Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | SpreadWord | 3765 | ||
You ask for a New Testament example. I could give plenty from the Old Testament, but the best New Testament example I can find is Luke 22:36 where Jesus is admonishing His disciples to arm themselves with a sword. In fact, Jesus thought it was so important that if they did not have a sword, they should sell their garment in order to buy one. A sword was the self defense weapon of the day. | ||||||
2 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | djconklin | 30941 | ||
In context, Jesus was telling his disciples that if they lacked faith in His ability to provide for their needs then they should buy a sword and thus use it to take what they needed--note that none of them ever did such a thing. | ||||||
3 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | SpreadWord | 31276 | ||
I do not see how you can gather this interpretation from the context. I just went back and re-read it. I seriously doubt Jesus was instructing them to steal those things that they needed, even in the circumstances of little faith. Also, we read in v. 38 that they did indeed produce two swords. Jesus replies, "It is enough." Now, we can discuss whether that was enough for the entire group, or for an individual, because in v. 36, he seems to imply that each individual should have at least one sword. It could be that he considered an extensive "sword collection" as a bit much, but two swords for an individual would be appropriate. Maybe a short one and long one or such. The scripture is not explicit here. | ||||||
4 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | djconklin | 31366 | ||
Think about it: how could two swords (whatever length) be enough for 12 disciples? And what would they be used for? | ||||||
5 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | SpreadWord | 31385 | ||
Your question is precisely the reason I questioned whether Jesus meant two swords were enough for the group or an individual. However, if the disciples were to always be together, then two swords may be enough for the group. If I were a criminal, I wouldn't attack a group of 12 strong men, especially if two of them had swords. In any case, the most obvious purpose of them having a sword at all would be for self defense. We know from the character of Jesus, that he would not advocate his disciples using their swords in an evil manner (like using them to steal things in time of need). As Christians we can take two responses to evildoers who would kill our families and friends. We can sit idly by, unarmed, and allow a lone gunman to shoot our loved ones as happened at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas. Or, we can work within the laws of the land, obtain a handgun carry permit, and keep a sidearm concealed on our person in order to protect our family and friends whether in church or in the shopping mall. I prefer the latter, and I guarantee if a criminal discharges his firearm in our church, I'll make sure he doesn't take a second shot. These are, of course, my opinions, and in keeping with rule #3 of this forum, I mean no illwill toward anyone, including those who would choose the first option above and remain unarmed in spite of evildoers who would do harm. |
||||||
6 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | djconklin | 31623 | ||
If they were 12 "strong men" with two swords then why would they hide as they did after the death of Jesus? The Zealots were much better armed and they took on the Romans. Given the context about going out and being supplied by faith divine grace woould provide them with the necessary provisions it is far more likely that Jesus was basically saying that if you don't have faith then with the sword you could take what ever you thought you would need. I forget which commentary I read that in. Perhaps if you looked you'd find it (I just got up from a half sleep after a 16 hour shift so I'm still brain-dead here.). | ||||||
7 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | SpreadWord | 31731 | ||
I'm thinking we may be at an impasse here. However, I've really enjoyed the discourse, and friendly "debate" on the Word can only serve to make us stronger. It could very well be that my thoughts on this passage are "off" and I am looking for justification for self-defense in an area of scripture that was not meant for this purpose. However, I feel that taking this passage along with several others (and particularly when you do not discount the Old Testament), there is ample evidence for justified self-defense. I will remain adamant, however, that our Lord would not, and even could not, advocate the sin of breaking both the 6th and the 8th commandments in the taking of "necessities" by force with a sword. (2 Corinthians 5:21) If there is a commentary that is advocating this position, then I say we hold that commentary to the light of scripture to see whether to trust the commentary or not. This type of behaviour would be contradictory to the character and sinless nature of our Lord as is spelled out explicitly in scripture. One thought to always keep in mind....scripture is infallible and profitable for reproof and doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16). However, commentaries on the scripture are simply men's opinions, albeit based on other scriptures. We need to sharpen our own Word skills so as to "rightly divide the Word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15) without relying entirely on the interpretations and opinions of other mere mortals. BTW - On the issue of the disciples hiding after the death of Jesus before the resurrection, it shows they had a fear of the government, in that the government may come after them next. I'd be the first to agree that 12 guys and two swords would be no match for the entire Roman army, headed by Ceaser himself. :-) But I think the case can be made that the common thief or criminal would have a hard time attacking a group of twelve men with two swords, especially when several of these guys were fishermen (manual, muscle building labor). Anyway, I've enjoyed this, and if you'd like to keep at a for a while, I'm game. Otherwise, we can walk away and "agree to disagree." |
||||||
8 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | djconklin | 31876 | ||
"I will remain adamant, however, that our Lord would not, and even could not, advocate the sin of breaking both the 6th and the 8th commandments in the taking of "necessities" by force with a sword." Jesus wasn't advocating anything like that. Unfortunately, the disciples (as usual) misinterpreted what He meant. The passage has nothing to do with self-defense and given that the disciples split up sometime after the Ascension 2 sowrds would hardly have afforded adequate protection against anyone who was deteremined to rob or attack any of them--note that virtually all labor back then (except for Luke the physician and Matthew the tax collector) was manual labor--so virtually all males were phiscally fit (no couch potatoes!) |
||||||
9 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | SpreadWord | 31897 | ||
Then this brings us "full circle" then with your original comment on my note: "In context, Jesus was telling his disciples that if they lacked faith in His ability to provide for their needs then they should buy a sword and thus use it to take what they needed--note that none of them ever did such a thing." It appears to me that you are attempting to make the case that Jesus gave His tacit approval for them to use the sword to steal, and if need be, kill in order to obtain their necessities. If this is not what you intended to state, then I failed to see your original point. And what other legitimate purpose could these swords have served? While I could certainly be wrong on this interpretation of this particular passage, it certainly seems to me to be a good case for self-defense. And your statement about the disciples splitting up after the ascension would tend to validate one of my points that 2 swords are "enough" for an individual, not necessarily the entire group. |
||||||
10 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | djconklin | 31920 | ||
You didn't read closely what I wrote--note the word "if". If one lacks faith then one isn't a believer right? Whatever is not of faith is sin? From what we are given in the account there were only two swords amongst all of the 12 disciples. |
||||||
11 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | SpreadWord | 32006 | ||
First of all, I don't believe that a lack of faith entirely means that one isn't a believer. In Luke 8:25, Jesus asks his disciples, "Where is your faith?" Apparantly His own disciples lacked faith at that point, yet they were believers. Secondly, even if he were talking to an unbeliever, Jesus would certainly not instruct or give approval to anyone to take by force what is not rightfully theirs. I can not see how your interpretation of this passage is as you say. If you find your commentary reference, let me know, and I'll try to look it up and read their comments in context. Here is a take on it from the Matthew Henry commentary: "They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves." I could buy the argument of the spiritual weapons (2 Cor. 10:4), but that still doesn't explain Jesus' response when shown the two physical swords. |
||||||