The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Why did he tell them to get some swords?

My daughter asked me this question regarding this verse. I didn't particularly like the answer the commentary I was reading said so I put it to the scholars here why did he tell them to take a sword?

And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough."
(Luk 22:35-38 ESV)

Excellent question Boanerges and I for one am very happy that you brought it up. I am going to put these few versus to memory.

Here I believe we find Jesus preparing the 11 ( Judas is thought to have already left them to get the authorities ) for what is ahead of them. He is now telling them that they will need their purses and swords. He has up to this point protected them and brought them up carefully. But now he will soon be departing and they will be responsible for protecting themselves against all kind of wickedness. But we must not think, imho, that this is a lesson in self-reliance, it is not. I believe we are to know by reading scripture that we are to pray and rely on God to provide for us, to protect us, guide us and comfort us. But we must do it with a purse and a sword.

I was in a bible study a while back and the question was asked, "If a stranger breaks into your home, what will you do?" I answered that I would say a short prayer in my head and grab a heavy object and try to defend myself and my family. But there was one man there that said he would get on his knees and pray for divine intervention. ( He was also pentecostal and charismatic )

Here is where we all might have different opinions. I for one, believe in God's providence. I hold to a sovereign God and I pray for His blessings and intervention on mine and my families life. But I believe that we are also responsible agents.

In Sinclair Ferguson's book "The Christian Life" both he and Packer talk about our "experience" being a valid part of our growth and learning. Well it has been my experience, being past military, that there are many good Christians who have taken up arms to protect our country. So I tend to get a little ruffled at those who take a very passive stance when it comes to conflict.

In these passages, I believe Jesus is telling them that no longer will they be able to get by without any money or personal protection. The world at that time was by far safe for travel. You had to protect yourself against wild dogs, snakes, bandits and so forth. To travel without a sword would have been pretty foolish. So we see here that it is logical for us while we are in our earthly tents to do the things we have to do to survive. Whether it be to carry a pistol on the range, a knife in the city or an M4 in the streets of some far off mid-eastern country.

Y.B.I.C,

Dave

A M16 or evev a m249 Saw might be a better choice over the m4. The m4 does not have the range of the m16.

...or get my lil' .22 out of the closet. One of the following smiley defense options may work as well: <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bif.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/argue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/flee.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/surrender.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />

So your saying that Christ was talking about really arming oneself with real weapons? Most of the commentators that I have looked at (which are few I must admit) tend to say that he was speaking in metaphorical terms here. He wasn't really telling them to grab swords.

I believe that yes indeed, the Lord Christ was telling His disciples to arm themselves with a sword for the purpose of protection. Hendriksen is one who opts to "allegorize/spiritualize" the word sword and as a reason for doing so refers to Jesus' rebuke of Peter in Lk 22:49-51; Matt 26:51 and John 18:10, 11. However, this is one of those rare instances where I must disagree with Mr. Hendriksen on two counts:

1) There is no legitimate hermeneutical reason to take "purse" and "wallet(ASV)/script(KJV)" literally but spiritualize "sword". The Lord says that the disciples are to sell their outer garment if necessary to buy a sword. This would make absolutely no sense if the "sword" was not a physical item. And lastly, in verse 38, it says, "Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.". Clearly, the disciples understood "sword" to be a literal weapon and the Lord acknowledges their understanding and affirms that having two among them was sufficient.

2) The texts referenced where Peter is rebuked for drawing his sword and cutting off the soldier's ear do not support the view that "sword" in Luke 22:36 cannot be literal. The rebuke given was not in regard to Peter having and/or using his sword, but rather because Peter's zeal to protect Jesus from being arrested was one which would prevent Him from the cross to which He was destined. Interestingly, Peter had previously been rebuked for the same reason, cf. Matt 16:21-23; Mk 8:31-33.

There is no implication that the use of the sword was to be in an offensive manner but rather it was to be used as a defensive weapon.

