Can Christians be Warriors?

A friend asked me: Is it ok for Christians to use weapons? And what do these passages mean?

[Luke 22:36] 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.

[Mat 26:51] And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.

[Mat 26:52] Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the swordshall perish with the sword.

Good questions.

When interpreting scripture you always want to understand the context in which it was written. Since the books of the Bible were written to a specific intended audience we need to understand that audience a little and try and hear as they would have heard. As an illustration, if I was trying to understand what a particular function did in a larget code block, I can't do that unless I understand the functions called before it and after it from the main().

So first thing is that Luke in general is written to gentiles (non-jews). In particular this part of the book is when Jesus is in the Upper Room, where He is celebrating the passover with His disciples right before He is captured by the Jewish religious ruling council. It's His last night, and He has a lot of rapid-fire issues He wants to bring up with them to prepare them for life without Him in the flesh. Among those issues is the state that they will find themselves while carrying out their lives in service to Him.

Reading back just a bit we see in Luke 22:35-38 that Jesus is comparing their preparedness when He sent them out on a little missions trip earlier in their service to Him, to how they will need to be prepared after He is ' numbered with the transgressors' i.e. punished and killed.

So catching up to 22:36 there are probably a couple of ways to look at this. In general Jesus was never against defending oneself, though He was willing to take condemnation if it meant expansion of His mission. Therefore this passage could mean that Jesus was warning His disciples that soon they would need to prepare for hardship by guarding their money and their light-weight possessions (enough to fit in a backpack, not extravagant living) and get a sword for defense. A verse later the disciples say they have 2. If Jesus thought swords were a problem, He would have prohibited the sword long before they got to the upper room, since they likely carried them all the way from home in Galilee. Jesus says they are enough. It could be that even though 2 swords for 13 men is no where near enough, it is enough given that they have Jesus.

On the other hand it could be that Jesus was suggesting that they metaphorically have the sword of the spirit (Eph. 6:10-17) and later when they say they have 2 physical swords His word: "Enough" could be a rebuke.

Of the two ways to look at it, I'd probably lean towards the first one. Seems like He's giving them a lot of 'going away' advice so why not warn them to defend themselves. In the ultimate sense, God will protect and bring us to heaven if we believe that His Son died on the cross for the sins that we committed against Him. So we don't really need to worry about being killed in the line of duty to Him.

Matt. 26:51,52 == Again we need to look at the context of the book and the original audience, so we know how to understand what the author wrote. Matt 26:47-56. Matthew was written to a Jewish audience. So everything that Matthew writes should be interpreted in that context. He often doesn't explain Jewish mindset or customs, b/c he assumes that the reader gets them by default. This understanding applies here b/c the Jews were expecting the Messiah to come back in strength and overthrow the oppressors. God had been silent between the last Prophet Malachi and Jesus for about 400 years or so. The Hebrews that welcomed Him into Jerusalem on 'Palm Sunday', 4 days earlier, waved palms b/c those were symbols of kingship in Hebrew culture. So with all that expectation of overthrow of the current power over them (the Romans), the Jews had a really tough time understanding that Jesus was not leading a political rebellion. Even His own followers didn't really get it until after He was dead.

We can see this understanding carried out b/c Peter uses his sword to cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest. Jesus immediately rebukes Peter and heals the servant's ear. Jesus makes the point that (a) He must suffer at the hands of the high priest so that He can die and pay the penalty of our sins. (b) Jesus makes the point that He didn't come to take a political kingdom, but to inaugurate a spiritual one.

This is the explanation of Mat. 26:52. Jesus is saying that if you try to take the world by force to convert them to my kingship then you're going about it the wrong way. If Jesus wanted to do things by force He could call down legions of angels. But He didn't. The father was calling Him to suffer.

So what's our responsibility in all this? Do we have the right to defend ourselves? Yes. Do we have the requirement to do so? No. If it will advance the kingdom to be humble before someone's attack, then it is worth it to suffer for Jesus. All of this applies to our personal lives and behavior.

The state on the other hand is not a person. What applies to the person and His life does not apply to the state. Even though the state is an amalgamation of lots of individuals. It cannot behave like the individual in all areas because it doesn't make sense. The state has to act in the best interests of it's people which may not always favor the individual.

-- Luke 3:12-14 Jesus approves of soldering. Just not abuse of their power as individuals.

-- Romans 13:1-4 Paul discusses how we are to submit to the governing authorities b/c they've been appointed by God and have the right of the sword to carry out God's judgement on both internal matters and external matters.

