The Bible and The American Revolution

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

kcnalp

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2020
7,326
1,782
113
Indianapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No, I did not forget it. It was not necessary as it just accented what I already said. It was not crucial to my point. I guess because you asked it you do not know what it means yourself then?

For a change, why don't you do some work for a change and attempt to explain it to me in light of what I said already on the subject when Jesus was in the Garden being arrested?

For that manner, can @Christophany also please explain it to me as you both already know what it means, right? By the way you have to also explain verses 53 and 54 to keep the context straight, especially because both of you know this already as I was accused of not following and even twisting context.

I wager either one of you do not know what Matt 26:52-54 means and therefore you shall just prove my point that you both just whine and do not contribute nothing to the discussion.

My expectations are low in your response(s)..

APAK
If you want to perish with the sword then take the sword. I'd rather trust God to answer my prayers.

Luke 11:4 (NKJV)
4 , But deliver us from the evil one."
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

Scoot

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2020
215
298
63
46
Victoria, Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Hi @APAK,

Thank you so much for your detailed replies.

From what I can tell, you are viewing this topic as a matter of 'self defense'. I'd like to not change this thread to a topic of individual self defense unnecessarily (ie, defending your home or family from invaders, rapists, murderers, etc) and keep it focused on going out and up against (and killing) those in government. I agree their can certainly be overlap - but I'm wanting to remain focused solely on the rebellion itself.

So for the sake of this topic at this point - let's say that my current understanding I see this as been a matter of self defense against criminals (against a home intruder, robber on the road, rapist or murderer) that I agree with you. Even with that viewpoint - I'm struggling to see where this then turns to rebellion against authority itself.

I also thank you very much for the bible verse references that you have posted too. And thank you also for your detailed reply on 'not to resist an evil person' in regards to offense! I believe I have heard another scholar mention the same before!

What's going through my mind at the moment:

If the disciples were to fight the authority - not one is recorded as having seeing this instruction in that light.. From what I understand Peter was crucified, Paul beheaded. Matthias was burned, Steven stoned - none of them resisting the government in a violent way.

I see the disciples did indeed take a sword - however I see no evidence of them using the sword against authority (apart from with Christ that once).

Were all the disciples wrong with what they did? Did none of them understand that they were to fight authority?

And if we are to fight authority - where does that line start? Over taxing? Slavery? Oppressive regulations? Or when they start invading homes, murdering and raping? (If this was happening and the cause of the revolution I'm not aware of it but I know I also know little about the revolution so maybe this was happening?).

America is in an interesting position now - because it could be argued that to be obedient to the authority (the constitution) - it's your duty to take up arms against enemies, both foreign and domestic - and to keep the governing institution accountable. That by resisting the government (if it becomes tyrannical) - you're actually being obedient to the authority (the constitution). But again - that is another topic because I want to remain focused on the initial rebellion at this point. (I can see many cans with man worms opened up if we stay in other areas - so i want to remain focused solely on the revolution).

So - prior to America being founded, the constitution was not a factor. Defense of country is not a factor - because it wasn't external invaders - it was a rebellion.

Then it's a question as to whether it could be classes as 'personal self defense', and if so - on what grounds justify killing? To protect another life, or 'unfair' laws?

So my questions to you with what you have written if you don't mind answering would be:

1) At what line do you see 'self defense' drawing the line, and do you have scripture you could apply please?

2) If we are to take Christ's "buy a sword" as meaning resisting authority - how do you reconcile that with not a single disciple actually doing this and all getting that wrong?

(Please don't take my post as being argumentative - they're genuine questions - and I write in length to try and express my current 'thought pattern' as an attempt to be an open book).

Thanks so much

Scoot
 

Scoot

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2020
215
298
63
46
Victoria, Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Matthew 5:44 (NKJV)
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you,

This is a verse that is very close to my heart at the moment. I catch myself occasionally thinking of what I would be like if I was one of those Christians beheaded recently in the middle east or similar.

My heart's desire is that I would be able to look my capture/killer in the eye, tell them that I forgive them and hope that they will repent later and I will see them in heaven to give them a warm embrace, and ask for God to forgive them - just as Christ did.

But in the flesh I don't know if I could do that. I can only pray that God would give me the grace to have that amount of love and self sacrifice to perform that.

I also would prefer to die in such a manner than that, than to die 'on my feet' trying to kill another as well, but the feeling of self defense, and even going to war defending my country is strong in my vains - it is a topic that I am split about myself at present - thus searching for answers.