In His Grace,

Like Dave, I believe in providence and that we are responsible agents. However, I disagree that this has anything to do with fighting off an intruder. I can safely assume that most here would not lie, or commit adultery, or steal to spare themselves or their family from suffering. We will not do these things because we believe God has removed these options for us as Christians. I believe that peace and non-violence are also taught by Jesus in the Gospels in a clear way. Since I have incorporated this value, violence is yet one more possible but disallowed option for me. Since even a casual reading of the NT shows that suffering is part of a godly life I should not violate Jesus' command of love and peace to spare myself or my loved ones. Of course everything in me would want to spare my family from suffering but to what lengths am I willing to go to do this?

So I really don't see the providence vs. moral agent as relevant here. What is relevant is whether you believe peace and non-violence is central to the gospel. If not, beating an intruder in self-defense is a clear and reasonable option. If yes, obedience demands a non-violent solution. Many of the martyrs of the past prayed as their accusers dragged them off to certain death. It seems that these peace-loving 'charismatics' who would pray in the face of danger are in good company historically.

As for the swords, the text itself does not tell us what their purpose is. People seem happy to see these as defensive weapons, but the text does not say that. For all we know, Jesus intended them to be used to cut firewood (like a machete). Where the text is silent, we should exercise caution lest confuse our rational understanding with what the text is saying.

Brent
"Dig deep into God's Word"

In the very next versus we read that one of the disciples cuts off a mans ear with his sword. Then Jesus makes mention of swords and clubs in the context of weapons.

I do not believe I'm taking the text out of context. But I also stated that we would all have different opinions and I know this will always be so. Yes I affirm that Jesus taught peace and forgiveness. I know that our Lord is love and compassion. But I also see where people needed to protect themselves by means of force in the old testament.

Maybe I just have too much Tex'n in me, but if someone breaks into my home (trespassing) which I still consider an act of extreme unlawful behavior (as some don't anymore) I will do everything in my power to protect my daughter and wife.

I know what wicked people can do to innocent people, (Christians included... Columbine)and I don't intend to allow my family to be tortured and die in agony if I can help it.

It's a hard topic. Maybe I'm still at the beginning of my sanctification, the Lord might bring me along in the area of passivity in the future, I don't know.

Dave.

I agree with the 'purpose' of a sword in general terms. But Jesus rebuked Peter for using his sword in that manner in the text you mention. Some think this was related to the cross (placing this rebuke in a similar theological context as Jesus' rebuke of Peter in Matt 16:23) and others see this as in line with Jesus' teaching on loving enemies (rather than hacking off their body parts) -- I think both interpretations are possible from the text. My point about the swords is that since Jesus disallowed Peter using it as an instrument of violence against his attackers, perhaps his reason for having two swords with the group was for something else. It seems possible from the context.

I too am at the beginning of my sanctification and I'm certainly not saying I would not act as Peter did and come out swinging -- I just have a hard time seeing Jesus doing that and as such, I have to pause and wonder if prayer, stealth, and seclusion are not better options for the Christian. I see it as an equally 'active' and protective response for my family -- just in the direction of non-violence.

Also, I don't think actively seeking protective cover and escape, and praying to the Maker of heaven and earth are 'passive' responses -- they just aren't violent. I certainly would place myself between an attacker and my family, particularly if they could escape while I did that but if I can usher my family out to safety -- all the better. One thing we agree on completely (besides the preciousness of family) is that this is a hard topic.

Brent
"Dig deep into God's Word"

I agree that these are literal swords and that Peter used one of them to protect Jesus and the group from an illegal arrest at night. But how can we say "for the purpose of protection" when that very use brings rebuke to Peter from Jesus? Since the text does not tell us what the 'purpose' of these swords is, ISTM that we are simply making guesses based on our preconceived ideas (me included).

Brent
"Dig deep into God's Word"

The events in the Upper Room ends with a warning. Jesus had previously told the disciples to go out without money, sandals, etc. to proclaim the Gospel. But now, He says, they are to go out ready for anything—bring everything and even buy a sword. But, they missed the point and produced "two" swords. Jesus says, “enough,” and I do not think He is referring to their two swords. Rather, I think Jesus is saying, “Enough of this." You’ve missed the point, which is "the strategy must change." A year or two ago I was popular. You went in My name and were received gladly. In a short period of time, I will be killed and you will have no popularity. You are to prepare for those days.

