Church Security

[DHK]

When have you ever heard of a sane person who planned to hunt wild game with nothing but a stupid sword unless they were highly trained? Swords are good for one thing only, killing people. If he had said a bow and arrow or a spear, maybe... but a sword... no.

You can draw your own conclusions.
The verse taught: Those that are penniless (without purse or wallet), let him sell his cloak and buy a sword.
--Now that is the meaning of the verse. That much cannot be disputed.
As to why Jesus said sword you can draw your own conclusions. Did he mean for just a couple of his disciples to take on the whole Roman Army? Is that your conclusion??

 

[corndogggy]

You can draw your own conclusions.
The verse taught: Those that are penniless (without purse or wallet), let him sell his cloak and buy a sword.
--Now that is the meaning of the verse. That much cannot be disputed.
As to why Jesus said sword you can draw your own conclusions. Did he mean for just a couple of his disciples to take on the whole Roman Army? Is that your conclusion??

What is the very next verse after he says to buy the swords? It is an explanation, saying that it is written that he was among the TRANSGRESSORS. The definition of a transgressor is somebody who violates a law, has wreckless behavior, that goes beyond a boundary. Even if your idea of hunting with a stupid sword were true, why would Jesus consider themselves transgressors for carrying them? Having a weapon for hunting should have been perfectly normal. Obviously he felt like they were some kind of outlaws for having them, or perhaps he could have been referring to the people that he was about to encounter, calling them transgressors, in which explaining that they needed the swords for self defense would make perfect sense. Either way, the explanation that follows his command regarding the word "transgressors" makes it obvious that it was for self defense. Animals and people who hunt them are not called transgressors.

Personally I think that there was a plan laid out that they were to follow and they didn't want anything messing it up, they were on a mission. They were about to travel, and the threat of bandits was very real, plus other people were looking for him. No obviously they weren't going to take on the entire army, but at the same time I think they didn't have any intention of weakly surrendering to the first person who recognized him or tried to rob him, hence the swords.

I don't see what other explanation there is. Obviously they couldn't hunt with the swords, and if they weren't for self defense, why else buy them??? Even if you can come up with some other explanation, does that explanation justify the use or make sense of the term "transgressor"?

 

[DHK]

What is the very next verse after he says to buy the swords? It is an explanation, saying that it is written that he was among the TRANSGRESSORS. The definition of a transgressor is somebody who violates a law, has wreckless behavior, that goes beyond a boundary. Even if your idea of hunting with a stupid sword were true, why would Jesus consider themselves transgressors for carrying them?

Look up Isaiah 53:12.
That is what Jesus is quoting. It is a fulfillment of prophecy.

Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

And he was reckoned among the transgressors--those that transgressed the law of God, the criminals--the two thieves, one on either side of him. That is what this verse refers to, not the disciples having swords. It is a fulfillment of prophecy. The word "transgressor" has nothing to do with the disciples carrying swords.

 

[JustChristian]

What is the very next verse after he says to buy the swords? It is an explanation, saying that it is written that he was among the TRANSGRESSORS. The definition of a transgressor is somebody who violates a law, has wreckless behavior, that goes beyond a boundary. Even if your idea of hunting with a stupid sword were true, why would Jesus consider themselves transgressors for carrying them? Having a weapon for hunting should have been perfectly normal. Obviously he felt like they were some kind of outlaws for having them, or perhaps he could have been referring to the people that he was about to encounter, calling them transgressors, in which explaining that they needed the swords for self defense would make perfect sense. Either way, the explanation that follows his command regarding the word "transgressors" makes it obvious that it was for self defense. Animals and people who hunt them are not called transgressors.

Personally I think that there was a plan laid out that they were to follow and they didn't want anything messing it up, they were on a mission. They were about to travel, and the threat of bandits was very real, plus other people were looking for him. No obviously they weren't going to take on the entire army, but at the same time I think they didn't have any intention of weakly surrendering to the first person who recognized him or tried to rob him, hence the swords.

I don't see what other explanation there is. Obviously they couldn't hunt with the swords, and if they weren't for self defense, why else buy them??? Even if you can come up with some other explanation, does that explanation justify the use or make sense of the term "transgressor"?

This passage of scripture gets plenty of notice from those who think owning guns and killing aggressors is part of Jesus' message. Look at the rest of Jesus' message. It's clear to me that Jesus can not be said to support violence based on these verses which don't at all represent the Man who taught love towards our enemies.

 

[saturneptune]

A major point is being missed here. If there is no one in your congregation who is trained in hostage or stressful situations such as this, no one has any business playing Sunday cowboy at church. This goes way beyond hunting, target practice, or getting a concealed weapons permit. Most of those courses are an eight or sixteen hour lecture, then firing at a target that if you miss, you need new eyes.

