The Iran situation

[JohnDB]

”Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” - The Sermon on the Mount

How are the sons of God to make peace? (Not the way I was taught / learned in ROTC and in the Baptist Church I was raised in.)

They are to make peace with the gospel of peace (Ephesians 6:15), not with physical violence. They may or may not lose their lives when confronting the rule of evil with the gospel but they gain the life of the coming age by doing what the Messiah said they must do.

Ummmm
Not to be a killjoy here but that's not what Jesus meant or said....and in complete opposition "I've not come to bring peace but a sword"

The gospel message is insulting to a lot of people.

Between sinful nature mankind there cannot be peace. But there can be peace between man and God through Jesus.

 

[Matthias]

Ummmm
Not to be a killjoy here but that's not what Jesus meant or said....and in complete opposition "I've not come to bring peace but a sword"

The gospel message is insulting to a lot of people.

Between sinful nature mankind there cannot be peace. But there can be peace between man and God through Jesus.

About how many people did Jesus and the apostles kill with their swords? You don’t need to be exact. Just a rough estimate is fine.

 

[Matthias]

Help!
I read
Luke 22:32-38
32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."
33 But he said to Him, "Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!"
34 And He said, "I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me."
35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing."
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.
37 "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS '; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."
38 They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

in a few versions.
I don't know what you mean.
Please explain.

To me it sounds like the situation had changed from the previous time.
And in verse 38, Jesus just doesn't want to say more on it.
??

So we have here a grand total of two swords, and Jesus said those two swords for the entire group were enough.

Enough for what? Enough to fulfill a prophecy about him being numbered with transgressors.

So then the group is approached by the arresting party. The two swords did what in their defense? Peter cut a man’s ear off. Jesus heals the injured man and says what to Peter?

 

[Matthias]

Did Jesus and the apostles advise the Romans on how, when and where they should wage war on the enemies of Rome?

Did Jesus and the apostles advise the Jewish resistance movement on how, when and where they should wage war on the Romans? On how, when and where the Jewish resistance movement should wage war against countries besides the Roman Empire?

Did Jesus and the apostles enlist in the Roman military? Did they enlist in the Jewish resistance?

Did Jesus need a sword to defend himself?

 

[GodsGrace]

So we have here a grand total of two swords, and Jesus said those two swords for the entire group were enough.

Enough for what? Enough to fulfill a prophecy about him being numbered with transgressors.

So then the group is approached by the arresting party. The two swords did what in their defense? Peter cut a man’s ear off. Jesus heals the injured man and says what to Peter?

Jesus told Peter He had to fulfill the reason why He was born.

The question has to be asked...Why was Peter carrying a sword anyway?
I think Jesus told them to have a sword for protection when they went into the world to preach/teach.
Not that it did them much good since they all died for their efforts.

 

[GodsGrace]

Ummmm
Not to be a killjoy here but that's not what Jesus meant or said....and in complete opposition "I've not come to bring peace but a sword"

The gospel message is insulting to a lot of people.

Between sinful nature mankind there cannot be peace. But there can be peace between man and God through Jesus.

Hi John
I've heard quite a few on these forums state that we should keep out of politics because we're in God's Kingdom and not in man's Kingdom.

This sounds great, but does nothing to resolve problems here on this earth we live in.

Jesus did not say to stand by and do nothing....
He wanted to make a better world for us.

This doe not include allowing evil to flourish.

I dislike sending you back to read, but I believe in what I posted in nos 43 and 53.

I may be wrong in the end....
but right now this is how I believe things should be.

Christians should not be bystanders.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus told Peter He had to fulfill the reason why He was born.

The question has to be asked...Why was Peter carrying a sword anyway?
I think Jesus told them to have a sword for protection when they went into the world to preach/teach.
Not that it did them much good since they all died for their efforts.

Let’s start with your self-defense suggestion. You say that they were armed in order to defend themselves using the weapons of man when they were preaching the gospel. You also say that it didn’t do them much good. Is there any record of them using swords against their enemies in scripture?

Is there any tradition about the apostles wielding the weapons of man in self-defense while preaching the gospel that you’re aware of?