Unlike Hendriksen I do believe it is an actual call to arms though. We need to note that protection is not always against another human being. The disciples would now be traveling with the Gospel and all kinds of treacheries lie in wait--wild animals, etc. Swords are also used for hunting and cutting of beef, etc on the highway. In addition, as Christians we are still allowed to defend (intimidation, at least) ourselves against "hostilities," (robbers, etc) which is different than hostility against the Kingdom message.

The usage of the swords though I do not believe was for physical protection against the aggressors of the Kingdom message as we see all of the disciples martyred (save John who was exiled) and not a hint of physical resistance, except when Peter blew it. I somewhat agree with Nolland here (but not with the entirely of his commentary to be sure).

The rebuke was as I already wrote in my previous reply. The N.T. is replete with examples of how the common unbelieving "followers" of Christ wanted to crown Him "king" due to their erroneous belief that an earthly kingdom was to be established (sound vaguely familiar? ). The Lord, of course, resisted both their attempts and the Devils similar challenge/temptation for He was appointed to suffer on the cross. On the other hand, His true disciples wanted to prevent Him from going to His death but for obviously different reasons. And He rebuked them, even sharply at times, and insisted that it was imperative that He suffer and die so that they might live. Thus, Peter (assumed) was rebuked for his overt act, which really shouldn't be surprising given that Peter was quite well known for being impetuous.

To suggest that these two swords which the Lord Christ unquestionably approved of and told them to carry with them was to be used for cutting wood, culinary purposes or shaving, etc. is hardly defensible given that these swords were "military" in nature. (see also: TDNT pp. 524-526) Absolute Pacifism is not taught in God's Word where one is to allow anyone to do anything they wish to us or to those over whom we have care. And the subject of pacifism and violence has already been discussed on this Board several times. I don't advocate offensive violence. But I have yet to find any reasonable apologetic to defend a position of absolute pacifism from the Scriptures.

In His Grace,

Michaelis' article on MACAIRA in TDNT (4:524-26) is good, but it does not indicate that the instrument was "military in nature." In fact, he does more than Danker at pointing out its function as a 'knife' for food preparation from the time of Homer. The multi-valency of this word (like virtually all others) is seen in its various occurences in the NT. It can mean a 'dagger' or 'sword' as a military weapon (cf., Acts 16:27; it was more like a long curved sharp knife with the Greek term ROMFAIA being used for what we normally understand as a 'sword'), 'dagger' or 'knife' (Heb 4:12), symbolically as "bloody conflict" (cf., Mt 10:34), "violent death" (Rom 8:35), and even metaphorically as the "word of God" (cf., Eph 6:17). Since MACAIRA was extremely common, not all of its basic uses would be explicitely stated in the NT -- in fact, we can expect its most common uses to be understood as common knowledge by the writer.


We don't read how they gutted animals in NT times but no doubt a cutting instrument call a MACAIRA was used (from Homer's usage). Contrary to your above statement, I think it would be difficult (if not impossible) to show that the MACAIRA was even primarily a military instrument.

Peace,
Brent
"Dig deep into God's Word"

Sorry brother, but methinks you are forcing your presuppositional pacifism upon the text in question. It would be difficult to accept that the disciple who cut off the servant's ear used a small "daggar" which would normally be used to prepare the ceremonial meat by the O.T. priests. In the N.T., the "sword" was primarily that used by the military.

The more salient issue is a hermeneutical one. Either one must spiritualize all 3 items mentioned; script, purse and sword, which is indefensible given that the text is narrative and historical or one must understand them literally. And lastly, nowhere in the N.T. are Christians instructed to allow miscreants to freely assault, rape ,maim or kill them. By way of analogy, Jesus taught us to pray for our "daily bread", relying upon the providential mercy and grace of God to supply us with necessary food. However, Paul makes it unmistakably clear that one is not to take God's provision for granted, but rather to act responsibility using the means God has providentially provided to acquire that food. (cf. 2Thess 3:10) One must not make the error of ignoring or denying either God's sovereignty or man's responsibility at the expense of the other. It's not either/or but both/and!

