Let me respond to your points –

You said: “1. In spite of the vague reference to the purchase of a sword in Luke 22, there is absolutely no command by Jesus ever to commit an act of violence, under any circumstance.”

True, but there is much scriptural support for the right to defend oneself against harm. We are not to be pacifists. Read “why I’m not a pacifist” by C.S. Lewis for more information.

You said “2. Jesus himself never commits an act of violence. (Turning over the tables of the money changers did not cause any physical harm to anybody, and it did not result in the loss of property, so it cannot be properly termed violence.)”

There are no scriptures that tell us Jesus brushed his teeth or owned property either. Does that mean we shouldn’t brush our teeth or own property? Certainly not. You are making an argument from silence here, and that NEVER works.

You said “3. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ explicitly commands: “You have heard it said ‘an Eye for an Eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you for your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go with him one mile, go with him two miles.” The entire construction of these commands is meant to sound, and be, a radical departure from the hearers’ understanding of these ethical situations. If somebody breaks into your home and points a gun at you, Christ himself said “Do not resist him.” That would seem to include shooting him dead.

Furthermore, if somebody breaks into your house with a gun, how do you know they intend to shoot you? They might be using it only for intimidation. Then, if you shot him, your response would be incommensurate with the crime. Given that you cannot discern the intentions of the invader, “better safe than sorry” in this circumstance would seem to push us to err on the side of being consistent with Jesus’s teaching, rather than on the side of killing another person.

One might argue that protecting one’s family is different than protecting oneself. “You may shoot me, but if you hurt my wife I will kill you.” This would seem to be inconsistent with Christ’s difficult saying: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” When asked to choose between our family or Jesus, we must pick Jesus.”

You are taking the “hate his father . . .” verse completely out of context. Jesus is merely saying that our first affection should be for Him, and that affection should be so great that all other loves in our life look like hate. It is because we love God that we should love our wives, children, parents, etc, not because we want too. It is also because we Love God that we should protect those whom He has given us charge and duty.

In fact Scripture elsewhere commands us to obey and honor our parents, and to lay down our lives for our wives as Christ laid down His for the church. Men are called to be providers, protectors, and priests/pastors to their families.

You said “4. In St. Matthew’s account of Christ’s arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, when Peter actually drew his sword and cut off the ear of one of the servants of the High Priest, Christ responded, saying “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword die by the sword.” St. Luke’s account has Christ saying “None of this!” in response to Peter’s act of violence.”

So, because Peter didn’t at that time understand that Jesus intended to do His Father’s will and die on the cross, we should let a rapist rape our wives and daughters? This is just plain poor hermeneutics. You are taking a situation and applying it as a whole.

You said “5. Christ’s arrest, brutal torture, and crucifixion, are to be our ultimate example of how to behave in the face of persecution, petty violence, or any other act against ourself or that which we cherish. We are to forgive those who are perpetrating the violence against us, even as they are doing so. Could Christ have called legions of Angels to save him? Yes, of course. But he didn’t. And we shouldn’t either. Nor should we call on a 9mm slug, either.”

First of all, I take offense to violence in defense of my family or country being characterized as petty, but I’ll ignore it for now.

Look, this is again poor hermeneutics. You can’t take Christ’s passivity against his persecutors, because He was obedient to His Father’s will, as a call to be passive against all violence. It would be like if Jesus happened to mention He liked to eat oranges and you saying we should only ever eat oranges. It just doesn’t work like that.

Jesus, in that particular situation, to accomplish His redeeming work here on earth, decided not to defend Himself. Yet, the Holy Spirit says that if we don’t defend our families, we are worse than non-believers. The two are not a contradiction. Jesus acted a certain way in a certain situation to be, as He always is and was, perfectly obedient to the Father’s will.

If you can take this passage to mean that we should all be non-violent, can I take the prophecies in Revelation about Jesus returning riding a white horse in the form of the supreme commander of His army to fight the war of Armageddon against Satan as a call to be violent towards evil people? Don’t laugh, because all I’m doing there is using the same poor hermeneutics you are using, just on a different verse. You are eisigeting scripture; taking a portion of it describing a situation and building a whole theology on it.

You said “6. There is no support, either in the writings of the Apostles, or in their actions, for a “violent Christian,” even one acting in self-defense. Virtually all of the Apostles were imprisoned at some point in their lives. Most were killed. I do not think that people killing you for your faith are to be treated any differently than people killing you for your money, or even for no reason at all. The complete lack of a record of self-defense in the New Testament means that we have no reason to question the radically non-violent interpretation of Christ’s teachings.”

