Luke 22:36

[T1mH]

I am a Christian and I support the right to own and carry a gun.

I started to reply to a post in the Michigan OC experiences thread when I realized it was off topic and instead of diluting that thread as it gets diluted enough I thought I'd post my question here. The original quote is from a guy who OC'd to his family reunion and used the Bible to say that Jesus told him to except he posted the wrong verse. I often see this verse quoted to justify OC. I'm not picking on him about getting the verse wrong because I knew what he meant.

...Some how I swayed into "...look up John 22:36"

Did you mean Luke 22:36?

What other verses in the Bible back up OC? I think this one verse is often taken out of context.

How does an OC advocate respond to Matthew 26:52?

Matthew 26:52
New International Version (NIV)
52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I would respond by saying it all depends on how good one's understanding of ancient languages is. Translations vary.

"Put away your sword," Jesus told him. "Those who use the sword will die by the sword."
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword."
Then saith Jesus to him, 'Turn back thy sword to its place; for all who did take [up] the sword, by the sword shall perish"

There is a difference between "drawing a sword", "take (taking up) the sword", and as commonly expressed today, "living by the sword".



I am far from a biblical scholar; I have not read the Bible from cover to cover, I can say with a surety that I have never even read a complete chapter of it.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus (Gospel of John states it was Peter) stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:51-52)

This would appear to be an admonishment against doing violence unto another, not against defense of self or others.

 

[T1mH]

I would respond by saying it all depends on how good one's understanding of ancient languages is. Translations vary.

Every translation I've looked at including the ones you posted seem to be clear. Use the sword, die by the sword.

This would appear to be an admonishment against doing violence unto another, not against defense of self or others.

Peter was defending Jesus. I doubt that many will disagree that the disciples didn't know the intent of the soldiers. Jesus predicated his death 3 time, the third time specifically mentioning crucifixion.

I'm trying to reconcile what Jesus taught with what some are claiming by using Luke 22:36 to say that the Bible advocates open carry. Things were very different back then and the Bible does not give definitive answers to many things today that didn't exist back then. So I'm not necessarily saying the Bible says don't defend yourself but I am saying that using Luke 22:36 is a misinterpretation.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Every translation I've looked at including the ones you posted seem to be clear. Use the sword, die by the sword

"Use the sword"? Pardon me, but soldiers, police officers, secret service agents, deputies, and many, many more "use the sword" every day. Are you saying that the bible predicts that they should 'die by the sword' for doing so?

If the police are arresting a well-known crime boss and one of the boss' henchmen fires at the police, do we say "Oh, he was only defending his boss."?

 

[T1mH]

"Use the sword"? Pardon me, but soldiers, police officers, secret service agents, deputies, and many, many more "use the sword" every day. Are you saying that the bible predicts that they should 'die by the sword' for doing so?

If the police are arresting a well-known crime boss and one of the boss' henchmen fires at the police, do we say "Oh, he was only defending his boss."?

Here's the thing. I'm not saying the Bible is telling you not to open carry. What I think is dangerous is to take a single verse out of context and definitively say that the Bible says to sell my cloak and buy a sword therefore the Bible is telling me to arm myself. By that logic I can show you a lot more verses like Mathew 26:51-52 that say not to.

I can justify nearly anything, thru history people have repeatedly done this, with a single verse or snippets from the Bible. Wars, ethnic cleansings, crusades, many things have been done in the name of Christianity. Hitler believed he was a Christian and was doing the work of the Lord by defending himself against the Jews. The Bible needs to be taken in its entirety and in it's historical and geographical context to be understood and followed. At the same time you can't dismiss certain things in the Bible because you don't agree with them. This is where I struggle. What were the laws of man and what were the laws as given to us by God. Can my wife wear pants, have short hair, and be a teacher in the church? Not according to the literal interpretation of the Bible, she can't.

 

[Richieg150]

I will give this a try...In Luke 22:36, Jesus was telling his disciples they needed a purse, bag, and a sword. Up to this time Jesus and the disciples were supported by the hospitality of others. Luke 22:35: Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without a purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. Jesus knew that these provisions from others was coming to a end.They would need to be able to support,take care of, and defend and protect themselves on their great commission. If you go to the book of Romans, the 13 chapter,read versus 13:1-5.verse 4:" For he is Gods servent to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is Gods servent, as an agent of wrath to bring punishment on th wrongdoer." God says we must submit to governing authorities, as long as they dont go against Gods word, and that he who rebels, rebels against God, and the sword is used to bring punishment on the wrongdoers. In Matthew 26...read verse 26:50...."Then continue reading down to verse 56. Jesus knew his time was at hand, and nothing Peter or any of his disciples could change or detur that fact.Verse 56: But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fullfilled. Then all the disciples deserted him and fled." Now, the disciples would be on their own,supporting, takeing care of, and defending and protecting themselves, thus they needed the very things Jesus told them they needed in Luke 22:36.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Here's the thing. I'm not saying the Bible is telling you not to open carry. What I think is dangerous is to take a single verse out of context and definitively say that the Bible says to sell my cloak and buy a sword therefore the Bible is telling me to arm myself. By that logic I can show you a lot more verses like Mathew 26:51-52 that say not to.

I can justify nearly anything, thru history people have repeatedly done this, with a single verse or snippets from the Bible. Wars, ethnic cleansings, crusades, many things have been done in the name of Christianity. Hitler believed he was a Christian and was doing the work of the Lord by defending himself against the Jews. The Bible needs to be taken in its entirety and in it's historical and geographical context to be understood and followed. At the same time you can't dismiss certain things in the Bible because you don't agree with them. This is where I struggle. What were the laws of man and what were the laws as given to us by God. Can my wife wear pants, have short hair, and be a teacher in the church? Not according to the literal interpretation of the Bible, she can't.

But why did your answer address neither of the questions posed?
...hmm?

 

[T1mH]

But why did your answer address neither of the questions posed?
...hmm?

I'm sorry I didn't deliberately not answer your questions. I thought they were more rhetorical in nature and that I had responded in a round way in my post. I don't think I can really debate this with you as by your own admittance you have not read much of the Bible. I should have specified in my origanel post that I was looking for a Bible believing persons perspective. I am not saying you aren't a believer that is not for me to judge so please don't be offended. What I was looking for is more in line with Richies response, which I will be digging more into and researching for myself. Looking at the verses in context and understanding what it says is important to me.

 

[Richieg150]

Here's the thing. I'm not saying the Bible is telling you not to open carry. What I think is dangerous is to take a single verse out of context and definitively say that the Bible says to sell my cloak and buy a sword therefore the Bible is telling me to arm myself. By that logic I can show you a lot more verses like Mathew 26:51-52 that say not to.

I can justify nearly anything, thru history people have repeatedly done this, with a single verse or snippets from the Bible. Wars, ethnic cleansings, crusades, many things have been done in the name of Christianity. Hitler believed he was a Christian and was doing the work of the Lord by defending himself against the Jews. The Bible needs to be taken in its entirety and in it's historical and geographical context to be understood and followed. At the same time you can't dismiss certain things in the Bible because you don't agree with them. This is where I struggle. What were the laws of man and what were the laws as given to us by God. Can my wife wear pants, have short hair, and be a teacher in the church? Not according to the literal interpretation of the Bible, she can't.

If you want the true interpatation of a single verse in the Bible, you need to read a dozen verses before that verse, and a dozen verses after that verse, then you may understand the context and its meaning. It is also good to study the customs and traditions of the Jews and Gentiles when the events in the Bible were written, to understand what was being said.But there are a few versus that sums up why many fail to understand Gods word...they are 1 Corinthians 2:14 :"The man without the spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned".1 Corinthians 1:18-19, " For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. For it is written: " I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

 

[Richieg150]

I will be digging more into and researching for myself.

Digging into Gods word is a GOOD thing.Always use Gods word to check it out, and you wont go wrong....2 Timothy 2:15, " Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needed not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.Acts 17:11-12, " Now the Bereans were of more noble characted than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men."

 

[KRM59]

sword ??

Glad i carry a .45 and not a sword.
I am the furthest thing from an expert on this subject, and i don't want to seem to step on anyone faith but all this IMHO
means nothing. and again IMHO if your that deep of a Christian you would let Jesus protect you and not need a weapon to
defend your self, now wouldn't you?.

 

[thebigsd]

Glad i carry a .45 and not a sword.
I am the furthest thing from an expert on this subject, and i don't want to seem to step on anyone faith but all this IMHO
means nothing. and again IMHO if your that deep of a Christian you would let Jesus protect you and not need a weapon to
defend your self, now wouldn't you?.

Bingo.

 

[Richieg150]

Glad i carry a .45 and not a sword.
I am the furthest thing from an expert on this subject, and i don't want to seem to step on anyone faith but all this IMHO
means nothing. and again IMHO if your that deep of a Christian you would let Jesus protect you and not need a weapon to
defend your self, now wouldn't you?.

When the Bible was written, the sword was the weapon of choice,for protection as well as aggression.If you were living back then, you would have had a sword, if you were interested in being able to defend yourself. Being a Christian, you realize there is a spiritual realm and a physical realm. They are distinctly different, but are interwoven with each other.Yes Jesus can, does, and continues to protect.....But, by your annalogy, why not walk blind folded across the highway during rush hour, Jesus will protect you....or climb up on your roof and jump off, Jesus will protect you.....or walk down the worst part of town with your family late at night,without a care because Jesus will protect you,or start walking accross a desert without any provisions or any number of idiotic ideas thinking, Jesus will protect you.Living in the physical world we are expected to use and have common sense, and be accountable for our actions, which isnt so common today.Roy Rogers once said, " The thing about common sense, it that it aint all that common."I remember hearing a Marine Drill instructor one time telling his platoon, " Jesus may protect your soul, but the weapon will protect you." I think he summed it up simple enough for most people to understand what he was saying, without talking about faith or anything else.