 

[Matthias]

I’ll fast forward just a little to Paul.

”The weapons we use in our fight are not made by humans. Rather, they are powerful weapons from God. With them we destroy people’s defenses, that is, their arguments.”

(2 Corinthians 10:4, GW)

This is how Paul waged war on his enemies. Is it not also how all of the other apostles waged war on their enemies? Is it not how they instructed the disciples to engage in war with their enemies? They were actively engaged in waging spiritual warfare, not worldly warfare, against their enemies.

What are the “powerful weapons from God“ that he is referring to? Are they not the armor of God he mentions in Ephesians 6:11-18?

 

[JustMe]

The two swords bought by the apostles were not only to fulfill prophecy, but as a result of this display or brandishing of swords, then also for self-defense against others armed, in the coming days, during the remaining times that Jesus had on earth and afterwards, by them, the apostles, as they would spread the gospel into foreign lands. I would not be surprised that the apostles took Jesus' words as a clear signal to invest in self-protection during their travels against wild animals and unsavory persons along their treks.

Yes, Jesus' instruction to buy swords was primarily to fulfill prophecy, as he explicitly states, "It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me".

This implies that the swords were a means to ensure Jesus would be seen as a transgressor, aligning with the prophecy in Isaiah 53, where the Messiah is described as being "numbered with the transgressors".

Then this would also certainly then make the apostles potential future targets of opportunity by anyone that hated Jesus and his followers. And it's obvious, that their lives, per implication and in scripture also had to be protected.

The swords were then intended for self-defense, as Jesus mentions, "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". Again, suggesting that the disciples were to be prepared for potential threats. Despite this, Jesus later rebukes Peter for using a sword, saying, "No more of this!" , for that purpose ONLY, which indicates that the swords were not meant for continued actual violence or self-defense at that particular time towards other or all the Roman soldiers.

I believe this is the rational today behind personal, family and home self-protection. This is as far as I'm willing to go myself. And not to popularize and prescribe to and cheerlead national leaders, men and now women to become pawns in a chess game of the rich, influential and evil ones in this world, dispensed out as cannon fodder, the age old process of the killing fields, used well before Christ.

To me, this is well beyond the limits of living a true Christian life and also wanting (national) revenge or deadly aggression against someone who is not my enemy or are not my enemies. And even further, supporting nations who even hate God, as their current national identity.

 

[GodsGrace]

The two swords bought by the apostles were not only to fulfill prophecy, but as a result of this display or brandishing of swords, then also for self-defense against others armed, in the coming days, during the remaining times that Jesus had on earth and afterwards, by them, the apostles, as they would spread the gospel into foreign lands. I would not be surprised that the apostles took Jesus' words as a clear signal to invest in self-protection during their travels against wild animals and unsavory persons along their treks.

Yes, Jesus' instruction to buy swords was primarily to fulfill prophecy, as he explicitly states, "It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me".

This implies that the swords were a means to ensure Jesus would be seen as a transgressor, aligning with the prophecy in Isaiah 53, where the Messiah is described as being "numbered with the transgressors".

Then this would also certainly then make the apostles potential future targets of opportunity by anyone that hated Jesus and his followers. And it's obvious, that their lives, per implication and in scripture also had to be protected.

The swords were then intended for self-defense, as Jesus mentions, "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". Again, suggesting that the disciples were to be prepared for potential threats. Despite this, Jesus later rebukes Peter for using a sword, saying, "No more of this!" , for that purpose ONLY, which indicates that the swords were not meant for continued actual violence or self-defense at that particular time towards other or all the Roman soldiers.

I believe this is the rational today behind personal, family and home self-protection. This is as far as I'm willing to go myself. And not to popularize and prescribe to and cheerlead national leaders, men and now women to become pawns in a chess game of the rich, influential and evil ones in this world, dispensed out as cannon fodder, the age old process of the killing fields, used well before Christ.

To me, this is well beyond the limits of living a true Christian life and also wanting (national) revenge or deadly aggression against someone who is not my enemy or are not my enemies. And even further, supporting nations who even hate God, as their current national identity.