It has to be someone who has a much better chance of hitting the target than a fellow member in all the confusion and people scrambling. Is the choir in the background? This is not like shooting a deer where you have time to take careful aim. This is not a game, and must be carefully thought out.

 

[corndogggy]

Even if my assumptions are wrong, tell me why else they would have swords. Hunting with swords is a stupid idea, and you guys say they weren't for self defense. So, just give me another legitimate reason why they were told to sell their cloaks so they could bring swords with them.

They weren't packed away either, they were obviously carrying them at their side and at the ready, because in verses 49 and 50 they asked Jesus if he wanted them to smite them with a sword, and they cut off the priests ear before Jesus had a chance to answer. They weren't packed away, they were carrying them and were obviously quick to use them.

Other than for self defense (at the minimum), I have no idea why somebody would carry a sword in such a manner that they could use it in a split second like that.

 

[DHK]

Even if my assumptions are wrong, tell me why else they would have swords.

Your assumption is that they all had swords. They didn't. Peter did; we don't know how many others had a sword if any at all.

Hunting with swords is a stupid idea,

So that is your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion. Read a few commentaries on the subject. It is not solely my opinion. Remember this was about to be a time of fierce persecution. They would be driven from their homes. They would face poverty. They would be driven into the wilderness. Yes, a sword would help those who did not have other means (money) to fend for themselves.

and you guys say they weren't for self defense. So, just give me another legitimate reason why they were told to sell their cloaks so they could bring swords with them.

The words of Jesus are legitimate enough. Peter tried to use his sword in self-defense and was rebuked sharply by Jesus.
Jesus told him to "Put up your sword." He then restored the ear of the servant of the High Priest, which Peter had cut off. In other words, he did damage control. They could have all been arrested right there and then just for the action of Peter. But quickly Jesus healed the ear of the servant and requested that his disciples be set free.

But before that he turned to Peter, and rebuking him, told him that he could have called 12 legions of angels (72 thousand angels) if he had wanted to defend himself. He didn't need Peter's help. He was omnipotent--all powerful. All power in heaven and in earth was given unto him. But he laid that power aside and went to the cross willingly that he might die for our sins. That is how much he loved us. Swords he did not need. He is God. He is all powerful.

They weren't packed away either, they were obviously carrying them at their side and at the ready, because in verses 49 and 50 they asked Jesus if he wanted them to smite them with a sword, and they cut off the priests ear before Jesus had a chance to answer. They weren't packed away, they were carrying them and were obviously quick to use them.

"They"? Count them? How many had swords? Only Peter do we know for sure had a sword. Only Peter used a sword.

Other than for self defense (at the minimum), I have no idea why somebody would carry a sword in such a manner that they could use it in a split second like that.

Peter used it; was rebuked; was told to put his sword up; was told that Christ had heavenly power to defend himself. His kingdom was not of this world. He didn't need swords.

 

[corndogggy]

"They"? Count them? How many had swords? Only Peter do we know for sure had a sword. Only Peter used a sword.

It specifically said that they had two swords. Obviously Peter was carrying it in such a way that he could be quick on the draw. Why didn't Jesus have a problem with this?

 

[DHK]

It specifically said that they had two swords. Obviously Peter was carrying it in such a way that he could be quick on the draw. Why didn't Jesus have a problem with this?

He didn't have a problem with Peter having a sword.
He had a problem with Peter's use of the sword. It was not to protect Jesus, to prevent him from going to the cross, nor to fight the Roman Army. All three of those choices are absurd. He was rebuked for the way that he used his sword. Thus you can draw your own conclusions on the matter.

 

[corndogggy]

Peter tried to use his sword in self-defense and was rebuked sharply by Jesus.

It wasn't in self defense as I would define it. Jesus was insulted that Judas tried to kiss him. The disciples figured out what was going down, then asked if they should smite Judas with a sword. Before Jesus answered, "one of them" lopped off the ear of the priest.

It never said that they were attacked, nor did it even say that it was Peter who lopped off the priests ear. All it said was that when they took Jesus into the priests house, that Peter followed them but was far back. Whoever used the sword was lashing out because Judas betrayed Jesus and was about to get taken in, but it wasn't necessarily Peter, and they weren't attacked, they only realized that Jesus was about to be taken in because of Judas.

 

[DHK]

Luke 22:49-52 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.
52 Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?

Matthew 26:51-53 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.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

John 18:7-12 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.
8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

In Luke, Jesus says to the chief priests: Do you come out as thieves carrying swords and staves. He likens those who carry swords as violent criminals.

In Matthew, after rebuking Peter he tells: they that take the sword shall perish by the sword. It was advice not to use the sword. It was not the way to follow Christ. The Christian life was not with carnal weapons but with spiritual.

In John, Peter is identified as the one who cut off the ear, and Malchus is identified as the servant. Peter is rebuked for trying to prevent Christ from carrying out His Father's will--going to the cross. Self defense of Christ, was a betrayal of the will of God in this case.

 

[corndogggy]

Read a few commentaries on the subject. It is not solely my opinion. Remember this was about to be a time of fierce persecution. They would be driven from their homes. They would face poverty. They would be driven into the wilderness. Yes, a sword would help those who did not have other means (money) to fend for themselves.

This is my opinion because of multiple reasons:

1. There are not too many animals in the wilderness that you could successfully kill with a sword. If you did do this, it would be mostly for bragging rights just to say you did it. They would have to be rather large, stupid, and slow, and even then you'd have to be a rather skilled hunter. Most hunting swords that you hear about are actually short knives used for finishing off the wild game once you had wounded it with another weapon, found it, and it was suffering, they are not the primary weapon.

2. Why would he hide? If he knew what was coming and what was supposed to happen as most people believe, why would they feel the need to go hide from the world by themselves out in the wilderness to avoid it and be out there so long that they were so desperate that they needed to hunt with a stupid sword?

3. Iif Jesus wanted them to sell their cloaks to buy a hunting weapon, there are other easily accessible weapons that would be far more useful. They would have at least gotten a spear. Bows and arrows would have been extremely common and would be the first choice as a hunting weapon, plus it would be much easier to learn to hunt with a bow than it would with a stupid sword. It would open up many more possibilities as far as what they could kill with it too.

4. A sword would have been more expensive than a bow. A longbow is fairly simple to make, and is all out of wood. A sword would have been expensive due to having been hand crafted out of metal for a long time by hand. If bows were better for hunting AND cheaper, why did Jesus insist on swords even though they were so broke that they had to sell their cloak to get a sword?


Basically...
Bows: good for hunting, cheap, easy to hunt with
swords: good for killing people, more expensive, hard to hunt with.

Jesus said get some swords.

 

[DHK]

T
Basically...
Bows: good for hunting, cheap, easy to hunt with
swords: good for killing people, more expensive, hard to hunt with.

Jesus said get some swords.

Peter and John couldn't go down to the local hardware or sporting goods store and choose from a variety of guns, bows, machetes, cross-bows, spears, AK-47's, etc.
The weapon of choice of that day was a sword.

Exodus 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

Judges 7:22 And the three hundred blew the trumpets, and the LORD set every man's sword against his fellow, even throughout all the host: and the host fled to Bethshittah in Zererath, and to the border of Abelmeholah, unto Tabbath.

1 Samuel 14:20 And Saul and all the people that were with him assembled themselves, and they came to the battle: and, behold, every man's sword was against his fellow, and there was a very great discomfiture.

From the above passages it is evident that "everyman had a sword." That was the custom. Who says that bows, spears, etc. were not as expensive? The sword was the common instrument or weapon at that time that most any man involved in any type of war would carry.

What you have given is just pure speculation.

 

[corndogggy]

Exodus 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

Judges 7:22 And the three hundred blew the trumpets, and the LORD set every man's sword against his fellow, even throughout all the host: and the host fled to Bethshittah in Zererath, and to the border of Abelmeholah, unto Tabbath.

1 Samuel 14:20 And Saul and all the people that were with him assembled themselves, and they came to the battle: and, behold, every man's sword was against his fellow, and there was a very great discomfiture.

Like I said... swords: real good for killing PEOPLE.

 

[corndogggy]

Genesis 27:3 Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison;


Now, show me a verse where somebody uses a sword for hunting, not killing people.


Bows and arrows were mentioned a-plenty all throughout the bible, they weren't exactly uncommon by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[John Toppass]

He didn't have a problem with Peter having a sword.
He had a problem with Peter's use of the sword. It was not to protect Jesus, to prevent him from going to the cross, nor to fight the Roman Army. All three of those choices are absurd. He was rebuked for the way that he used his sword. Thus you can draw your own conclusions on the matter.

Fact: Jesus had told his disciples that his time was coming that what was going to happen would not be nice and that after he was gone from this earth they would have to change the way they had been doing things.

Fact: Jesus rebuked Peter not for using the sword in defense but that Jesus did not need to be defended. The appointed time had come and prophecy was being fulfilled. (Which Jesus had just explained to his disciples earlier)

Fact: Jesus told the disciples to carry the swords for self defense not for revenge and not for aggression, but for self defense. If they were able to use the swords for survival as in hunting or as a sharp tool then that would be a plus, but the sword was carried primarily for SELF DEFENSE.

