certainly a likely scenario considering the lack of time to properly prepare.

that makes sense.

you say that Peter's act of cutting off the soldier's ear was a teachable moment.

i say, indeed it was, and Christ used the opportunity to show a better way.

i agree that Christ never hesitated to admonish them, but i feel that it was perhaps time for them to realize what they refused to accept. i don't know why, but i feel more is there considering the gravity of what was about to occur.

respectfully, going from being on guard that a little leaven might leaveneth the whole lump, to shedding blood in His name, is quite a jump imho.

Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

this is of course me speculating, but i wonder if Christians would perceive this scene in a different light if Peter had plunged his sword through the soldier's heart, or slit his neck instead of his ear.

would a more violent Peter in all his blind zeal better drive home the centerpiece of Christ's surrender to those seeking to do Him harm?

p.s. i believe brother xero has posted many relevant related verses that speak volumes.

love to you.

[The_Patriot21]

I think, that regardless of what Peter had done, Jesus would have healed (or resurrected) the servant, and rebuked Peter on his bad timing. Goes back to time and place. We are to be peacemakers-but there is a difference between peacemaker, and pacifist, sometimes, (not always) violence is needed to maintain peace, like my signature said-true peace is not just the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice.

[Elhanan]

Well-said patriot. I find it to be morally incongruous when we are called to be peacemakers and good Samaritans; yet somehow according to the pacifist position stand by idly and allow violence to be perpetrated against innocents when the opportunity may be available to us to stop it. Francis Schaeffer drives the point home:

"I am to love my neighbor as myself, in the manner needed, in the midst of the fallen world, at my particular point in history. This is why I am not a pacifist. Pacifism in the poor world in which we live – this lost world – means that we desert the people who need our greatest help...I come upon a big burly man beating a tiny tot to death...I plead with him to stop. Suppose he refuses? What does love mean now? Love means that I stop him in any way that I can, including hitting him. To me, this is not only necessary for humanitarian reasons; it is loyalty to Christ's commands concerning Christian love in a fallen world. What about the little girl? If I desert her to the bully, I have deserted the true meaning of Christian love – responsibility to my neighbor."

[BlessedByTheBest]

well patriot, i certainly don't think i addressed whether the outcome would have changed. i questioned whether or not a change in the level of violence portrayed would in any way alter our perspective of its use...in context.

i thought that perhaps the chopping off of an ear may not seem as horrible to some of us in contrast with say, spilling the soldier's guts.

would you care to comment on that? or not..

anyway, the idea that Christ needed(or wanted) defense is not plausible here, because He demanded neither. so please, let's keep this discussion within the parameters of the narrative.

self-defense is another matter entirely, and someone could start a new thread if they wanted to explore that subject.

the refusal to take another's life is not pacifism, it is love for your neighbor and enemy. that is my position, and that is all. nothing added to or taken away.

furthermore, this scene cannot be read to support the defense of the defenseless/conservation of peace, or the notion of pacifism.

but if anything pertains to the use of violence here, it is the hasty uncalled for use of it, it's rebuke, and a display of the manner in which we are called to live by in direct opposition to it..

that is of course if we claim to possess the mind of Christ.

i honestly don't understand what the contention is when it is obvious Peter was on the offensive here...unless of course someone was trying to promote the use of violence...in His name?

love to you both.

[Guest ninhao]

Well-said patriot. I find it to be morally incongruous when we are called to be peacemakers and good Samaritans; yet somehow according to the pacifist position stand by idly and allow violence to be perpetrated against innocents when the opportunity may be available to us to stop it. Francis Schaeffer drives the point home:

"I am to love my neighbor as myself, in the manner needed, in the midst of the fallen world, at my particular point in history. This is why I am not a pacifist. Pacifism in the poor world in which we live – this lost world – means that we desert the people who need our greatest help...I come upon a big burly man beating a tiny tot to death...I plead with him to stop. Suppose he refuses? What does love mean now? Love means that I stop him in any way that I can, including hitting him. To me, this is not only necessary for humanitarian reasons; it is loyalty to Christ's commands concerning Christian love in a fallen world. What about the little girl? If I desert her to the bully, I have deserted the true meaning of Christian love – responsibility to my neighbor."

Hello Elhanan,

I don't necessarily disagree with your statement but can you show me scripture, in particular anything Jesus said, that might indicate He agrees with Mr Schaeffer. There are some that indicate Jesus doesn't agree with him eg. Matthew 5:39, 10:28

Thank you.

[The_Patriot21]

well blessed, I guess to me, it doesnt or shouldnt change our perception, or what we get from the story, because I don't think Peter was aiming for the ear-I think he missed (I think his goal was the whole head) As far the need for defense, I think, there was a reason for swords-I mean seriously, what purpose, did swords play? A sword, unlike a gun, cannot be used for hunting, in that time as word was used for two things-as an offensive weapon, or a defensive weapon. There really wasn't much use for it otherwise, so self defense, or the use of weapons, really isn't outside of the paremeters of this discussion if you ask me.

As far as Peter being on the offensive or the defensive, Im going to say he was not on the offensive. Peter did not go to the temple or seek out the servant, they came for him, and for his master. They came to arrest Jesus, it is only logical to assume that they also had weapons. Peter, saw a bunch of men, armed to the teeth, coming to take the Lord-his actions, were defensive in nature, they just didn't fit with Gods plan at the time, and in reality, you brought up a good point. That Jesus, did not ask, or need protection. Peter wasn't defending himself, or anyone that was defenseless, nor was he acting under Christs orders. He was carrying a sword, which Jesus obviously approved of, and Jesus did not order him to get rid of it. So, your point that it is not a argument for defense of the defenseless is a factual argument-Jesus was not defenseless, though Peter thought that he was doing the right thing. Its not a argument for pacifism either-its a argument for wise use of the weapon, to make sure that if you carry or own a weapon, that you seek God first in the proper use of it.