Great post!
Very well stated.
Something I am apparently not able to do!
Thanks.

 

[GodsGrace]

Let’s start with your self-defense suggestion. You say that they were armed in order to defend themselves using the weapons of man when they were preaching the gospel. You also say that it didn’t do them much good. Is there any record of them using swords against their enemies in scripture?

Is there any tradition about the apostles wielding the weapons of man in self-defense while preaching the gospel that you’re aware of?

Matthias,
There had to be a reason why Jesus told them to sell their cloak and buy a sword.
There were many dangers while travelling back in those days.
Just knowing a person was NOT armed would make them a target of, at the least, robbers - and worse.

@JustMe wrote a very good post, no. 89, which states much of what I believe.

As to reading about this in scripture....
history did not end with scripture.
Not everything was written down.
You know the verse. John 21:25
True for what Jesus did....and all the others.

Absence of proof...
is not proof of absence.

 

[Matthias]

Matthias,
There had to be a reason why Jesus told them to sell their cloak and buy a sword.

Yes.

There were many dangers while travelling back in those days.
Just knowing a person was NOT armed would make them a target of, at the least, robbers - and worse.

How did they manage to survive traveling without weapons prior to this incident?

@JustMe wrote a very good post, no. 89, which states much of what I believe.

As to reading about this in scripture....
history did not end with scripture.
Not everything was written down.
You know the verse. John 21:25
True for what Jesus did....and all the others.

Absence of proof...
is not proof of absence.

You’ve told me in the past that you’ve read the ECF’s. Would what they say about Christians resorting to violence provide additional proof that you would find persuasive?

 

[Matthias]

“Put down the sword, Peter.”

Scripture doesn’t record Peter saying the following to Jesus but, proceeding with the argument that “absence of proof is not proof of absence” -

Peter replied to Jesus, “But we have travel plans and it’s dangerous to travel without swords. We must be ready and able to treat the robbers ... and worse ... as they are going to treat us.”

To which Jesus replied, “I know it will be hard for you at first but after you’ve killed a few it becomes much easier to do.”

I don’t think it’s going to be difficult for us to demolish the scenario I’ve constructed. Would you like to try @GodsGrace?

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes.



How did they manage to survive traveling without weapons prior to this incident?

They stayed close to home Matthias.
Now they were going to travel far...
like to Athens
Rome.

Not save journies.

You’ve told me in the past that you’ve read the ECF’s. Would what they say about Christians resorting to violence provide additional proof that you would find persuasive?

I've never read that the ECFs addressed this.
I've never looked into this.
And I don't really know why this is even being discussed.

The Apostles lived in the real world...
they acted like everyone else did to protect themselves.

No proof for you, sorry.

 

[GodsGrace]

“Put down the sword, Peter.”

Scripture doesn’t record Peter saying the following to Jesus but, proceeding with the argument that “absence of proof is not proof of absence” -

Peter replied to Jesus, “But we have travel plans and it’s dangerous to travel without swords. We must be ready and able to treat the robbers ... and worse ... as they are going to treat us.”

To which Jesus replied, “I know it will be hard for you at first but after you’ve killed a few it becomes much easier to do.”

I don’t think it’s going to be difficult for us to demolish the scenario I’ve constructed. Would you like to try @GodsGrace?

What nonsense.
I'm surprised at you.

Jesus clearly told the Apostles THIS TIME to sell their cloak and buy a sword.
They were going to travel far away and needed protection.
Whether they ever even used it or not we cannot know.

Do YOU know what Jesus did between the ages of newborn to 12?
And from 12 to about 30?

No. Because it isn't mentioned and the reason is that the NT was written for soteriological reasons...
it is not just a history story.

We cannot know everything Jesus did and we cannot know everything the Apostles experienced in their journeys.

 

[Matthias]

They stayed close to home Matthias.
Now they were going to travel far...
like to Athens
Rome.

Not save journies.

So let’s look again at what Paul said and did. If your suggestion has merit we should find him brandishing his sword and killing his enemies, shouldn’t we?