Revelation 13:7 (NKJV)
7 It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.

This is interesting, because to make war - it would show the saints resisting against, wouldn't it? If one comes in and occupies without resistance, could that be called making war? (Maybe it can be - I'm just thinking out loud).

If this was the case - I'm just wondering why the other verses you believe relates to us being submissive wouldn't apply in this instance? (Or do you take the 'make war' to mean that he declares war, and then just slaughters and Christians are just as lambs to the slaughter as opposed to actively fighting back)?

Just like with Apak -I don't post this to be argumentative - they're genuine questions I look forward to seeing discussed.

Thanks heaps

Scoot.
 

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
8,855
9,594
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I did ask for Matt 26:51-54 because I was told I at least never addressed Matt 26:51, as I may have deliberately omitted it for some reason, or even evaded it.

Anyway thanks for your reply..

Here's my quick rendition of verse 51-54.

The timing was off as I said before. Peter overreacted doing his own will in trying to prove his loyalty to Jesus were not just words, especially as he was told his loyalty was not sound...3x he would deny Christ...Jesus then accented it. The disciples still did not understand the teaching of Jesus in why they needed a sword in the future, after he ascended to heaven...

While Jesus and the power of the Father was present with him, there was no need to use the sword in any instance. And second, it was not justified to use the sword anyway, and this particular this situation was one of them. Jesus and the disciples' lives were not immediately in jeopardy. The soldiers were there to arrest, at least Jesus. .

Jesus explained as he pointed out in the verse 53 that whilst he was there they did not need the sword. Jesus accented this by saying if swords were necessary, he had the Father's power to keep them safe....with legions of angels..

Now when Jesus said to restore the disciple's sword he mentioned that using the sword one will die by the sword. This was an idiom. It did not mean that every time a sword is drawn you will die. That is hyperbole. It cannot be true. Jesus is saying if you go about with the bad habit of displaying and using the sword irresponsibly and usually unjustly, you will eventually die by another sword if you persist in these actions.

This is another warning that you cannot use arms to settle any dispute that is not dangerous to one's life.

there's more..

APAK
 

kcnalp

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2020
7,326
1,782
113
Indianapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is a verse that is very close to my heart at the moment. I catch myself occasionally thinking of what I would be like if I was one of those Christians beheaded recently in the middle east or similar.

My heart's desire is that I would be able to look my capture/killer in the eye, tell them that I forgive them and hope that they will repent later and I will see them in heaven to give them a warm embrace, and ask for God to forgive them - just as Christ did.

But in the flesh I don't know if I could do that. I can only pray that God would give me the grace to have that amount of love and self sacrifice to perform that.

I also would prefer to die in such a manner than that, than to die 'on my feet' trying to kill another as well, but the feeling of self defense, and even going to war defending my country is strong in my vains - it is a topic that I am split about myself at present - thus searching for answers.
Going to war means killing LOTS of innocent people!
This is interesting, because to make war - it would show the saints resisting against, wouldn't it? If one comes in and occupies without resistance, could that be called making war? (Maybe it can be - I'm just thinking out loud).

If this was the case - I'm just wondering why the other verses you believe relates to us being submissive wouldn't apply in this instance? (Or do you take the 'make war' to mean that he declares war, and then just slaughters and Christians are just as lambs to the slaughter as opposed to actively fighting back)?

Just like with Apak -I don't post this to be argumentative - they're genuine questions I look forward to seeing discussed.

Thanks heaps

Scoot.
He makes war, not the saints.
Revelation 13:7 (NKJV)
7 It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scoot

kcnalp

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2020
7,326
1,782
113
Indianapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Now when Jesus said to restore the disciple's sword he mentioned that using the sword one will die by the sword. This was an idiom. It did not mean that every time a sword is drawn you will die. That is hyperbole. It cannot be true. Jesus is saying if you go about with the bad habit of displaying and using the sword irresponsibly and usually unjustly, you will eventually die by another sword if you persist in these actions.

This is another warning that you cannot use arms to settle any dispute that is not dangerous to one's life.

there's more..

APAK
Should we believe Jesus or you?

Matthew 26:52 (NKJV)
52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,083
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Luke 22:36
And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

This is a change. A change towards the end of the storyline.
The "But now" is giving you a clue that the scenario has changed.
[But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag,] = be prepared to be mo-bile.
"Whoever" lol whoever ....not just the Apostles....everybody.
Fundamentalists have problems with things changing....so I cannot help you to much with this one. You will have to figure it out yourselves.
 

