Just wanted to mention that to participate in any bloodshed was not a Christian thing to do when Christ walked the earth……it wasn’t even a Jewish thing to do because Israel did not even have a military force when under subjugation by gentile nations..…and Jews who fought with the Roman armies (their conquerors) were viewed as traitors, as were the tax collectors who collected taxes for the Roman government….it was seen as siding with the enemy.
So there is mention of “Christian nations” in that video….when no such nations exist in a world ruled by the devil.
There is a reason why Jesus taught his followers to be ”NO PART OF THE WORLD”. (John 18:36)
The “two swords” that this man mentions are taken out of context and given a meaning that was not in keeping with what Jesus said to his disciples on that occasion.
”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.” (Luke 22:35-38 ESV)
Were two swords “enough” to take on an armed mob? And if they had been unarmed all this time, why buy swords now and too few?
When he was preaching with his apostles among the Jews, hospitality was an a expectation….which is why they needed no provisions and wanted for nothing. But with his impending death, things were about to change.
From that time forward they would not be welcomed by the majority, but would be rejected and scorned. Consequently, they would have to make some provisions for themselves.
After stating what their situation would be in the future, Jesus explained to his disciples why things were going to change; he gave them the reason. It was because he was to be killed, taken away like a transgressor and executed with lawless ones in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:12.
The “lawless ones” were not the disciples to whom he was speaking, but, instead, were the evildoers with whom Jesus was executed.
When Peter impetuously drew his sword and cut off the ear of the slave Malchus, Jesus reprimanded him. He said that “those who take the sword will perish by the sword”; besides, if he wanted to, he could have called on the angels for help. (Matt 26:52-53)
But that was not what he wanted. As shown by his not engaging the two swords for defense, Jesus was willingly giving himself to die between two “lawless ones.” It was to fulfill prophesy.
As for “Christians” engaging in military conflicts, it is apparent that the early Christians refused to serve in the Roman army, both in the legions and auxilia, considering such service as wholly incompatible with the teachings of Christianity
For example…
Justin Martyr (110-l65 C.E.) in his “Dialogue with Trypho” wrote: “We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,—our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage.” There is no doubt where Tertullian stood in 204 C.E. on the question of military service for Christians.
In his treatise De Corona, chapter XI, discussing “whether warfare is proper at all for Christians,” he argued from Scripture “the unlawfulness even of a military life itself,” concluding, “I banish from us the military life.”
Origen [185-254] . . . remarks that ‘the Christian Church cannot engage in war against any nation. . . . , In that period many Christians were martyred for refusing military service. On March 12, 295, Maximilian, the son of a famous Roman veteran, was called upon to serve in the Roman army and he refused, saying simply: ‘I am a Christian.’”—H. Ingli James, quoted in Treasury of the Christian World, 1953, edited by A. Gordon Nasby, p. 369.
“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180] no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, 1947, E. W. Barnes, p. 333)
So, later history involving the so called “Christian” knights participating in military campaigns with wonton bloodshed were not abiding by Christ’s commands at all. As God had told his ancient people when they involved themselves in such unsanctioned bloodshed…..
“Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.” (Isa 1:14-15 ESV)
By their disobedience, they made their feast days abhorrent to their God.
Unless God was fighting for Israel, they shed blood in vain…they did not have his sanction and so were just as guilty of wrongdoing as their enemies.
In view of what took place with the Assyrian army who came against Israel who were horribly outnumbered…..God is very capable of taking care of his own business. (Isa 37:33-36)
There can be no bloodshed for Christians no matter how patriotic one has been trained to be from infancy.
These two positions are incompatible.
I know that won’t sit well with the patriots….but there is no such thing as a “just war” when humans want to justify their bloodshed. It’s only a “just war” when God decrees it…..he has not sanctioned a war since the days of ancient Israel.
