The Bible and The American Revolution
- Thread starter Scoot
- Start date
-
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!
@Scoot this is a huge subject mate that you are airing here. I commend you for wanting to understand it. You are a brave soul indeed.
It is a difficult subject for one person at one setting to wrap their head around IMO. It involves looking at scripture, and also seriously considering what is a self-defensive war, skirmish or altercation on a personal, community level, say State level and national level. Can they all at any level be considered moral, justified and scripturally-sanctioned?
Personally, I look at both secular history and for biblical support. You have chosen the American Revolution. It is a great choice.
I will get back with you on my approach. I have actually been pondering this subject more these days.....
I just want to let you know that Jesus, and his disciples, in fact, believed in self-defense of property, family and person. Jesus justified these self-defensive actions.
I might start with that later...
Thanks
Bless you,
APAK
It is a difficult subject for one person at one setting to wrap their head around IMO. It involves looking at scripture, and also seriously considering what is a self-defensive war, skirmish or altercation on a personal, community level, say State level and national level. Can they all at any level be considered moral, justified and scripturally-sanctioned?
Personally, I look at both secular history and for biblical support. You have chosen the American Revolution. It is a great choice.
I will get back with you on my approach. I have actually been pondering this subject more these days.....
I just want to let you know that Jesus, and his disciples, in fact, believed in self-defense of property, family and person. Jesus justified these self-defensive actions.
I might start with that later...
Thanks
Bless you,
APAK
@Scoot ...Luke 22:36 for starters
I think by now many folks have heard of Luke 22:36. "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."
As with most scripture, this verse cannot be fully understood alone, without looking also at its context.
The verse means more than a collection of mere words of compliance for only a special and temporary occasion, and they are not. Why did Jesus eventually HAVE to say these words to his disciples? They were not getting what Jesus was trying to drum into their heads. And later we see they still showed their ignorance.
The disciples were new children in the world and were not ready to be 'alone' without Jesus. Jesus began warning them of their future and what they must do to survive and act after he 'left' them. His words were for their sake and not for his own.
The most interesting exchange is when Jesus just was telling them (verse 35) they did not need sandals, bags and I would also think swords as they were under the Spirit's protection and being with Jesus. BUT NOW, as Luke 22:36 begins, to denote an abrupt change in thinking or there is a marked difference or contrast from the previous conversation, they now needed all these things. Why again?
Their protection would be gone when Jesus left them. He wanted them to live and survive and preserve their lives for the Father's purpose (spread the gospel etc) and his plan for them. That is a fair conclusion?
Later, (Luke 22:49-51) the disciples asked to use their swords to defend themselves from the arresting soldiers. Then one of the disciples went ahead anyway and struck the ear off one soldier. Jesus then abruptly intervened. Not that the disciples were altogether wrong to defend themselves, they were innocent and plain ignorant. Their timing was completely off. They did not understand Jesus' previous words on why they were to NOW have swords, including, food and clothing.
I would imagine soon after Christ 'departed,' they quickly understood Luke 22:36, very well. They were on the run, avoiding snitches, fair-weather friends, and the prevailing religious sects, government and soldiers (military/police).
This is one example where Jesus justified self-defense and protection of life, property and those around themselves. So we can transfer this teaching not so easily to the 1700s and also for today against ANYONE, whether a thief, home-invader, robber etc or even a government killer coming to your door or even whilst in public , as in a Park or Garden.
Of course then there is no illusion that there is more discussion required on how we can mate these events of the disciples and their times with the actions of 'patriots' of the 1700s....and even today
Bless you,
APAK
I think by now many folks have heard of Luke 22:36. "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."
As with most scripture, this verse cannot be fully understood alone, without looking also at its context.
The verse means more than a collection of mere words of compliance for only a special and temporary occasion, and they are not. Why did Jesus eventually HAVE to say these words to his disciples? They were not getting what Jesus was trying to drum into their heads. And later we see they still showed their ignorance.
The disciples were new children in the world and were not ready to be 'alone' without Jesus. Jesus began warning them of their future and what they must do to survive and act after he 'left' them. His words were for their sake and not for his own.
The most interesting exchange is when Jesus just was telling them (verse 35) they did not need sandals, bags and I would also think swords as they were under the Spirit's protection and being with Jesus. BUT NOW, as Luke 22:36 begins, to denote an abrupt change in thinking or there is a marked difference or contrast from the previous conversation, they now needed all these things. Why again?