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
8,855
9,594
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi @APAK,

Thank you so much for your detailed replies.

From what I can tell, you are viewing this topic as a matter of 'self defense'. I'd like to not change this thread to a topic of individual self defense unnecessarily (ie, defending your home or family from invaders, rapists, murderers, etc) and keep it focused on going out and up against (and killing) those in government. I agree their can certainly be overlap - but I'm wanting to remain focused solely on the rebellion itself.

So for the sake of this topic at this point - let's say that my current understanding I see this as been a matter of self defense against criminals (against a home intruder, robber on the road, rapist or murderer) that I agree with you. Even with that viewpoint - I'm struggling to see where this then turns to rebellion against authority itself.

I also thank you very much for the bible verse references that you have posted too. And thank you also for your detailed reply on 'not to resist an evil person' in regards to offense! I believe I have heard another scholar mention the same before!

What's going through my mind at the moment:

If the disciples were to fight the authority - not one is recorded as having seeing this instruction in that light.. From what I understand Peter was crucified, Paul beheaded. Matthias was burned, Steven stoned - none of them resisting the government in a violent way.

I see the disciples did indeed take a sword - however I see no evidence of them using the sword against authority (apart from with Christ that once).

Were all the disciples wrong with what they did? Did none of them understand that they were to fight authority?

And if we are to fight authority - where does that line start? Over taxing? Slavery? Oppressive regulations? Or when they start invading homes, murdering and raping? (If this was happening and the cause of the revolution I'm not aware of it but I know I also know little about the revolution so maybe this was happening?).

America is in an interesting position now - because it could be argued that to be obedient to the authority (the constitution) - it's your duty to take up arms against enemies, both foreign and domestic - and to keep the governing institution accountable. That by resisting the government (if it becomes tyrannical) - you're actually being obedient to the authority (the constitution). But again - that is another topic because I want to remain focused on the initial rebellion at this point. (I can see many cans with man worms opened up if we stay in other areas - so i want to remain focused solely on the revolution).

So - prior to America being founded, the constitution was not a factor. Defense of country is not a factor - because it wasn't external invaders - it was a rebellion.

Then it's a question as to whether it could be classes as 'personal self defense', and if so - on what grounds justify killing? To protect another life, or 'unfair' laws?

So my questions to you with what you have written if you don't mind answering would be:

1) At what line do you see 'self defense' drawing the line, and do you have scripture you could apply please?

2) If we are to take Christ's "buy a sword" as meaning resisting authority - how do you reconcile that with not a single disciple actually doing this and all getting that wrong?

(Please don't take my post as being argumentative - they're genuine questions - and I write in length to try and express my current 'thought pattern' as an attempt to be an open book).

Thanks so much

Scoot
A mouth full...

Well, first, what is recorded of the disciples' deaths are their final demise as you pointed out. It does not record any time they may have to defend themselves with a sword before their deaths/even capture. Scripture is silent on this point. We do not know.

The Rebellion...
In reading history on this subject, this rebellion grew in intensity over decades. It was not about just one major thing or two.
The British Crown, in particular the military, had a habit of treating the Colonists as their servants and even cattle. They took their food, crops, clothes, money etc without impunity. They raped their women, shot husbands when they invaded their homes or took their quarters as the man of the house tried to defend himself and his family. This was widespread. This was on the home-front.

On the Colonial front as we know, there were heavy taxes imposed on the Colonists- stamps, tea and on other food items....once Franklin told the Crown the Colonists made their own independent currency without interest they quickly imposed their English style currency on them....with heavy interest...soon they knew and experienced inflation and deflation cycles.

It all became unbearable. Of course many of the loyalists that usually were better off wanted the status quo. They were not 'hurting'...they were either geographically separated from the military, more isolated and independent or were 'in bed' with them.

The breaking point (besides the imposition of the English currency which was a trigger IMO) of no return occurred before the shot that was heard around the world occurred. English soldiers began to force Colonists into their military. To force then to be loyalists. They were ruthless...the rebellion was now in motion. The fledgling form of Colonial government already had laws in place and legislation drawn up and as applicable, was given to the Crown for transgressions and redress...it was a rebellion on the home front, day-to-day and on the Colonial government level...day-to-day.