In His Grace,

The MACAIRA can be used as an instrument of war. Just because the RHOMPHAÍAIS is longer than the MACAIRA does not mean it was not used for battle (i.e. Matt 26:47; Mark 14:43; Luke 21:24, 22:49; Acts 16:27; Rev 6:4; and in the Sept—Gen 34:25; Jud 3:16). In actuality it was the weapon of choice of assassins in that era. A.T. Robertson (Robertson's Word Pictures) states, “Buy a sword (Grk: agorasatoo, Strongs: 59) (Grk: machairan, Strongs: 3162). This is for defence clearly.”

Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, states;


The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, states;


As Edmond Clowney once remarked;

What’s wrong with Matthew Henry’s comments on the idea of carrying two swords?



Wes

I can't decide what it is Henry is saying! At times, it appears that he seems to indicate that the disciples were to carry BOTH a physical sword as protection AND to be armed with the "Sword of the Spirit", i.e., the Word of God. But he also appears to be saying that the disciples didn't need a physical sword.

The problem I have, as has already been stated elsewhere, is that the text does not allow the sword, which the Lord says the disciples should have, even if it means selling their outer garment to buy, to be spiritualized to mean the Scriptures. The literary form of that passage alone mitigates against doing this.

BTW... Matthew Henry is well-known as one who often spiritualizes the Bible in his Commentary. Thus one needs to read him with discernment!

In His Grace,

First, I'm using BDAG, TDNT,and LSJ to determine the meaning of MACAIRA. Here are the definitions from LSJ:

1. large knife or dirk, carving-knife, sacrificial knife, a knife adapted to various purposes.
2. as a weapon, short sword, dagger, an assassin’s weapon, used by jugglers
3. sabre, opp. the straight sword, cavalry sabre.
4. shears or scissors.
5. metaphorically Zen.3.19, cf., Posidipp. 1.10; Eph.6.17, cf., Lxx; Is.49.2.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1996), s.v., MACAIRA.

The abridged version of TDNT has the following:

MACAIRA means the “knife” used in sacrifice, cooking, gardening, etc., then the “small sword,” e.g., the saber or dagger. In the LXX it is the knife in Gen. 22:6; Josh. 5:2-3, but mostly the dagger or small sword.

Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich , Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, translated and abridged by Geoffrey William Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 572.

Anyone who is so inclined can go to the Perseus site and look up MACAIRA in LSJ to see for themselves how the word is used. I'm not sure why quoting standard lexical resources is construed as forcing an idea on the text. If one reads widely in Greek literature you can see a variety of ways the word is used. It may be that I err when I read Jesus' principles peace and love of enemy into these passages but if so, it is from a desire to be consistent in my understanding of Jesus' attitude toward violence. . .even in this passage when he rebukes the disciple. You accuse me of "forcing" my "presuppositional pacifism upon the text in question" but where is the validity of this analysis? I am trying to understand the purpose of the swords in relation to Jesus subsequent rebuke of Peter. How is that forcing presuppositions on the text?


I agreed with this from the beginning (see my initial post on this thread). What I disagreed with was the poster's understanding of Jesus intention for the items. When the instrument (MACAIRA) was used for personal defense [against the armed mob], Jesus rebuked the disciple and repaired the damage. Whatever purpose was intended by Jesus for the swords, inflicting harm on another person doesn't seem to be one of them. I'm trying very hard to discern their purpose from the text itself. If I am forcing an understanding, show me the evidence and perhaps I will be enlightened. This is not about pacifism it's about understanding the purpose of the MACAIRAI of Lk 22:35-38 in light of Jesus words in 22:51.


If you read my other posts on this thread, you would see I agree with your balanced understanding of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. As I said in another post, the question of defense is not whether it's my job or God's job but about which responses are available to me as a Christian. Why people always associate passivity with non-violence is a mystery to me. Some seem to be saying my only choice is to use the sword or take it on the chin so to speak. What about the multitude of other possibilities to curtail violence and evade direct violent confrontation? In those rare instances where the the only choice is to do violence or suffer, why can't we follow the example of Jesus instead of Peter? (cf., Mt 10:38). Why are we bent on resisting an evildoer?(cf., Mt 5:39) In Acts we see Paul being lowered over the city wall in a basket at night (Acts 9:25) -- that's a creative non-violent solution to a threat of violence. But sometimes there is no time for creativity or retreat. We have stories of Paul being beaten and put in prison before he told his assailants he was a Roman citizen (it was illegal to beat a Roman without a trial) (Acts 16:16-40; cf., Acts 22:22-29). If I am forcing this on the text, I seek enlightenment because my natural response is to push back.