Their protection would be gone when Jesus left them. He wanted them to live and survive and preserve their lives for the Father's purpose (spread the gospel etc) and his plan for them. That is a fair conclusion?
Later, (Luke 22:49-51) the disciples asked to use their swords to defend themselves from the arresting soldiers. Then one of the disciples went ahead anyway and struck the ear off one soldier. Jesus then abruptly intervened. Not that the disciples were altogether wrong to defend themselves, they were innocent and plain ignorant. Their timing was completely off. They did not understand Jesus' previous words on why they were to NOW have swords, including, food and clothing.
I would imagine soon after Christ 'departed,' they quickly understood Luke 22:36, very well. They were on the run, avoiding snitches, fair-weather friends, and the prevailing religious sects, government and soldiers (military/police).
This is one example where Jesus justified self-defense and protection of life, property and those around themselves. So we can transfer this teaching not so easily to the 1700s and also for today against ANYONE, whether a thief, home-invader, robber etc or even a government killer coming to your door or even whilst in public , as in a Park or Garden.
Of course then there is no illusion that there is more discussion required on how we can mate these events of the disciples and their times with the actions of 'patriots' of the 1700s....and even today
Bless you,
APAK
Last edited:
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
I will never leave you nor forsake you
love your enemies
take joyfully the spoiling of your goods
so no offense but i bet it is white ppl who like to build bigger fences that warp the message into one they can live with easier, i mean unless you got some evidence of some apostles hacking down opposers with their literal swords to avoid becoming martyrs? Not saying that you cant believe that, if you prefer
but yikes
Last edited:
you are out of order BB...lol
No really, this grenade you just threw in, is not the exactly same thing BB....he would always be with them in spirit of course. The disciples, having Christ, before his death, with the Father's protection is 'bullet-proof' for all occasions...must look at this more carefully on why the part/verse you quoted does not apply or have exactly the same meaning and context....scripture can be very precise and cannot be used in all or many places that sound like the same thing...you can see already that 'forsaking them' or not is another topic and thinking all together
APAK
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
Get your Bible out and let's research the verse you quoted....then we can reason it together...so what do you say BB? Are you on?
@Scoot ..another example in scripture of self-defensive measures....
In Luke again...verse Luke 11:21 "But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his goods unless he first binds the strong man"
The obvious question is why would an intruder have to bind the strong man? He was armed, and was ready to defend himself and property at all costs.
He was not a 'weak' or a passive man that was careless in not protecting his own life and his property. Care-free and believing that's God's will, or really their own selfish will is to just stand by and get shot up and become what they think is being a martyr for the Lord. Far from it. These Christians carry a personal extra doctrine and religion of peace and passiveness that is of their own creation and not of the Father's will. And each situation is different for different people..the Spirit usually intervenes in this discussion.
Then there is Mark 3:27......the same as Luke 11:21
BL..you should be armed and ready to defend your property, family and own life.
more to come @Scoot ..APAK
In Luke again...verse Luke 11:21 "But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his goods unless he first binds the strong man"
The obvious question is why would an intruder have to bind the strong man? He was armed, and was ready to defend himself and property at all costs.
He was not a 'weak' or a passive man that was careless in not protecting his own life and his property. Care-free and believing that's God's will, or really their own selfish will is to just stand by and get shot up and become what they think is being a martyr for the Lord. Far from it. These Christians carry a personal extra doctrine and religion of peace and passiveness that is of their own creation and not of the Father's will. And each situation is different for different people..the Spirit usually intervenes in this discussion.
Then there is Mark 3:27......the same as Luke 11:21
BL..you should be armed and ready to defend your property, family and own life.
more to come @Scoot ..APAK
Last edited:
@Scoot ..before going on any further in this topic of discussion, I have to bring up the famous 'turn the other cheek' verse that has been paraded around as the verse that trumps those that think they should defend themselves by taking offensive action and the wearing of arms etc. Those that use it to justify disarming folks, misuse scripture; intentionally or out of ignorance. Their aim is to place guilt and shame and to disband others of these weapons. Many heathens and non-Christians love to use it as they twist it to their own purposes, many Globalists, the Papacy and UN types...along with unfortunately many misguided Christians.