The common farmer and the Colonial politician, who sometimes was the same person, viewed the Crown and its military as an EVIL force. A force of the devil and not of God. The Colonial preacher would carefully teach this in their sermons. They thought they were doing God's work of not only preaching the gospel. They were ridding the evil from the Continent. It was God's work and nothing then could change their minds. The Crown was certainty not going to change and leave or change their ruthless methods. They became evil as they eventually shot Colonists on sight without impunity for not even invalid reason given in many cases. Something had to give..the line was drawn and self-defense was justified, with arms. War was inevitable.

There is no true parallel in Biblical history as this 'Christian' Rebellion of 1776

APAK
 

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
8,855
9,594
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Should we believe Jesus or you?

Matthew 26:52 (NKJV)
52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Still adversarial I see and cannot contribute in a meaningful way...good night...need some zzz
 

Scoot

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2020
215
298
63
46
Victoria, Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Hi Apak,

Thanks again for your replies...

Well, first, what is recorded of the disciples' deaths are their final demise as you pointed out. It does not record any time they may have to defend themselves with a sword before their deaths/even capture. Scripture is silent on this point. We do not know.

Respectfully, I don't see scripture being silent. We see many times them submitting to authorities and not resisting. Peter getting whipped. Paul and his actions towards his prison guards, etc. In fact - the times when they were delivered - it wasn't their own hand, but God's miraculous hand intervening.

I can definitely give you that scripture doesn't show instances where the disciples came against criminals, or rapists and gangs of murderers. We have no examples in those instances, and only instructions that we're to work and discuss/debate through.

But when it comes to authority itself - we do have numerous examples, not silence. And when examples in scripture are only one one sided like that - I find it difficult to justify that the scriptures we're looking at weren't applied exactly like the examples that we see. The disciples did submit to authority - to prison, and even unto death.

The Rebellion...
In reading history on this subject, this rebellion grew in intensity over decades. It was not about just one major thing or two.
The British Crown, in particular the military, had a habit of treating the Colonists as their servants and even cattle. They took their food, crops, clothes, money etc without impunity. They raped their women, shot husbands when they invaded their homes or took their quarters as the man of the house tried to defend himself and his family. This was widespread. This was on the home-front.

Thank you for bringing this back to the revolution - and giving me that information. I was not aware that the English were invading and raping to this extent. (As mentioned, I am somewhat ignorant about the revolution), and really appreciate you filling me in on this.

If the authorities were to the extent of raping and murdering the people - I can see then that 'self defense' or moreso 'defense of others' such as wives and family members does become a factor.

Up until now I thought it was about submitting to authorities where the injustice being done was unethical, and oppressive, but not to these moral levels. It's one thing for me to accept death myself - but it seems to be another matter about defending my family against such crimes.

There is no true parallel in Biblical history as this 'Christian' Rebellion of 1776

Yes, I can't say that I can recall anywhere where authorities were raping and murdering family members and disciples doing nothing but accepting it and telling others to do likewise.

I apologize - if I had have known before that the revolution wasn't about taxes and unfair regulations and oppression - but if I had have known it was self defense against rape and murder it may have saved you typing out as much as you have. :) I guess I have a lot more to learn about the American revolution.

And having no example in the bible that fits those narratives it makes this a much deeper topic.

Allowing someone to assault and kill us is one thing (and if it was just me - I think I could handle that) - but as a father and husband in those times - wouldn't I have a responsibility to fulfill to my family to protect them from authorities with those goals in mind?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

kcnalp

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2020
7,326
1,782
113
Indianapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Acts 16:31 Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be saved, you and your household.
 

Scoot

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2020
215
298
63
46
Victoria, Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Acts 16:31 Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be saved, you and your household.

Hi Kcnalp,

Thanks for your reply. While I really appreciate you engaging in the conversation - it would be helpful if you could post a little more information in regards to what the verse your posting is in response to, or clarify.

It's just that I'm left confused wondering if you're posting that verse in reference to self defense to my last post? Or are you saying that as Christians we shouldn't defend ourselves? That if someone breaks in to our homes and wants to rape my wife or daughter I should stand aside and not resist the evil people?

If so, as I understand it - that verse in context is a response to the Jailer asking about eternal salvation - that he and his household will be eternally saved if I and my household believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and is not suggesting that I and my family should just 'believe' in Jesus and that will stop someone from doing harm to us.

It may very well be that Jesus has called us to act, or not act in this situation - but either way - that verse in context as I understand is talking about an eternal salvation as a response to the jailers question - and not intended to be read that fathers should not protect their wife's and daughters from people meaning to rape or hurt them.

If I've misunderstood - please accept my apology - I'm just chasing clarification.