Peace,
Brent

Of course MACAIRA was an instrument used for military purposes. But just because modern soldiers carry knives doesn't mean the primary purpose of a knife is military.

Peace,
Brent

First of all, it is the CONTEXT of the passage which will give the correct or most probably meaning of a word. In the context of Lk 22:36, 37, the meaning seems most likely to mean a sword that was of a military type, i.e., one used for the purpose of combat. It would also seem consistent from the fact that this sword was used to cut off a man's ear. In short, if you understand the information provided in those several sources, the word MACAIRA was used in a variety of ways throughout history and changed meaning. What it meant in the O.T. (e.g., a ceremonial knife) is not necessarily what it meant in the N.T. By far, the references in the N.T. are the swords carried by soldiers.

I've already give a reasonable explanation of why the Lord Christ rebuked the disciple after cutting of the ear of the servant who was among those sent to arrest Him. The point was not that violence was wrong, but rather the situation didn't warrant it. It was God's appointment that Christ should be arrested and murdered so that He might atone for those whom the Father gave Him.(cf. Matt 26:31; Jh 11:49-51; 17:1, 2; Isa 53:5-8; Rom 3:25, 26; 1Pet 3:18; et al) The circumstances surrounding the arrest of Christ is not analogous to someone breaking into your home and wanting to assault you or someone attacking you on the street. There is a stark difference between one being arrested for his faith and one being attacked by some evil individual.

Evidently, you have no real experience with individuals who would do you harm?? In many situations, it is not possible to run, call the police, talk your way out of being assaulted, etc. There are but two choices one can make.... defend yourself or suffer injury or death. Since my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and I am to be a good steward of it in all ways, e.g., eating well, keeping it fit, not allowing sinful things enter my mind, etc., it is only reasonable to conclude that not allowing someone to destroy or injure it is prudent. There is no virtue in allowing evil to triumph. And there is no warrant to presume upon God's miraculous intervention as Christ also showed when He contended with the Devil in the wilderness. (cf. Lk 4:9-12)

In His Grace,

Well I see it is NOT "impossible" to prove it, is it? The Greek can prove it, the context of the Scripture proves it, and even, the translators (NIV, NAS, Message, Amplified, NLT, KJV, ESV, CEV, NKJV, ASV, Youngs, Darby, NLV, Holman, NIRV, WENT, etc.) go so far as to NOT to translate this term simply as a "knife," but a "sword" (indeed, because that is what it is). However, it is more like a multi-purpose sword, not one for just crushing Armour. While it is true that Jesus was not training His subjects to be theonomists <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> (thus, it would have been wiser to be armed with a larger sword), IMO He was revealing a couple of things, as I attempted to point out in a previous post:

1. Mentally, I believe Jesus is saying prepare for hard days ahead. Times of peace are disappearing.

2. Yes, the sword can be used for provisional things such as food, hunting, etc., thus a multi-purpose tool. Not everyone is going to fend for you now, you have to do it for yourself at times ...

3. Yes, it may also be used for self-defense--which is not negated in Scripture, as I (and others) have shown in other posts. Indeed, this sword was one used for precision maneuvers, like dissecting ears (and Peter would not have been rebuked, if his purpose would have been self-defense and not the stopping of the bringing in of the Kingdom). While Christ told Peter to "put your sword in its place," He clearly did not say get rid of it forever. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" /> That would have contradicted what He had told the disciples only hours before!

In the OT they were to have judges rule in cases involving bloodshed (Deut 17:8), which suggests not all bloodshed was to be punished. This seems to allow use of deadly force in defense. If a thief was caught breaking into a home at night, the homeowner had the right to kill the intruder in protection of his family and property. But if the incident occurred during the day, presumably when the homeowner could properly judge the intruder's intentions and the intruder could see the homeowner was present and willing to defend his household, the homeowner could not kill in defense of his household (Exod 22:2-3).

And just who is the One who trains us for war?

However, let us not stay within the realm of the OT, for the NT has some revelations of its own as well.