Let me insert another word or two into that last sentence to illustrate how ridiculous it is. Notice my new sentence is also completely factual and true to the same principle you just exhibited. Here goes: ‘The complete lack of a record of SUICIDE in the New Testament means that we have no reason to question the radically SUICIDAL interpretation of Christ’s teachings.’

Again, arguments from silence DO. NOT. WORK.

You said “7. If we are to follow the golden rule, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, then if we should examine the situation of self-defense thusly. If the person is robbing us because he is hungry, we would not want somebody to shoot us if we were in the same position. If we were committing some senseless act of violence, would we not want somebody to tell us, in advance, that we were forgiven? Might that not melt the heart of the perpetrator and thus deliver him from his evil? Would we not want to be treated in the same manner?”

My former pastor used to be in a street gang. He always said that when he was robbing a house he fully expected to die every time, because a person was well within their rights to shoot him as an intruder.

What we should expect is that we uphold the Biblical principle of JUSTICE. If someone is stealing from you, you have a right to defend that property. Sure, you may choose not too, but if you exercise the right to defend your property, you are without sin. If someone is raping your wife, you are under obligation to do all that is in your power to stop them. If you do not, you have not loved your wife as Christ loves the church.

Skinner, if I may make a suggestion to you. . . You need a good lesson on hermeneutics. You are mis-applying scripture left and right and seem to have no understanding of exegesis vs. eisegesis. A good place to start would be here: http://www.wretchedradio.com/store/product_details.cfm?id=297

I don’t mean to be hard on you sir, but you must learn to read and apply God’s word properly. May the Lord Bless you.

Way back on Feb 13 Scott wrote: “I’ll go you one better. Luke 22:36 says, “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.””

I’ll go YOU one better. Notice the words “and if you DON’T have a sword..”, meaning some of the apostles had been wearing swords at the time Jesus said this, a common practice during that time for protection against hi-way robbers. Now, we can assume that some of the apostles had swords the entire time under Jesus’ wing. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus ever tell them, or anyone, to rid themselves of swords in the same manner that gun control advocates tell us we must rid ourselves of guns.

Secondly, we must remember that when Peter cut off the centurion’s ear, Jesus had to intervene to ensure his legacy as savior. Had he not, the soldiers would have likely drew their swords, and the resulting skirmish could have left all, even potentially Jesus, dead.

For those Christians that live a total passive life, I ask this question: would God want you to stand by and allow evil to happen even if you have the means to prevent it? Some may answer that killing in self defense would be meeting evil with evil, but that is a philosophical stance, not necessarily a truth.

Someone one said something to me that clicked. He said “Jesus died a martyr so we wouldn’t have to.”

I agree with the person who stated that you cannot unhook the testaments. You could say the NT is an evolution from the OT, and while it presents a new way of looking at the world, it doesn’t negate truths from the OT. Man was made by God, and like every creature made by God, self preservation is one of the strongest instincts. A man in a raging river will fight to survive. If attacked by a wild hungry animal, any animal including man will fight no matter the odds. I don’t think anyone would lay down and allow a lion, for instance, to eat them. Fighting to survive includes fighting when threatened by another human.

Great stuff man! It is rare that I get the pleasure of reading someone so committed to living out practically the teachings of Christ on love.

I think you are right in everything you’ve said. I have some stuff to add:

(1) We are tasked with seeking (bringing) God’s Kingdom on earth. Such a Kingdom would not entail violence or retribution or force of any kind. While we live in a fallen world people will still do this to us but we have the option of being the change (the kingdom) we want to see.

(2) There is a place for being smart in preventing temptation. If someone else is in a place of sin that they steal/murder- we help that person by not affording them the opportunity to steal. It is an act of love.

(3) We mustn’t turn Christianity into a purely theoretical philosophy. God is real and very alive. He is faithful and Good. This puts things into perspective.

It is awful when you have something important stolen from you. But God knows and sees what’s up. You have no more ownership to that laptop than the farmer has to his next crop of wheat. Everything we have is God’s- he provides everything we have.
All I’m saying is pray for the thief, thank God that it didn’t take him by surprise and look at the situation through God’s eyes- get a kingdom perspective on the issue.

Father I bless Skinner and ask that you provide more than what has been stolen from him.