TexasCHLforum.com

OK, didn't Jesus say, "turn the other cheek"? Meaning, you shouldn't defend yourself with a gun but just let bad guys do what they want to do with you? Therefore, you shouldn't carry a gun in church?

Or do you interpret it to say "turn the other cheek" as in don't seek revenge, but it doesn't admonish self-defense? If so, what scripture can you quote that says it is ok to defend yourself? (from the new testament)

Thanks,

I already turned the other cheek once. So I'll carry

Luke 22:36

Context is everything. I believe what was being conveyed here is de-escalation. If someone insults you, you can respond with insults or you can respond in a manner meant to defuse the situation. The message here is never to respond to evil with evil.

howdy wrote:Luke 22:36

Howdy beat me to it........ but you really want Luke 22:35-38 (ESV)

Scripture Must Be Fulfilled in Jesus
35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

To put this into context, you have to understand the value of a man's cloak to a first century Jew. It was a man's most valued possession. It served as an indicator of his station in life, it was a blanket, a pad to sit on, it was warmth from cold, it could be pitched as a small shelter. An adult man might only own 1 or 2 cloaks during his entire adult life. So when Jesus tells the disciples that if they don't own a sword, they ought to sell one of their most prized possessions to obtain the money to buy a sword.

It is also worth noting something else...... the sword being referenced is not a big broadsword, it is more like the Roman short sword - a "Pugio" - which is interesting to me as the pugio is to the broadsword as a handgun is to a long gun. I blogged on the topic of this Bible passage a while back on my blog website: http://heritageandvirtue.com/the-ingred ... imitstart=.

Edited to add: The pugio-type sword served multiple purposes in 1st century life too. It was a defensive weapon, but it was also a general purpose cutting instrument, and was used to butcher animals, prepare the meat, etc., etc.

I only got 2 cheeks.

howdy wrote:Luke 22:36

You need to read on to Luke 47-52. He didn't allow them to fight, so while that verse is frequently quoted, it is kinda taken out of context. I do believe he was allowing them to arm themselves so that if the soldiers did try to do more than just arrest Jesus, that they would be able to defend themselves. It didn't come to pass though.

Here are a few that talk about fighting back

Ecclesiastes 3:8
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

Proverbs 21:15
When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.

Psalm 144:1
Of David. Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle;

Philippians 3:2
Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.

Romans 13:4
For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

drjoker wrote:OK, didn't Jesus say, "turn the other cheek"? Meaning, you shouldn't defend yourself with a gun but just let bad guys do what they want to do with you? Therefore, you shouldn't carry a gun in church?

Or do you interpret it to say "turn the other cheek" as in don't seek revenge, but it doesn't admonish self-defense? If so, what scripture can you quote that says it is ok to defend yourself? (from the new testament)

Thanks,

In Jesus' day, a slap on the cheek was not so much a physical attack as a statement of contempt. The person doing the slapping is insulting you.

"Turn the other cheek" meant to offer him the opportunity to slap the other side. That would have been your way showing contempt for the slapper. In other words, you care so little about his opinion that you'll allow him to do it again.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

howdy wrote:Luke 22:36

Howdy beat me to it........ but you really want Luke 22:35-38 (ESV)

Scripture Must Be Fulfilled in Jesus
35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

To put this into context, you have to understand the value of a man's cloak to a first century Jew. It was a man's most valued possession. It served as an indicator of his station in life, it was a blanket, a pad to sit on, it was warmth from cold, it could be pitched as a small shelter. An adult man might only own 1 or 2 cloaks during his entire adult life. So when Jesus tells the disciples that if they don't own a sword, they ought to sell one of their most prized possessions to obtain the money to buy a sword.

It is also worth noting something else...... the sword being referenced is not a big broadsword, it is more like the Roman short sword - a "Pugio" - which is interesting to me as the pugio is to the broadsword as a handgun is to a long gun. I blogged on the topic of this Bible passage a while back on my blog website: http://heritageandvirtue.com/the-ingred ... imitstart=.

Edited to add: The pugio-type sword served multiple purposes in 1st century life too. It was a defensive weapon, but it was also a general purpose cutting instrument, and was used to butcher animals, prepare the meat, etc., etc.

Not all agree that he meant actual swords though. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary "At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves."

I tend to lean towards the opposing viewpoint.

jmorris wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

howdy wrote:Luke 22:36

Howdy beat me to it........ but you really want Luke 22:35-38 (ESV)

Scripture Must Be Fulfilled in Jesus
35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

To put this into context, you have to understand the value of a man's cloak to a first century Jew. It was a man's most valued possession. It served as an indicator of his station in life, it was a blanket, a pad to sit on, it was warmth from cold, it could be pitched as a small shelter. An adult man might only own 1 or 2 cloaks during his entire adult life. So when Jesus tells the disciples that if they don't own a sword, they ought to sell one of their most prized possessions to obtain the money to buy a sword.

It is also worth noting something else...... the sword being referenced is not a big broadsword, it is more like the Roman short sword - a "Pugio" - which is interesting to me as the pugio is to the broadsword as a handgun is to a long gun. I blogged on the topic of this Bible passage a while back on my blog website: http://heritageandvirtue.com/the-ingred ... imitstart=.

Edited to add: The pugio-type sword served multiple purposes in 1st century life too. It was a defensive weapon, but it was also a general purpose cutting instrument, and was used to butcher animals, prepare the meat, etc., etc.

Not all agree that he meant actual swords though. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary "At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves."

I tend to lean towards the opposing viewpoint.