Years after Pentecost, Paul wrote in a letter to Timothy: "But if any provideth not for his own, and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8). This passage applies to our subject because it would be absurd to buy a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one’s family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property. Likewise, it would be absurd not to take, if necessary, the life of a thief to protect the members of the family (Exod 22:2-3).

At I will end this with the WLC;

What Are the Duties Required In the Sixth Commandment?

If I understand him correctly that's exactly what he's saying. First he makes a reference to a physical sword to protect against robbers and assassins (making reference to Paul's experience in 2 Cor. 11:26). I think we all agree on this.

Matthew Henry is quilty as charged of spiritualizing the text by bringing to the table something more than Luke had drafted into this particular verse when he makes mention of the Sword of the Spirit. But even though Luke doesn't seem to have that in mind here a true disciple must arm himself with the Word of God to do battle against the kingdom of darkness just like Jesus did when he was in hand-to-hand combat with the evil one (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). It may not be intended here by Luke but it is not untrue.

The final idea in Henry's comments sugests if we fight a spiritual battle we may not need the physical swords. So he goes on to point out that the Lord will provide and protect. His comments are good but unfortunately not restricted to the verses in Luke 22.

Just my thoughts. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" />


Wes

You are quite right, context is definitely the only reliable way to determine a words specific meaning. You are also correct that words change their meaning over time. We can see from LSJ that 'sabre' was added at a later stage but I can't find evidence that the meaning 'knife' and 'short sword' were not still used in this period. Also, since the LXX is a translation from the Hebrew and it occured during the Koine period, its language is fundamentally the same as the Greek of the NT. If the translators of the LXX thought MACAIRA was a good translation for a ceremonial knife, it was because it was part of the word's semantic range. This is not unlike the English of the NIV, which is uniform to our period even though the underlying documents represent thousands of years of lexical change.


And I have acknowledged that as a viable interpretation in another post yet, while I agree with the prophetic/soteriological timetable, I don't think that was the ethical motivation. My reason is that Jesus' actions here are consistent with what he said elsewhere about loving enemies, praying for abusers, not resisting an evil person, and rejecting the way of the sword. I don't need to look at the overarching salvation timetable to explain Jesus' actions.


Do you truly suppose that because I choose to take Jesus literally about non-violence that my life must be sheltered and free of danger? What an indictment against a Christian's ability to live according to radical principles! We make our choices and we live with the consequences. I have choosen to not commit adultery, to not steal, and to not be carried away by greed. Using the above logic, I must be ugly and rich as well as safe and secure! I'm not saying I'd win any beauty contests, but I assure you, I'm certainly not rich. I'm saddened that instead of a reasoned dialog on the passages in question, my character (or apparent lack thereof) is brought in. Or perhaps it was just my intelligence that was questioned...either way, it is disheartening.

Blessings,

Brent

Give me a break..... will ya? Where did I even hint that I was questioning your character or intelligence? What I wrote was, "Evidently, you have no real experience with individuals who would do you harm??" Some of us are just as committed to living our lives under the authority of God's Word as you are. And we are just as convinced from our study of the Word and from the works of other reliable men that pacifism as you are espousing it is not taught in Scripture. The question, albeit rhetorical (notice the double ??), addressed the issue of real life experiences with people who have tried to harm you or even take your life. The fact is, I have... on several occasions. I have had people who were high on drugs try to break into my home. And yes, I both prayed and called the RCMP for assistance. They took 40 minutes to arrive. But if you think that "love your enemies" translates into allowing such evil individuals to break into your home, assault you, rape your wife, molest your children, etc., I think you have totally misunderstood what the Lord means and are sadly mistaken. Loving my children includes using physical punishment to discipline them. And loving my enemies may include physically subduing them so as to protect my body, family and possessions. My children never had to fear that their father would stand in the corner and pray while some crazed pedophile sexually molested them.

In His grace,

I Just wanted to pass on a relevant anecdote: “A gentle Quaker, hearing a strange noise in his house one night, got up and discovered a burglar busily at work. So he went a got his gun, then came back and stood quietly in the doorway. “Friend,” he said, “I would do thee no harm for the world, but thee standest where I am about to shoot.”

I suppose this should go in the Lighter side…but it is in answer to the topic at hand.

In His Light,
Tracy

I suppose it could be if you really believed a Quaker owned a gun. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />