Christians, Put Down Your Guns

[AustinC]

*Revelation 13:10*
If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.

Commentary:
"If any man shall kill with the sword, with the sword must he be killed ... This means that, "Christianity can never be defended by force; the man who takes the sword perishes by the sword." Ladd interpreted the passage to mean that, "There is divine retribution; the last word is not with the persecutor." Dummelow thought it means, "Christians are not to fight against the persecutors, but are to submit to God's will." In this interpretation Dummelow (1937) anticipated the RSV. Caird likewise accepted this view, basing it on the final clause. Lenski was equally certain that KJV is correct, adding that, "This is not a warning for saints to let the sword alone." He thought the passage was given as a comfort to Christians, the comfort coming from this revelation of, "Where their enemies are going and how those enemies must end." Of these various views, this writer favors those of Ladd and Lenski.
Here is the patience and the faith of the saints ... The knowledge that right shall finally triumph, that evil may indeed win the battle but can never win the war, the absolute certainty of the ultimate triumph of righteousness - these are the considerations which, alone, can establish the hearts of Christians when the skies are clouded with the smoke of their burning. Of course, the principle that it is wrong for the church to take up carnal weapons in its own defense is true; but this was not the place for emphasizing such a truth. Where could the comfort have been if that had been John's meaning here?"

Revelation 13 - Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

This seems to indicate that we, the Church, should not fight back against government, even if it is oppressive. If we do, then we will be killed for rising up.

 

[KenH]

This seems to indicate that we, the Church, should not fight back against government, even if it is oppressive. If we do, then we will be killed for rising up.

The church as a body in proclaiming the gospel of Christ does not use carnal force of any kind.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

2 Corinthians 10:3-4 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds).

And we know that the Christians did not use physical force versus the government and their persecutors:

Hebrews 10:32-36 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions; partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used. For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.

 

[Salty]

The church as a body in proclaiming the gospel of Christ does not use carnal force of any kind. ...

So are you saying this church member was wrong?
'I believe that I killed an evil': Hero who stopped Texas church shooter speaks

 

[Marooncat79]

How do you understand Luke 22:36?

 

[Salty]

Tell you what - I will study on that a bit - and by the time I figure it out, you will have answered my question in post # 3

 

[KenH]

So are you saying this church member was wrong?
'I believe that I killed an evil': Hero who stopped Texas church shooter speaks

1) Since the article concerns something that happened in a Church of Christ, to start with, I was born and raised in the Church of Christ. I left it at the end of February 1999 at the age of 43. The Church of Christ teaches Pelagianism - at least back then, I don't know if they have changed their teaching - and God led me out of that false gospel. The vast majority of churches teach a false gospel and there is no salvation to be found in a false gospel. After I left the Church of Christ I "dwelt in the land of Midian" until the Lord graciously regenerated me in mid-2021, gave me spiritual eyes to see, granted me the gifts of faith and repentance from dead works, and led me to look to Christ Jesus as the Lord my Righteousness.

2) I studied about the use of physical violence by Christians back around 1980 and read a book on the subject - as there was talk that the United States government might start actually drafting young men again because of the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. I never reached a conclusion on the subject since I never had to deal with being drafted. Therefore, as far as a Christian - a true one or just a cultural one - using physical force as in the military or the police, etc., I make no judgment on the matter. There are arguments on both sides of the issue, and I never felt that there was a preponderance on either side. All things are ordained by God; if someone is to die by violence, then by violence they will die.

3) I will note that the church, after the stoning death of Stephen(to which he offered no resistance), did not offer resistance to what came next:

Acts 8:3 As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.

 

[KenH]

How do you understand Luke 22:36?

From John Gill's Bible commentary on Luke 22:36 -

These words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said, as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient; which could not be enough for eleven men; or have forbid Peter the use of one, as he did in a very little time after this: but his meaning is, that wherever they came, and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries, and these powerful, and would be used with great violence, and be followed with rage and persecution; so that they might seem to stand in need of swords to defend them: the phrase is expressive of the danger they would be exposed to, and of their need of protection; and therefore it was wrong in them to be disputing and quarrelling about superiority, or looking out for, and expecting temporal pomp and grandeur, when this would be their forlorn, destitute, and afflicted condition; and they would quickly see the affliction and distress begin in himself.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

It depends on what you are fighting for. A Christian needs a just casus-belli. There are clear times where a Christian cannot simply do nothing and must use violent force.

That is why there are centuries worth of doctrine that has been poured over by millions of Christians called "Protestant Resistance Theory" which exegetes when force is allowed and when it isn't. Things such as the doctrine of Lesser Magistrates (which was just used during COVID) are one such example under "Protestant Resistance Theory".

Catholics also have their own version. I'm not a Catholic though and haven't delved into it much.

 

[kyredneck]

This seems to indicate that we, the Church, should not fight back against government, even if it is oppressive. If we do, then we will be killed for rising up.

Yes. There were many of our Christian brothers that were killed in the American Revolution fighting against an oppressive government.

 

[Salty]

Yes. There were many of our Christian brothers that were killed in the American Revolution fighting against an oppressive government.

www.blackrobereg.org

 

[Van]

How many times is this same topic going to be kicked around? Acting as an individual we, born anew believers, are to follow the command of Christ and turn the other cheek. However, acting within the authority of the church, we are not to tolerate false doctrine, we are present a defense of the Gospel. And, thirdly, acting under the color of government authority, we can wield the sword, i.e. use deadly force.

The question is will these basic truths be once again ignored?

 

[AustinC]

Yes. There were many of our Christian brothers that were killed in the American Revolution fighting against an oppressive government.

And fighting FOR that "oppressive" government. This war was really the first Civil War in the colonies. Not everyone supported the rebellion.

Revelation 13:10 indicates that those Christians who rise up against the worldly government, controlled by Satan, and fight back, will die in that fight. God is saying to lay down the weapon and entrust our souls to His care.

 

[AustinC]

www.blackrobereg.org

Speaking up and speaking out against godlessness is different than taking out your stockpile of weapons and ammunition to fight an oppressive government.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

The American Revolution was also a "Conservative" (Wanting to conserve the Magna Carta , and wanting to adhere to the law) "Revolution". It wasn't seeking to create anything new originally. At the beginning they just wanted the English crown to simply deal with the colonies as the law stated.

The crown decided it didn't want to follow the law so you wound up with the Colonists on one side wanting the law to be upheld and the crown on the other wanting to do whatever it pleased.

 

[canadyjd]

*Revelation 13:10*
If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.

Commentary:
"If any man shall kill with the sword, with the sword must he be killed ... This means that, "Christianity can never be defended by force; the man who takes the sword perishes by the sword." Ladd interpreted the passage to mean that, "There is divine retribution; the last word is not with the persecutor." Dummelow thought it means, "Christians are not to fight against the persecutors, but are to submit to God's will." In this interpretation Dummelow (1937) anticipated the RSV. Caird likewise accepted this view, basing it on the final clause. Lenski was equally certain that KJV is correct, adding that, "This is not a warning for saints to let the sword alone." He thought the passage was given as a comfort to Christians, the comfort coming from this revelation of, "Where their enemies are going and how those enemies must end." Of these various views, this writer favors those of Ladd and Lenski.
Here is the patience and the faith of the saints ... The knowledge that right shall finally triumph, that evil may indeed win the battle but can never win the war, the absolute certainty of the ultimate triumph of righteousness - these are the considerations which, alone, can establish the hearts of Christians when the skies are clouded with the smoke of their burning. Of course, the principle that it is wrong for the church to take up carnal weapons in its own defense is true; but this was not the place for emphasizing such a truth. Where could the comfort have been if that had been John's meaning here?"

Revelation 13 - Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

This seems to indicate that we, the Church, should not fight back against government, even if it is oppressive. If we do, then we will be killed for rising up.

This is a debate that has been had since Roman soldiers first converted in the first century, and it is important and useful to address these questions. That’s for the thread.

There is no doubt that Jesus preached a passive acceptance of persecution, even onto death. The Apostles echoed the commands of Christ to not repay evil for evil and rejoiced they were deemed worthy by God to suffer persecution for His name.

I admit to struggling. On the one hand, it’s clear that if the persecution is for the cause of Christ, we should not resist. On the other hand, did Christ intend that command of passive acceptance to include acts of violence toward ourselves or our families that have nothing to do with our faith?

As of right now, I know that if my family were attacked I would use whatever extreme violence I can still muster to protect them, even lethal force.

Peace to you

 

[Marooncat79]

Speaking up and speaking out against godlessness is different than taking out your stockpile of weapons and ammunition to fight an oppressive government.

are you a total pacifist?

 

[Silverhair]

How do you understand Luke 22:36?

There is a question what should be supplied after μὴ ἔχων. Very many authorities make μάχαιραν understood (as in E. V.);—but the simpler construction and better sense is to place μὴ ἔχων in contrast with ἔχων, he who has a purse, &c., and he who has none, let him &c., see reff. Thus the sense will be complete—for he who has a purse, can buy a sword, without selling his garment.
μάχαιρα must be here used in the sense of a sword,—compare Luke 22:49 :—and not a knife to eat with, which some have understood. The ‘sword of the Spirit’ (Olshausen and others) is wholly out of the question. The saying is both a description to them of their altered situation with reference to the world without, and a declaration that self-defence and self-provision would henceforward be necessary. It forms a decisive testimony, from the mouth of the Lord Himself, against the views of the Quakers and some other sects on these points. But it does not warrant aggression by Christians, nor, as some R. Catholics (see the bull “Unam sanctam” of Boniface VIII., cited in Wordsw. ad loc.), spreading the gospel by the sword.
Henry Alford's The Greek Testament

The Lord said, "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Why? For self protection, of course. They were living in days that required a sword. We need to recognize that fact also. If we do not resist evil today, all kinds of evil will befall us.
Thru The Bible with J. Vernon McGee

 

[AustinC]

are you a total pacifist?

Irrelevant to this thread.

What does Revelation 13:10 tell us as Christians?

This has a direct impact on Christian Nationalism (Christian Fascism).

 

[Silverhair]

Irrelevant to this thread.

What does Revelation 13:10 tell us as Christians?

This has a direct impact on Christian Nationalism (Christian Fascism).

Austin your comments make me wonder if you were once one of those flower children of the 60’s & 70’s. Do you keep hoping for a return to those ideals of universal peace, and love?

You may truly believe what your saying but when the rubber meets the road and you have to deal face to face with violence and hate toward your family I do believe that your tune would change or at least I would hope it would.

 

[canadyjd]

Irrelevant to this thread.

What does Revelation 13:10 tell us as Christians?

This has a direct impact on Christian Nationalism (Christian Fascism).

You equate nationalism with fascism? That seems to be a stretch.

Americans can be focused, politically, on what’s best for the US and not be fascist.

Additionally, this kind of language could certainly derail your own thread from a focus on scripture to a focus on politics.

peace to you