I've never read that the ECFs addressed this.
I've never looked into this.

They did. You should look into it sometime.

And I don't really know why this is even being discussed.

It’s being discussed because it has been suggested that Jesus instructed his disciples to carry swords for self-defense.

The Apostles lived in the real world...
they acted like everyone else did to protect themselves.

It’s your responsibility to provide evidence to support your argument. The best that you’ve offered for my consideration so far is that it didn’t do them much good.

The early Christians were often martyred. Looking at it from your perspective, why didn’t they use their swords?

No proof for you, sorry.

On the contrary. History is filled with Christians who, like the Messiah himself, didn’t take up swords against their enemies.

 

[Matthias]

What nonsense.
I'm surprised at you.

What I wrote in the post is complete and utter nonsense. That was the point.

Jesus clearly told the Apostles THIS TIME to sell their cloak and buy a sword.
They were going to travel far away and needed protection.
Whether they ever even used it or not we cannot know.

Wait a minute. You told me earlier that they carried swords and that it didn’t do them much good. Why didn’t it do them much good? And why did Jesus instruct them to do something which wouldn’t do them much good?

Do YOU know what Jesus did between the ages of newborn to 12?
And from 12 to about 30?

No. Because it isn't mentioned and the reason is that the NT was written for soteriological reasons...
it is not just a history story.

We cannot know everything Jesus did and we cannot know everything the Apostles experienced in their journeys.

 

[GodsGrace]

So let’s look again at what Paul said and did. If your suggestion has merit would should find him brandishing his sword and killing his enemies, shouldn’t we?



They did. You should look into it sometime.



It’s being discussed because it has been suggested that Jesus instructed his disciples to carry swords for self-defense.



It’s your responsibility to provide evidence to support your argument. The best that you’ve offered for my consideration so far is that it didn’t do them much good.

The early Christians were often martyred. Looking at it from your perspective, why didn’t they use their swords?



On the contrary. History is filled with Christians who, like the Messiah himself, didn’t take up swords against their enemies.

I'm not going to continue with this.
Some Christians did not take up swords.
Some did.
If it were not for some Christians, we'd be speaking Arabic right now.
(the crusades).

Self-defense and the defense of life is NOT A SIN.

Jesus DID tell His Apostles what I stated:

Luke 22:28-38
28 "You are those who have stood by Me in My trials;
29 and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you
30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat;
32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."
33 But he said to Him, "Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!"
34 And He said, "I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me."
35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing."
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.
37 "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS '; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."
38 They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."


You could interpret the above literally or not.
I tend to interpret what Jesus says literally when He's giving an instruction.

Jesus states.
BUT NOW.....

They did not need protection the first time they were sent out (Matthew 10) because they stayed withing their own homeland.

The Apostles would now travel to foreign lands and would need some type of self-protection.

If you wish to understand the above in a figurative way....that is your prerogative...
however, not all theologians agree on this and I prefer to understand it literally.

I believe in self-protection,
you do not.

I believe that I'd protect my family from an intruder,
you have stated that you would not and would prefer to die.

§We have different beliefs Matthias....

 

[GodsGrace]

What I wrote in the post is complete and utter nonsense. That was the point.



Wait a minute. You told me earlier that they carried swords and that it didn’t do them much good. Why didn’t it do them much good? And why did Jesus instruct them to do something which wouldn’t do them much good?

Because they all ended up dying!
A sword will not defend them to the end.
If a King or ruler wanted one of them killed,,,the sword would not be of any service to them.

It WOULD be of service as protection from wild animals or thieves.
Jesus wanted them to get to their destinations so they could preach/teach.

I think you must be aware that many cities in Europe are encircled by walls which protected the citizenry.
Weapons were carried for the same reasons.

I'm not spending any more time on this.
As I've stated, I interpret Jesus' words literally,,,,
you are entitled to do differently since there is no real consensus on this.

 

[Matthias]

Proposition: “The apostles acted like everyone else did to protect themselves.”

Follow-up. ”Some Christians did not take up swords.”

Evaluation. Everyone else did not use swords to protect themselves.

Conclusion. The proposition is undermined.