Ok,,to the verses of Matt 5:38-42..it seems simple although is is not...
Now the way it was originally spoken and written is all important. And English translations into their sentence have done no justice to it at all. Mades it confusing and controversial.
In verse 38, Jesus re-introduces the historical idea of getting revenge justice in kind for harm done to another. Justice, personal and communal was served this way. And still considered the way in Jesus's time. People killed another if they killed someone else and it was justifiable etc. This was more than just resisting evil people. It is important to know this law and tradition was beyond just resisting evil - for the next verses.
Jesus does not criticize this form of justice at all. He is using it to contrast and as a backdrop for what he is about to say in the next verse, verse 39. Verse 39 is not connected to verse 38. It is directly connected to verse 40.
The act of resisting evil (person) verse 39, in the strictest sense, means short of taking offensive action and not actually killing someone else. There is a distinct difference. The translated Greek for resistance and meaning is precise and does not mean going beyond resisting into killing or maiming someone. It means just that, resisting as in defending without fighting back and especially taking offensive action. I guess many people were trigger-happy many times and their acts were not justifiable, same goes for today as well.
So in verse 40, Jesus introduces a NEW concept based on a tradition already practiced in society. To clarify what is justifiable and not. This concept is actually practiced today and is biblically based.
Have you considered what the ritual or act of slapping someone on the cheek with a hand or a glove or even spitting on the side of the face meant? It is not only a Jew tradition per sa, of Jesus' time, others used it for the same reason. Now Jesus introduces this tradition with a twist. He now says do not get revenge as in a tooth for a tooth revenge form of justice he just spoke of, in verse 38, where you must go beyond resisting evil to offensive action. No, he says do not resist evil when someone slaps you on a cheek. He means that when someone INSULTS you, not threatens you with bodily harm as many think it says, to not resist this evil gesture. Let them keep insulting you as in the giving of the other cheek. The slapping of the face especially in public was considered the sign of utmost insult and shame for the receiver.
This saying has NOTHING to do with allowing someone to harm you then attempt to completely destroy you, physically, mentally, and even spiritually to the point where you need to take offensive action, that is justifiable. The world has used this verse to support their view that firearms and tools that can kill is not supported in the Bible. They are 'dead' wrong.
I guess I need to connect all these last 3 posts with the justification for National war etc
Bless you,
APAK
Ok,,to the verses of Matt 5:38-42..it seems simple although is is not...
Now the way it was originally spoken and written is all important. And English translations into their sentence have done no justice to it at all. Mades it confusing and controversial.
In verse 38, Jesus re-introduces the historical idea of getting revenge justice in kind for harm done to another. Justice, personal and communal was served this way. And still considered the way in Jesus's time. People killed another if they killed someone else and it was justifiable etc. This was more than just resisting evil people. It is important to know this law and tradition was beyond just resisting evil - for the next verses.
Jesus does not criticize this form of justice at all. He is using it to contrast and as a backdrop for what he is about to say in the next verse, verse 39. Verse 39 is not connected to verse 38. It is directly connected to verse 40.
The act of resisting evil (person) verse 39, in the strictest sense, means short of taking offensive action and not actually killing someone else. There is a distinct difference. The translated Greek for resistance and meaning is precise and does not mean going beyond resisting into killing or maiming someone. It means just that, resisting as in defending without fighting back and especially taking offensive action. I guess many people were trigger-happy many times and their acts were not justifiable, same goes for today as well.
So in verse 40, Jesus introduces a NEW concept based on a tradition already practiced in society. To clarify what is justifiable and not. This concept is actually practiced today and is biblically based.
Have you considered what the ritual or act of slapping someone on the cheek with a hand or a glove or even spitting on the side of the face meant? It is not only a Jew tradition per sa, of Jesus' time, others used it for the same reason. Now Jesus introduces this tradition with a twist. He now says do not get revenge as in a tooth for a tooth revenge form of justice he just spoke of, in verse 38, where you must go beyond resisting evil to offensive action. No, he says do not resist evil when someone slaps you on a cheek. He means that when someone INSULTS you, not threatens you with bodily harm as many think it says, to not resist this evil gesture. Let them keep insulting you as in the giving of the other cheek. The slapping of the face especially in public was considered the sign of utmost insult and shame for the receiver.