-- 1 Peter 2:13-14 Peter tells us to submit to authorities again who have the right to punish evil-doers. Again they have that right to punish internal to their country and externally against other countries.

I could go on with other examples of warriors whom God approves of:

-- David. He was a warrior King who defended his people and attacked those who sought to oppress Him. He even expanded the nation of Israel to new, wider boarders.

-- Joshua. He led the people into the promised land and conquered many of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan.

-- Gideon. Led the people in the time of the Judges. With the Lord's help they vanquished the enemies of God.

And more and more. In all of the examples though, they are leaders of the state and are approved by God to make war, and more than that they are helped/protected by God to ensure that they win.

Pastor Bell vs. MSNBC

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If the video doesn't work here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/42098348#42098348

I don't know if Mr. Bashir is a Christian or not. He seems to be interviewing as a normal journalist would, seeking the truth and logically applying statements to understand their conclusions.

I appreciated this interview b/c it focused on logic and formal debate. There was no emotionalism that I could detect on the part of Mr. Bashir. And since we don't know if he is a Christian or not, it makes it easier to accept that he probably doesn't have a horse in the fight of whether Pastor Bell is orthodox or not.

Pastor Bell's chief argument against Mr. Bashir appears to me to be reducible to: "It's ok to believe whatever you want about Heaven and Hell as long as you can find someone in the history of Christianity who has believed it too." This seems terribly irresponsible for a pastor to tell his followers that truth and falsehood don't matter when it comes to understanding who God is. Isn't that the whole point of the second commandment? By not being clear, he is in effect suggesting to his parishioners that it's ok to worship a false god.

I also wanted to address a tweet I read about this interview earlier in the week:
"Not sure why everyone is claiming victory based on @realrobbell 's interview with Martin Bashir. Truth isn't based on who can argue better."
Sure a particular position (truth) can be correct, regardless of whether someone can argue well on its behalf. If my 4 year old can't put together a cogent argument to defend the pythagorean theorem, that doesn't make the theorem false. But if a particular truth is valid, there should be a logical defense of that truth. In our math example, a college math teacher (aka an expert in the field of math) could easily make the argument.

In this case we're not talking about a 4 year old being out of their depth, but we're talking to an expert in the field, a pastor talking about doctrine. In fact it's not just any doctrine, but it's a doctrine that the pastor in question seems to have studied well enough to write a book about it. If he can't argue his point cogently against a journalist who likely hasn't been to seminary and hasn't been studying the topic for the last x months, then how can we say that the 'truth' being defended by the pastor is valid? He of all people should be able to make logical arguments to defend it.

So no, truth isn't based on who can argue better. But if a qualified agent can't argue for a position they have established, then the veracity of that position is certainly questionable. Especially if their opponent argues better for their contrary position.

Where does that leave me? It challenges me to 1 Peter 3:15: "¹⁵but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect," I need to: (1) Honor Christ as Holy (2) be prepared by studying and thinking about what the Bible says about who Christ is so that I can honor Him as Holy (3) Join with the Spirit, and be able to cogently dialogue with others about the truths in the Bible, in order to lead them to the truth the Bible proclaims. (4) be gentle and respectful.

Anyone want to guess which of those 4 steps are the hardest for me?

1 John 1:1-4

Ever since my friend pointed out that Jesus makes His power known through His humility, I have been so challenged to follow His example. Especially at work where I don't always get along with people above me. So instead of dwelling on that, I'm going to turn to scripture and focus on Jesus and who He is, and how He revealed Himself.

1 John 1:1-4:

"¹ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. ² The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. ³ We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. ⁴ We write this to make our joy complete."

John always puts Jesus in the preeminent position. He says that Jesus was from the beginning. John then says that "we" not just John, but some group of people, heard, saw, and touched Jesus. Sounds like pretty strong evidence to His existence to me. John says he and his compatriots saw Jesus and proclaim eternal life as a result of that experience. Eternal life seems to be a person in this context. The person of Jesus. John says he and his compatriots proclaim what they have learned. They don't just chit-chat about it, they don't merely talk about it. They proclaim it, they teach it. And they do it so that others may join them in fellowship with the Lord. Not so that John and his friends can rule over others, but that their Joy may be complete. Complete! Finished joy because they tell others about Jesus.

That is what I should focus on, not being annoyed at people lessoning my contributions at work.

Jesus, make my Joy complete by giving me the courage and opportunity to tell others what you have done for me. Saved me, a wretched sinner from the hell I so justly earned. Even today you died for the sin of anger and 'murder in my heart' that I committed. You save not just what I've done, but what I will do.