Thanks

Scoot
 

kcnalp

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2020
7,326
1,782
113
Indianapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Kcnalp,

Thanks for your reply. While I really appreciate you engaging in the conversation - it would be helpful if you could post a little more information in regards to what the verse your posting is in response to, or clarify.

It's just that I'm left confused wondering if you're posting that verse in reference to self defense to my last post? Or are you saying that as Christians we shouldn't defend ourselves? That if someone breaks in to our homes and wants to rape my wife or daughter I should stand aside and not resist the evil people?

If so, as I understand it - that verse in context is a response to the Jailer asking about eternal salvation - that he and his household will be eternally saved if I and my household believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and is not suggesting that I and my family should just 'believe' in Jesus and that will stop someone from doing harm to us.

It may very well be that Jesus has called us to act, or not act in this situation - but either way - that verse in context as I understand is talking about an eternal salvation as a response to the jailers question - and not intended to be read that fathers should not protect their wife's and daughters from people meaning to rape or hurt them.

If I've misunderstood - please accept my apology - I'm just chasing clarification.

Thanks

Scoot
I suggest you do a study on God's promises to His people.There are lots of them! I just quoted one.
 

Candidus

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2020
1,620
1,382
113
64
Kuna
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Did you forget this?
Matthew 26:52 (NKJV)
52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Did you forget that it was Jesus that commanded him to get that sword?

And, for what purpose?
 
  • Like
Reactions: APAK

kcnalp

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2020
7,326
1,782
113
Indianapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Did you forget that it was Jesus that commanded him to get that sword?

And, for what purpose?
The purpose was ONLY to fulfill prophecy.

Luke 22:37-38 (NKJV)
37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." 38 So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."
 

Candidus

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2020
1,620
1,382
113
64
Kuna
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So - prior to America being founded, the constitution was not a factor. Defense of country is not a factor - because it wasn't external invaders - it was a rebellion.

Then it's a question as to whether it could be classes as 'personal self defense', and if so - on what grounds justify killing? To protect another life, or 'unfair' laws?

So, let's isolate this to the American Revolution.

First, there were Colonies, not the United States. Each Colony had its leaders. Were Christians supposed to obey their leaders? Their Leaders decided that they would be independent of English authority. So, where is the sin? Christians fought because "Authorities over them" said they should!

Secondly, the "cause." It is coming down to whether this is just "rebellion" and whether it was a "just war." There are many ways short of a military response that establishes that King George was at war with the Colonies and its people. For me, the act that triggered the acts of Independence was the act of using the military to confiscate guns in Concord. England brought the war to the people by using troops to disarm the people from their means of self-defense, and many of the Colonists saw this as an act of war to enslave them and deprive them of what rights they had while living in the Colonies. King George perceived that he was King, and he determined what "rights" his Colonies should have, or not have. It was his "right." The Colonists had their own leaders that perceived that King George was at war with them and was treating them like slaves and not like citizens. So, who was in "rebellion"? Was it more of a "reaction" than it was a "rebellion"? From what side do we view it from? I can see a Colonist perceiving that once King George sent in the military to kill them, that he was at war with them. This is a far step beyond mere "unjust laws," it was murder, it was war.

The Congress of leaders in the Colonies did not vote or choose to declare Independence until after this act of war was perpetrated on the people of the Colonies.

My point is that this issue of the America Revolution is not as cut and dried as many want to oversimplify it. It was not simply "just" a rebellion over "unfair laws." What leaders, or "Authorities" qualify to be followed... has been fluid throughout history. In the Colonies a generation who had never been to England, and always knew nothing but the Authorities in the Colonies, could easily perceive England's demands as something foreign and oppressive, especially when citizens in England were not treated that way.

"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God..." (Rom. 13:1).

Would that not equally apply to the U.S. Congress, the Leaders in the Colonies as much as the King of England? Many kings derive their power from bloodline, yet, somewhere in their past, they acquired that power through hook or crook, war or deceit, rebellion or murdering a previous king. We can inquire whether it was a "just" for Americans to separate or become Independent and choose their own Authorities. Yet, should we not equally investigate the legitimacy of the authority of King George? How did he come to power? Who did he, or his bloodline have to 'unjustly" kill, go to war with, deceive by hook or crook, or lead a rebellion against to get that position? Did his family "buy" their way in on the backs of the people? Did they get there by being perfect Christians? If not, why are we hyper-critical of the Christians in America for doing nothing other than what put the King of England into power?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: APAK

Candidus

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2020
1,620
1,382
113
64
Kuna
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The purpose was ONLY to fulfill prophecy.