This saying has NOTHING to do with allowing someone to harm you then attempt to completely destroy you, physically, mentally, and even spiritually to the point where you need to take offensive action, that is justifiable. The world has used this verse to support their view that firearms and tools that can kill is not supported in the Bible. They are 'dead' wrong.
I guess I need to connect all these last 3 posts with the justification for National war etc
Bless you,
APAK
Last edited:
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
well dont get me wrong, i am not condemning you for that, it takes all kinds imo, and i even Read where you would be "forgiven"--which implies missing the mark at least, if not outright sin, right--for that--or at least for self or family defense; property defense i dunno--but let's extend it to prop defense even; then i would ask why you are not exercising your 2nd amendment "rights" too, being as how your posterity is currently being robbed of $Trillions, with a T?
having nothing, yet having everything
see, wadr we are not even on the same planet i guess, ok
go ye, and shoot whomever you feel justified in shooting, idc
Being robbed is right.....as with many others in their own countries...The 2nd amendment was first to ensure a militia of the people, as a group, would become a sure deterrent against the evils of an overly intrusive government. These evils have to be more that just stealing money unfortunately, and it is the right thing to restrain self in perseverance at this time. We can really overcome this without force, in the end. And this is the patience of a true patriot...and really the stealing of the people's resources and money is not everything by itself. If this theft was then attached or accompanied by devices to bring the people to it knees such as control of food and their general livelihood, then and only then do we act with the 2nd Amendment in mind....it has to be the last resort, else would be considered hypocrites and it would be unjustifiable and unbiblical, indeed. It's a tough thing to bite one's tongue and keep hands at one's sides in these times..
Bless you,
APAK
Last edited:
I hope you are not looking for these exact words or similar ones in my statement you quoted. It's not there in that fashion of course. You will find it however in scripture, as spoken to the local culture for that time. Jesus used a much different language of Aramaic and very little Hebrew. The idioms and phrases to express the modern version of your concern can be found in them...I did already touch on some of them...I challenge you to find some of them for yourself.
As a return question to you, I challenge you to show me in the NT where it says the reverse, NOT to be ready, armed to defend, life, liberty and property? Of course we have to be mature, responsible, accountable in the undertaking of defense with swords/arms of home and life...it is easier said than done. There are I admit many woefully inept and immature to perform this biblical directive when necessary, and when the time under the Spirit says now is the time. It is not a hard concept to imagine! We serve God and his turf as his will, and defend it as he allows, with patience, showing love, forgiveness as he would desire..
Thanks,
APAK
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
If they come in to shoot people because of the faith- no we should not resist.
If it is just criminal action and not specifically because of the faith- we do have a right to self defense and family defense.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
that was Israel to take the Land that the Creator gave to them as their covenanted Promise land! When they finished driving out the pagan peoples, they had to cease going to war except for defense.
The church has no promised land so we do not have a mandate to take up arms for "land".
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
I believe God designed America to be a free nation! but to overthrow the ruling government is plain wrong. I believe that chaos and moral decay we see today is our inception sin finally catching up to us! YOu cannot expect people in a nation born of rebellion to not want to rebel when they dislike the government.
We are (or were ) a symbol of freedom and responsibility, but we are a socialist nation now and the light of the gospel which propelled America to greatness has been placed under a bushel. de Tocqueville in the 1800's was awed by the greatness of America! He said America was great because it people were basically good! Buy that He meant that generally, the citizens had a great respect for Gods Word and sought to live by its precepts.
President Adams declared that Americas Constitution is ony workable for a moral and religious people.
The left (or many on the left) seek to toss the constituion, because for the most part the left is no longer moral or religious! Many on te right as well.
You're right saying "It's not there".
Christians in the NT were persecuted even to death. They did not resist.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
But America was founded by christians. The early charters of the colonies all dedicated the land to the glory of God! All teh Ivy league schools were founded as seminaries to advance the gospel to the world! America was founded vastly differently! The believers and preachers (the black robe regiment) all promoted overthrowing established authority! That is what makes America's sin greater. We had a much greater light of SCripture and should have known better not to rebel.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
though we are told not to look backwards once we have put our hand to the plow, and knowing that God redeems our rebellion against HIm, I just wonder how differently America would be todsay if we allowed God to make America its own nation.
Similar threads