You are eternal life.

Reviews from Bell's book

Pastor Bell's publisher for "Love Wins" has released review copies of the book to various reviewers. I've found two reviews so far.

The first is from Greg Boyd:

http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/rob-bell-is-not-a-universalist-and-i-actually-read-love-wins/

The tricky part of this review is that Mr. Boyd doesn't use any scripture to defend Pastor Bell. Instead he focuses on four factors of why it's ok for Pastor Bell to raise the questions he does without actually answering them fully. It seems that if you're going to argue that someone is correct, then using scripture would be the right way to do it. But I guess not everyone holds scripture in as high regard as Jesus did.

You can guess from my analytical, and I hope mostly logical, postings that I prefer a linear argument. Excusing a pastor's questioning of what should be rock-solid truth, because the questioner is an artist doesn't sound like a reasonable defense to me. If draw pictures on my calculus exams and illude or call into question the pythagorean theorem, the math teacher is going to fail me, any defense of artist not withstanding...

The second review is from Tim Challies:

http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/love-wins-a-review-of-rob-bells-new-book

This review is much easier for me to understand because Mr. Challies uses scripture throughout his review to rebut and point out the problems in Mr. Bell's implications and arguments. I appreciate where Mr. Challies points out where orthodox evangelicals would agree with Pastor Bell. It feels like he tried to be fair in his review, even though Mr. Challies clearly doesn't agree with Pastor Bell's conclusions.

Where do you stand in this debate?

Psalm 119:33 - 40

I don't know if you've ever read Psalm 119 before. It's one of my favorites. It's the longest Psalm at 176 verses. I love it because the author is praising God for His word, the Bible. The author revels in the ability to know the mind of God through the Bible. I cherish this ability too. Of course the complete totality of all that God is, is not revealed in the Bible. But the key points of His character and purpose are made clear. No matter how old or young a believer is, you can read the Bible and understand it. Of course you may not understand all of it right away, but the central themes are clear. If you don't make it a habit to read the Bible, I would strongly encourage you to consider it. You will probably be surprised by what you discover.

Today I read the section 119:33-40. A couple of key verses for me were:

³⁴Give me understanding, that I may observe Your law
And keep it with all my heart.

This is my prayer too. I want to know God better. I want to understand what I read. I want to follow His commands and example, because I want to be like Him. He saved me! How could I not want to follow in His footsteps. And I want to understand Him to the core of my being. I want to keep Him in all of my life, not just a part here or there. And of course He is the one who provides the desire and then fulfills it. It's such a pleasure to serve an all powerful sovereign king!

³⁷Turn away my eyes from looking at vanity,
And revive me in Your ways.

I am so caught up in how great I am. I am relatively successful and respected at work. My wife and kids are great, and I have a comfortable house. It is so tempting to focus on how great I am to have brought all of this to bear. In reality God has provided it all. He has done so with a purpose. I want to be in His ways and purpose, not mine. I was dead before He saved me. And yet I am so tempted to throw away His plan and pursue my own pleasure.

A discipleship partner of mine this week said: "Jesus shows His power by His Humility." These words have been ringing in my ears all week. Lord help me to be humble and not vain! Revive me to know your word and to conform to your ways.

4-part gospel strikes again

You've probably read/heard me rail against the "Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration" new gospel that has been floating around lately. Here's the latest salvo: http://www.jameschoung.net/big-story-training.pdf I'm sure Mr. Choung is a very nice guy. But what he teaches in the linked PDF is dangerously close to heretical teaching.

Please don't get taken in by this strange new formation of the Gospel. Jesus came to seek and save the lost. He calls us to make disciples. He came to be a propitiating (wrath averting) sacrifice for us before God. He came to make peace between us and God. Not because we asked for it, but because of His mercy and kindness. It's all about God and not about the world.

Some positives about the pdf:

- "Would you like to hear the core message Jesus came to teach, or the basic message of the Bible?"

--- I agree that creation,fall, redemption,restoration is a pretty good summary of the Bible, it just isn't a very good summary of the gospel

- "If it’s new, it’s probably heretical."

--- Totally agree with that.

Some concerns about the pdf:

- "our universal ache for a better world means that such a world either once existed or will one day exist."

--- Seems kind of a jump of logic to me...

- "we damaged creation. We drain her for her oil, and fill the air with pollutants so we can have a comfortable lifestyle. And it fights back in hurricanes and tsunamis."

