marriage on Nostr: Is it okay for a Disciple of Christ to use deadly force under any circumstance? ...
Is it okay for a Disciple of Christ to use deadly force under any circumstance?
https://carm.org/other-questions/do-christians-have-the-right-of-physical-self-defense/
It is, indeed, a well-rounded article, but it's lacking in addressing the main question. Only a few New Testament verses are given in claimed support of using violence in self defense or defense of others by Christians.
Luke 11:21-22: "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armor wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils."
The context is
Luke 11:15: "But some of them said, He casts out the demons by Beelzebul the chief of the demons."
Jesus is pointing out the absurdity of devils casting out demons. In the example, Jesus is the stronger man who overcomes the armed man. Doesn't seem to say anything about violent self defense by Christians.
Luke 22:36-38: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."
This command seems to be solely to fulfill a specific prophecy and was given only to the disciples, not the multitudes; 2 swords were sufficient to fulfill the prophecy.
John 2:15: "And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;"
Doesn't seem to say anything about deadly force, nor does it say Jesus hit anyone with this non-lethal instrument. None of the commentaries on biblehub thought it a deadly weapon:
'This whip was made as an emblem of authority, and also for the purpose of driving from the temple the cattle which had been brought there for sale. There is no evidence that he used any violence to the men engaged in that unhallowed traffic. The original word implies that these "cords" were made of twisted "rushes" or "reeds" - probably the ancient material for making ropes.'
'Moreover there was no material which inflicted less lasting hurt on the body than this. Nor is it said, that He inflicted a single blow upon the men: He accomplished His purpose by the terror [which He inspired].'
'The "scourge," as Godet says, is a symbol, not an instrument. It was in Christ's hands a conspicuous method of expressing his indignation, and augmenting the force of his command, by an indication that he meant to be obeyed there and then.'
1 Timothy 5:8: "But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
This talks about providing for needs and says nothing about using violence to defend one's family.
The bit about the word translated "sword" in Luke vs a different word used for "sword" in Revelation was interesting:
'The word “sword” used by Jesus is μάχαιρα, máchaira. It means, “A knife, slaughter–knife, a sword for cutting…”1 and “a short sword or dagger.”2 And, “relatively short sword (or even dagger) used for cutting and stabbing—‘sword, dagger.’3'
'The word for sword there is ῥομφαία, rhomphaía. It means, “A broadsword used especially by the Thracians and carried on the right shoulder.”4'
It seems the final word was given when Jesus disarmed Peter:
Matthew 26:52: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
This is perfectly in line with "love your enemies" in Matthew 5:44.
Tertullian understood Jesus disarming Peter to also be disarming all Christians. (He also thought by the same logic that Christians couldn't join the military even during peace time.)
Tertullian in Of Idolatry, Chapter 19:
"But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action."
https://carm.org/other-questions/do-christians-have-the-right-of-physical-self-defense/
It is, indeed, a well-rounded article, but it's lacking in addressing the main question. Only a few New Testament verses are given in claimed support of using violence in self defense or defense of others by Christians.
Luke 11:21-22: "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armor wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils."
The context is
Luke 11:15: "But some of them said, He casts out the demons by Beelzebul the chief of the demons."
Jesus is pointing out the absurdity of devils casting out demons. In the example, Jesus is the stronger man who overcomes the armed man. Doesn't seem to say anything about violent self defense by Christians.
Luke 22:36-38: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."
This command seems to be solely to fulfill a specific prophecy and was given only to the disciples, not the multitudes; 2 swords were sufficient to fulfill the prophecy.
John 2:15: "And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;"
Doesn't seem to say anything about deadly force, nor does it say Jesus hit anyone with this non-lethal instrument. None of the commentaries on biblehub thought it a deadly weapon:
'This whip was made as an emblem of authority, and also for the purpose of driving from the temple the cattle which had been brought there for sale. There is no evidence that he used any violence to the men engaged in that unhallowed traffic. The original word implies that these "cords" were made of twisted "rushes" or "reeds" - probably the ancient material for making ropes.'
'Moreover there was no material which inflicted less lasting hurt on the body than this. Nor is it said, that He inflicted a single blow upon the men: He accomplished His purpose by the terror [which He inspired].'
'The "scourge," as Godet says, is a symbol, not an instrument. It was in Christ's hands a conspicuous method of expressing his indignation, and augmenting the force of his command, by an indication that he meant to be obeyed there and then.'
1 Timothy 5:8: "But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
This talks about providing for needs and says nothing about using violence to defend one's family.
The bit about the word translated "sword" in Luke vs a different word used for "sword" in Revelation was interesting:
'The word “sword” used by Jesus is μάχαιρα, máchaira. It means, “A knife, slaughter–knife, a sword for cutting…”1 and “a short sword or dagger.”2 And, “relatively short sword (or even dagger) used for cutting and stabbing—‘sword, dagger.’3'
'The word for sword there is ῥομφαία, rhomphaía. It means, “A broadsword used especially by the Thracians and carried on the right shoulder.”4'
It seems the final word was given when Jesus disarmed Peter:
Matthew 26:52: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
This is perfectly in line with "love your enemies" in Matthew 5:44.
Tertullian understood Jesus disarming Peter to also be disarming all Christians. (He also thought by the same logic that Christians couldn't join the military even during peace time.)
Tertullian in Of Idolatry, Chapter 19:
"But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action."