Luke 22:37-38 (NKJV)
37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." 38 So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."
So, for the sake of fulfilling "prophecy," Jesus commanded the Twelve to sin by telling them to buy two swords....

Questionable theology at best! The concept that Jesus went around with a checklist of prophecies to fulfill, is in my opinion; absurd.

This prophecy was fulfilled on His placement between two criminals on the Cross, not when he ordered them to buy two swords!
 

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
8,855
9,594
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Apak,

Thanks again for your replies...



Respectfully, I don't see scripture being silent. We see many times them submitting to authorities and not resisting. Peter getting whipped. Paul and his actions towards his prison guards, etc. In fact - the times when they were delivered - it wasn't their own hand, but God's miraculous hand intervening.

I can definitely give you that scripture doesn't show instances where the disciples came against criminals, or rapists and gangs of murderers. We have no examples in those instances, and only instructions that we're to work and discuss/debate through.

But when it comes to authority itself - we do have numerous examples, not silence. And when examples in scripture are only one one sided like that - I find it difficult to justify that the scriptures we're looking at weren't applied exactly like the examples that we see. The disciples did submit to authority - to prison, and even unto death.



Thank you for bringing this back to the revolution - and giving me that information. I was not aware that the English were invading and raping to this extent. (As mentioned, I am somewhat ignorant about the revolution), and really appreciate you filling me in on this.

If the authorities were to the extent of raping and murdering the people - I can see then that 'self defense' or moreso 'defense of others' such as wives and family members does become a factor.

Up until now I thought it was about submitting to authorities where the injustice being done was unethical, and oppressive, but not to these moral levels. It's one thing for me to accept death myself - but it seems to be another matter about defending my family against such crimes.



Yes, I can't say that I can recall anywhere where authorities were raping and murdering family members and disciples doing nothing but accepting it and telling others to do likewise.

I apologize - if I had have known before that the revolution wasn't about taxes and unfair regulations and oppression - but if I had have known it was self defense against rape and murder it may have saved you typing out as much as you have. :) I guess I have a lot more to learn about the American revolution.

And having no example in the bible that fits those narratives it makes this a much deeper topic.

Allowing someone to assault and kill us is one thing (and if it was just me - I think I could handle that) - but as a father and husband in those times - wouldn't I have a responsibility to fulfill to my family to protect them from authorities with those goals in mind?

Concisely...

- Jesus commanded swords for his disciples, and not for ornaments.
- Swords were to be used for self defense after he left them as scripture indicates by strong implication
- There is no scripture to support disciples used swords to defend themselves or visa-versa against authorities. Nevertheless since self-defense was a primary use of the sword they most probably used them to preserve their lives and spread the gospel as soon as they could and as wide as they could. They were on a mission and nothing would deter them. Can you imagine these disciples surrendering their weapons upon the first sign of meeting Roman authority (soldiers especially). I doubt we would all be Christians today. Here you go then, here's my sword and I know I'm going to be tortured and be thrown into prison and then get beheaded or be thrown to lions. It is God's will then...I do sound a bit sarcastic here because I cannot for a minute stay in the trance that disciples gave up their lives that easily when they were on a mission to spread the gospel for Christ. Just not happen' There is no proof they all obeyed authorities and without a fight.

You cite Peter being whipped. And you just imagine he must have submitted and obeyed cruel authorities, instantly and throughout. How do you know he did not use a sword to try and defend himself along the way?
And for Paul, was he in his 50s or 60s. Can you see Paul using a sword on a healthy and much stronger 20 year old soldier. It would not go well for him. He would then die prematurely and his writings might not have been written as planned. He was much wiser I would think.

You say they submitted to authorities. I say you have no proof or reason to say this except you want to believe this for some reason ONLY you know. I think you need to divulge really why you think this way. And re-parroting irrelevant scripture is not the answer even though it speaks to some of the words of this topic, words like authorities, submission, government etc..

Anyway, I see no conflict at all with scripture and how one, especially as a believer, should treat or be ready to treat a cruel government or a murderer or their etc.

Yes, the British Crown became very ruthless, desperate and cruel as time went on.

If it were possible that Australia was positioned within the distance to England back in the 1700s as the Colonies, there most probably would have been a similar rebellion for sure....even though one was founded on tobacco and crops and religious persecution and the other by 'criminals' from England..makes no difference...cruel and tyrannical government God surely hates...he protects his people where ever they live...same goes for today...

Bless you,

APAK