--- Huh? "her" that sounds a lot like 'mother earth' which is pagan as the day is long. He then shifts to 'it' but, the earth doesn't fight back because we take oil. It is subject to the fall of course, but it is not reacting to us. The earth has been suffering from the fall since long before we could harvest oil out of it....

- "God came to the planet as Jesus 2,000 years ago and started a new thing. He started a resistance movement against evil, though not with military revolt, or communal escapism. Instead, he taught us a better way to live, and wants to give us the power to overcome evil in us and around us. "

-- Wow it's getting worse. Jesus didn't just start a 'new thing'. He didn't come to teach us a 'better way to live'. He came to redeem us from the wrath of the Father! This actually makes Jesus out to be just like any other sage/teacher who teaches us a way to live. Yikes!!!

- "he restored creation so that all of it could be used in their good ways. All of the world’s systems " the environment, corporations, governments, schools, etc. " can now be used to usher in God’s values of love, peace and justice. Oppression & injustice can cease"

--- I never understand this point in the C,F,R,R 'gospel' I just don't see the scriptural basis for it at all. I don't see any of the disciples or apostles using the world's systems to fix things on earth. I do see them spending their lives and their treasures to bring people to faith though. The two verses included as references: Eph. 2:11-22 and Col. 1:15-20 are much better at presenting the gospel than this story/illustration thing. And they do nothing to support the point that the author is making.

- "Lastly, God restored our relationships with himself."

--- Really? Lastly God restores our relationship with Him? Isn't that the most important thing? Isn't He the one we've grossly offended? I would think we would all want Him to restore that relationship first!!

- "Jesus wants us to join this resistance movement against evil, to go out and heal the world. With these resources,Jesus is asking us to be sent together to heal the planet"

--- HUH?!?! what part of "Make disciples of all nations, teaching them everything I have taught you" is caught up in 'heal the planet'? All the verses he cites are all Old Testament verses about serving the poor and not being unjust. While of course those are things we should pursue, if he was going to argue that Jesus wanted this to be our focus after we were saved, then why didn't he pick any verses from the NT?

- "By trusting him, and giving him leadership over our lives, we can become the kind of good we want to see

around us."

--- But this isn't what really matters. People fat, dumb, and happy on earth is not the ultimate goal! Saving them from the tortures of hell for eternity is what really matters. At least the author does point out that we are to have a response to this message. Normally I don't see any response called for.

- "Would you like to let Jesus be the leader of your life and join his movement to heal the planet? Will you trust him with your life?"

--- Again, I'm pleased to see a call to response. But it's this strange mission to 'heal the planet' again. This is like a green movement with some Jesus sprinkled in.

- "Also, looking at Colossians 1:20, it’s clear that Jesus didn’t just come to save individuals, but “to reconcile to himself all things"

--- This is really pretty terrible eisegesis. Reading the passage in context you can see that Paul is making the point that Jesus is reconciling all people, who are elect, to God and making peace with the Lord of Judgement. It has nothing to do with systems of government or other things. Paul's not making that point at all. If he was he would have elaborated on it more. Instead Paul is making the point that Jesus is God and that He has saved us from the Father's wrath. What a glorious, merciful, mighty gift.

- "But all of this old truth is often locked behind the Bible’s many pages or in theological tomes, and so seems inaccessible to the normal Christian."

--- Huh? I'm a pretty normal Christian and the truth was revealed to me without someone having to dumb it down and warp it like this presentation does. The Bible really isn't that complicated. If this whole presentation had just exegeted Eph 1 or Col 1, it would have been easy to show to anyone what the Bible says.

- "The penal substitution theory we know arose in the 11th century by Anselm"

--- This is very dangerous. It slyly insinuates that Jesus's wrath averting sacrifice was something made up later in history. Instead it was written very clearly in Romans 3:23-26 mere decades after Jesus' death and resurrection.

- "What if someone just wants to jump to the fourth circle, and ignore the third? Why do we need Jesus to heal the planet? Ultimately, we need to become the kind of good that we want to see in the world."

---- What?!?! I'm not saying in the slightest that we should abandon the world once we're saved, we have to obey the great commission and make disciples. But this author instead says we have to make the world a better place, as if that is far more important. That mere social justice is the only purpose for Christians on the planet, and that one day the whole world will be restored through our efforts. That is complete hogwash. Revelations is pretty clear that the world will be reformed by God and not by us!

- Pointing readers to Dallas Willard and N.T. Wright

--- Yikes those are some very shady authors now-a-days. They both deny the necessity of penal substitution and justification by faith.