A friend of mine who is a missionary overseas, and who is politically liberal and anti-gun, disputes this point with me. I wrote an addendum to refute his refutation here: http://heritageandvirtue.com/the-ingred ... e-gun.html. As to Henry's Commentary, I'm not sure how he arrives at that. Why would Jesus tell the disciples to sell something precious and necessary, to buy something that cannot be bought?....... Particularly in the light of verse 38? That just doesn't make sense to me.

Exodus 22:3: “If the  thief is  caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.”

Also in Esther, the Jews, the lowest class at the time, were allowed to defend themselves to the point of killing the offender.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jmorris wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

howdy wrote:Luke 22:36

Howdy beat me to it........ but you really want Luke 22:35-38 (ESV)

Scripture Must Be Fulfilled in Jesus
35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

To put this into context, you have to understand the value of a man's cloak to a first century Jew. It was a man's most valued possession. It served as an indicator of his station in life, it was a blanket, a pad to sit on, it was warmth from cold, it could be pitched as a small shelter. An adult man might only own 1 or 2 cloaks during his entire adult life. So when Jesus tells the disciples that if they don't own a sword, they ought to sell one of their most prized possessions to obtain the money to buy a sword.

It is also worth noting something else...... the sword being referenced is not a big broadsword, it is more like the Roman short sword - a "Pugio" - which is interesting to me as the pugio is to the broadsword as a handgun is to a long gun. I blogged on the topic of this Bible passage a while back on my blog website: http://heritageandvirtue.com/the-ingred ... imitstart=.

Edited to add: The pugio-type sword served multiple purposes in 1st century life too. It was a defensive weapon, but it was also a general purpose cutting instrument, and was used to butcher animals, prepare the meat, etc., etc.

Not all agree that he meant actual swords though. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary "At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves."

I tend to lean towards the opposing viewpoint.

A friend of mine who is a missionary overseas, and who is politically liberal and anti-gun, disputes this point with me. I wrote an addendum to refute his refutation here: http://heritageandvirtue.com/the-ingred ... e-gun.html. As to Henry's Commentary, I'm not sure how he arrives at that. Why would Jesus tell the disciples to sell something precious and necessary, to buy something that cannot be bought?....... Particularly in the light of verse 38? That just doesn't make sense to me.

I think Jesus was telling the deciples that he was leaving and would no longer be there to protect them and from that time forward they were to protect themselves.

drjoker wrote:OK, didn't Jesus say, "turn the other cheek"? Meaning, you shouldn't defend yourself with a gun but just let bad guys do what they want to do with you? Therefore, you shouldn't carry a gun in church?

Or do you interpret it to say "turn the other cheek" as in don't seek revenge, but it doesn't admonish self-defense? If so, what scripture can you quote that says it is ok to defend yourself? (from the new testament)

Thanks,

Not an answer to your question but Jesus expects the same behavior from us whether in church or in the world. If you take the view that turn the other cheek means not to defend yourself, it would mean you shouldn't carry anywhere (not just church).

It's tough to put a "should I carry a gun" question to the test of support in scripture as you won't find a literal reference (as noted already in this thread).

My view is that Christ expects us to live Iives that reflect him. In my mind that means love everyone, spread His word, and do our best to build His kingdom here on earth (if I had to quote scripture to support this it would be the entire New Testament).

The world has corrupted this mission. If I show "love" to an attacker by letting him kill me or my family, have I shown "love" to my family? I could go on and on with examples but you get my point.

My view is that I can be a Christian and try my best to fulfill the commission given to us by Jesus and still carry weapons for the purpose of defending myself and those around me.

My two cents...

I also believe the turn the other cheek verse was referring to revenge, retribution and retaliation, not self defense.

We have some solid Christian pastors as members of the forum. Maybe they'll check in here and share their insight.

Were not the Shepherd's rod and staff weapons to protect the flock?
http://biblehub.com/context/acts/20-27.htm
Acts 20:28-29
(Context: Paul’s Farewell Message to the Ephesian Elders)

28“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;

Am I not my brother's keeper?

The context of Jesus telling Disciples "BUT NOW" indicates a change of former instructions due to a changing condition
http://biblehub.com/context/luke/22-35.htm
Luke 22:35-38
(Context: Part of Jesus’ Farewell Message to the Disciples)

35And 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.” 36And 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.” 38They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

So 1st is a "Remember when I said" .. when He instructed that He'd be their protector/provider before, >> but now >> that He'd be leaving them shortly (while in the grave, until resurrected, and at ascension, but sending the Comforter)

I'm a huge advocate of reading the same passage or sequence of events in more than one Gospel account, and here is a good coverage of 3 of the Garden sequence of events, scroll down to where it says "The Garden of Gethsemane" http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/
for
Luke 22:49-53
Matthew 26:51-56
and
John 18:10-11

http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/
In these three passages, you get a sense that Jesus is saying, "Though we have a right to employ our swords in defense of this unrighteous arrest, we are intentionally putting aside our lawful right, and I am allowing myself to be taken without resistance." See how this is expressed: "Lord shall we strike with the sword?" "No more of this." "This is your hour, and the power of darkness." "Put up your sword... or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father... all this was done that the Scriptures...might be fulfilled." "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup...?"

Why Christ tells Peter to put up the sword:

Christ is willingly laying down His life, though He has the right to use sword and angelic legions to deliver Himself from this unjust arrest (Luke 22:51, John 18:11).
Those who are quick to resort to violence will die by violence (Matt 26:52). The Lord hates the one who "loves violence" (Psalm 11:5).

The sword is not always the appropriate response, especially in persecution for Christ.

The sword is not always the appropriate response ... De-escalation ...