People who imply that self defense weapons are too dangerous to be used because a innocent might be hurt have not looked or either they ignore the actual statistics that say people are safer when they are around responsible citizens that are armed. To state the extreme is purely a cover for not being able to intelligently or factually defend their weak, unproven opinion.

I know I had previously claimed to resign from this argument but there were too many unfacts being misused or twisted.

 

[DHK]

Fact: Jesus had told his disciples that his time was coming that what was going to happen would not be nice and that after he was gone from this earth they would have to change the way they had been doing things.

This is very true. But that he told all his disciples to be armed with swords is a misconception. You cannot find that in Scripture. He said no such thing.

Fact: Jesus rebuked Peter not for using the sword in defense but that Jesus did not need to be defended.

Pure semantics. If Jesus didn't need to be defended then Peter was rebuked for his needless and useless action. It is the same thing.

The appointed time had come and prophecy was being fulfilled. (Which Jesus had just explained to his disciples earlier)

This is true.

Fact: Jesus told the disciples to carry the swords for self defense not for revenge and not for aggression, but for self defense. If they were able to use the swords for survival as in hunting or as a sharp tool then that would be a plus, but the sword was carried primarily for SELF DEFENSE.

This is your stated opinion for which you provide no Scriptural proof. Opinions are just that--opinion. They are worth their two cents. Give me Scripture instead.

People who imply that self defense weapons are too dangerous to be used because a innocent might be hurt have not looked or either they ignore the actual statistics that say people are safer when they are around responsible citizens that are armed. To state the extreme is purely a cover for not being able to intelligently or factually defend their weak, unproven opinion.

I know I had previously claimed to resign from this argument but there were too many unfacts being misused or twisted.

I was commenting on the Scripture or in a discussion on a particular passage of Scripture, not your stated opinions or foregone conclusions which you think are Biblically-based, but cannot prove that they are.

 

[blackbird]

A couple of comments for our consideration especially in light of the idea that there is a growing need for church security--and of the need for members to "carry heat"

I am not going to deny that Jesus' disciples "carried heat" because of the verse that says for them to "buy a sword" apiece

The only verse in the NT that talks of any of the Apostles actually "wealding" a sword was ole "Trigger Happy" Peter--------drew his weapon and made "First Contact" with an ear-------one can only imagine what he would have cut off had he been able to "wack" in the daylight hour-----but it was nite and the sword's blow wacked off an ear!!!!!

But---------Jesus quickly told Peter to put the sword back in its sheath---and you know the rest of the story-----what Jesus DIDN'T do----Jesus didn't "finish 'im off"---he didn't put the dude out of his misery---but He put his ear back on----I believe He wanted to show the crowd there that He posed no threat

Then what did Jesus tell Pilate over in John 18: 36?? "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." Why "arm" themselves when Jesus point blank says what He says here about His servants??

I'm not going to deny that they all had swords--------but if you read beginning in the very first chapter of Acts-------the Apostles were threatened on a daily basis---their lives were at risk---daily persecutions that only intensified as the moments passed in their ministry--------but in light of the threatenings-------if they had swords at the particular moment of threat--every sword remained "sheathed"-----every page in the book of Acts was filled with threats to life---but never once did they draw their swords----every Apostle---at one time or other was beaten senseless----they whipped Peter and John like a bunch of red headed step children---and they probably whipped them with the sword's they(Peter and John) both carried on their hips!!!!

Then there was the account of Jesus walking along with His disciples----mindin' their own business------when along walked some smart mouthed Samaritians------they started "dissin'" Jesus------tellin' Him to "get lost"---"Get out of Dodge, Jesus----you rascal---we don't need the likes of you around here------get on out of town!!!!"

What'd Jesus' disciples ask????

"Master!!!! You want us to call down fire from Heaven---to consume these reprobate smart mouth Samaritians???"

Why was there a "need" for a sword------when they could have easily call down fire from Heaven??????? I mean, which would be more effective and easier to do----------draw a sword-----or call down fire????? I believe if I had the capability to call down fire----I would not have to wear a sword around my hip!!!!

Just a few light comments to think about

 

[JustChristian]

My belief is that this is NOT a difficult issue to resolve. It's simple for me.

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

This is Jesus' statement about how we should treat our enemies. I don't see anything about weapons or violence in here. I choose to follow the Lord's command.

 

[corndogggy]

So, I guess some of you truly believe that Jesus would have told you that if somebody is trying to kill you and your family, just let them, don't arm yourself, don't defend yourself, just let them do whatever they want. :tonofbricks: