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.

Cool Bible Resource

Just found this site while looking up a question for a friend. http://www.openbible.info/. I don't know that I would trust a lot of the topics yet since there's a lot of opportunity for skewing. But the part I liked the best was the google-earth kmz files for locations mentioned in the Bible. I don't think they're all exactly right, but they give you a good general idea.

Neat site.

Quick Bibliology...

Here's the text of the 'worksheet' I prepared for home group (aka Bible study this week). The idea is that the attenders would read Psalm 19 in addition to answering the open-ended questions at the beginning of the study. I then answered the rest of the questions because I wanted this to be more of a resource than a pure question/answer session.

My list of references is as follows:

• Essential Truths of the Christian Faith by R.C. Sproul
• Now that's a Good Question by R.C. Sproul
• A Ready Defense by Josh McDowell
• Starting Point by North Point Church
• Is what we have now what they had then? By Dr. Dan Wallace.

Proving that the Bible we have today is the authentic word of God.

What was your exposure to the Bible growing up?



How would you describe your current perspective on the Bible?



What role does the Bible play in your daily life?



Psalm 19 describes Scripture as perfect, trustworthy, right, beautiful, etc.. Are these descriptions overstated? Why or why not?



Why do people struggle so much with believing that the Bible is really the word of God?


How does God communicate with man?

Revelation (Hebrews 1:1-2, Psalm 19) -- Idle speculation about God is foolish. If we wish to know who God is, we must rely on what he says about Himself.
-- General - That which is expressed to all men through creation and internal conscience
-- Specific - That which is expressed in His Scripture or direct immediate 'voice of God'
The Bible contains Paradoxes and Mysteries, but no Contradictions:
-- Paradox -- an apparent contradiction that under closer scrutiny yields resolution.
-- Mystery (Romans 16:25-27) -- something unknown to us now, but which may be resolved in the future.
-- Contradiction (1 Corinthians 14:33) -- a statement that claims something both is and is not in the same time and context. These are not understandable.

If the Bible was written by man, how can it be the Word of God?

-- Its the word of God because, the Bible itself claims to be so. 2 Timothy 3:16 "For all scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
-- God inspired the authors to write the words of God through their direct human experience. 2 Peter 1:19-20

Who wrote the Bible?

-- Kings, shepherds, outcasts, scholars, laborers.
-- 3 Continents (Africa, Asia, & Europe)
-- 3 Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek)
-- 40 different authors
-- Covers more than a thousand years of authorship, yet covers one theme: A loving God working to draw people to Himself via redemption.

How were the books in the Bible decided on as the authentic word of God?

-- Important to note that the church did not decide what books should be included. That would put the church above the Scripture. Instead they recognized the books that were inspired from their inception, and 'received' them from God.
-- The cannon of scripture means the standard of scripture.
-- The Old Testament cannon decided well before Christ by the Jews. A.D. 70 they codify the list to distinguish the Jewish texts from the rising Christian ones.
-- The cannon list published as early as 367 A.D. by Athanasius (church leader of the time) Repeated again at the Synod of Hippo 393 A.D.
-- New Testament books were recognized based on three criteria:
(1) They must have apostolic authorship or endorsement.
(2) They must be received as authoritative by the early church.
(3) They must be in harmony with the books about which there is no doubt.
-- No argument between Catholic and Protestant on NT. Some disagreement on apocryphal books. Those that fell between the Old and New Testament time periods. Most evidence points to a Jewish exclusion of those books in their OT. Also some things in those books contradict things stated in the New Testament. Council of Trent in 1546, the Roman Catholic church officially recognizes apocryphal books as cannon. A bit late if you ask me....

How do we measure the authenticity of any ancient text?

(1) How many copies do we have of the original and how close are they to when we think the original was written?
(2) Are the texts internally consistent and truthful?
(3) Is there external archeological evidence to support claims in the ancient text?

What are some facts and figures to support the authenticity of the document we have today is the same document they had back then?
Old Testament
-- Dead Sea Scrolls found in 1947 & 1956 are dated around 100 B.C.
-- Talmudists (A.D. 100 - 500) Followed a strict 17 rules about copying the OT books, including rules like not copying anything from memory, or only using new skins etc.
-- Massoretics (A.D. 500 - 900) Followed additional word counts and calculations to ensure that nothing was out of place in a copy. For instance they calculated teh middle word and middle letter of each page geographically and made sure that each copy matched the original.
New Testament
-- More than 5,700 copies in Greek; 10,000 in Latin; another 10 - 15,000 copies in other languages and more than 1,000,000 quotations of early patristic writings that cover the entire NT except for eleven verses.
-- Earliest NT fragments are from 100 A.D. that's within decades of when the authors probably wrote. Its well assumed that Book of John was written between 70 and 90 A.D., 1 Revelations, around 95 A.D.
-- Of the supposed translation differences, 90% of them are actually untranslatable as differences in English. E.g. 500 different ways to say Jesus loves Paul in Greek.
-- Less than 1% of variants are both meaningful and viable. They concern no important doctrinal issues. E.g. The number of the beast is either 666 or 616.

How do we interpret the Bible? (2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:14-18; 2 Tim 2:14-15)

-- Scripture always interprets scripture. Meaning that we understand a passage by understanding both its local context, and all of scripture's perspective on a particular topic.
-- Scripture must be interpreted with respect to the original audience and their intended understanding of the words spoken to them.
-- Scripture's genres must be interpreted as those genres would be in non-scripture. I.e. poetry as poetry, history as history, hyperbole as hyperbole etc...
-- The explicit scriptures always interpret the implicit verses.
-- The rules of logic apply to interpreting scripture.
-- A particular passage can only have one correct meaning. It is our responsibility to do our best to seek that singular correct interpretation.

What about those "contradictions" like the seemingly different accounts of Christ's death?

• Matt. 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
• Luke 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he breathed his last."
• John 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up His spirit."

At first glance these may appear to be contradictions, but they actually represent different degrees of emphasis. And even more so they lend credibility to different eye-witnesses remembering their encounters with the actual experience. If all of the accounts were in lock-step it would lend less credibility b/c it would seem as if only one person saw things and the others merely parroted him.

Bottom line:
The Bible is the word of God because the Holy Spirit testifies that it is. When a believer, or even a non-believer sometimes, reads the text he or she can feel the weight and reality of the text. If God is truly the God of the universe and capable of all things, then He's also capable of making sure the words that He wants communicated about Himself are actually communicated in an authentic way.