 

[T1mH]

I sent a helicopter... It reminds me of the man who, as the flood waters rose, proclaimed, "The Lord will save me!"

A neighbor in a boat came by and offered to take the man to higher ground, but he proclaimed again, 'The Lord will save me!"

Later, a Coast Guard Cutter came by and implored the man to climb aboard but he proclaimed again, 'The Lord will save me!"

As the water reached the roof of the house a man was lowered to the roof from a helicopter and tried to pull the man to safety, but he proclaimed again, 'The Lord will save me!"

The house was soon under water and the man died. As he entered the presence of the Lord he said, Lord! Why didn't you save me?"

The Lord said, "I sent two boats and a chopper. What more did you want?"

 

[MR Redenck]

Take to your sword meant , take to your weapon. In those days the sword was the weapon of choice so all you pretty much had to refer to was "sword". It was a sword or a stick, not much to choose from.
Now day's we got all kinds of weapons " swords" to pick from. If they had 45's back then, it would not have been necessary to part the red sea. Coulda just shot all the evil jerks instead of getting chased around all over the place.
Although I do like the story better as it was written. It get pretty funny when the walls of the sea came crashing down on all them jerks. :lol:

 

[GLW]

Faith in God is not opposed to Him also ordaining human means and human responsibility. For example, in 1 Timothy 5:8 Paul writes that if a person will not provide for his family, that he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Faith in God does not mean that we do not have responsibility to work and provide for our family. Yet we do not deny that God provides us with everything that we have.

While we have the responsibility to protect our family, ultimately we place our trust in God to protect us. This is not a contradiction, though unbelievers have a hard time understanding this reasoning.

As far as Luke 22:36 goes, the disciples' travels will now become difficult. Now they will experience persecution and it won't be trouble free. They will be traveling into Gentile territory, though they did not recognize this at the time. Their enemy, Satan, has already stated his intentions to sift them like wheat (see Luke 22:31, where the "you" is plural, not singular, in the Greek text--Satan wants to destroy all the disciples, not just Peter). Satan is using human beings, Judas Iscariot and the Jewish leaders, to attack Jesus. Satan will use human beings against the disciples as well. The disciples should be prepared to defend themselves, as things are going to become difficult. Previously the disciples did not need to take provisions for their travels, but now they will. And the need for a means to defend themselves is even more important than before.

This verse doesn't really describe how to carry a weapon, whether open carry or concealed. This verse only discusses the need to have a means of defense at hand. The sword could be carried openly or concealed.

For some background information, Josephus, the Jewish historian, wrote that the Essenes, a Jewish group that was known for having an extreme faith in God, would take one thing on the trip, and that was weapons in order to defend themselves against robbers (see Josephus, Wars of the Jews 2:125). Therefore, it seems to be common for people to carry weapons during the first century.

Glenn

 

[sFe]

Faith in God is not opposed to Him also ordaining human means and human responsibility. For example, in 1 Timothy 5:8 Paul writes that if a person will not provide for his family, that he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Faith in God does not mean that we do not have responsibility to work and provide for our family. Yet we do not deny that God provides us with everything that we have.
...
Glenn

If you're provided with everything then how is it your responsibility? This is like saying welfare recipients work for what the government gives them.

 

[since9]

I you want to learn the meaning of the word "exegesis" and how it allows "the more enlightened" folks to explain away what's rather straight-forward, click here.

Please note, however, Arlandson's words are many, while God's words in the Bible are far more efficient.

I trust in God, not man. As for Arlandson's conclusion of pacifism, of particular note his capitalization thereof, I'd like to see him explain Jesus' "non-aggressive" overturning of the money-changers' tables in the temple.

Good luck with that one, Arlandson...

 

[eye95]

Clearly, Jesus was not admonishing against ever using the sword. If so, telling his disciples to sell their clothing to buy a sword would have been inconsistent. So, even if we don't completely understand what Jesus was admonishing, we can know that he was not making a general statement about using swords.

My understanding is this: If you always look to the sword as the solution to your problems, the sword will become your problem--even unto death. When Peter struck the ear of the Roman soldier, that use of the sword was inappropriate, as Jesus knew he was to be taken into custody. He was not looking to be defended by Peter for He knew that He must die and that He would be saved by God, the Father after He died. It is reasonable to infer that Jesus was rebuking that particular use of the sword (and all other resorts to the sword when inappropriate).

Since it was necessary to God's plan that the disciples lasted long enough to start the spread of the news of the story of Jesus, it was appropriate for them to arm themselves while Jesus was gone from them, hence his instruction for them to acquire swords.

The lesson, as I understand it, is that total reliance on the sword will be one's downfall, not its appropriate use.