The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Two Swords are Enough

It gets into bigger questions.

Is it OK, to go to war? Should the US retaliate - for example - if North Korea, sends a nuclear missile towards Washington?
If the Las Vegas shooter, is busy killing people. And you had a gun and could save lives - by shooting him - would you?
Etc.

It get’s into ethical or moral dilemmas. We should strive for peace. And try to avoid violence - at all costs. But if we have no choice - then what?

And what do you make, of Matthew 10:34?

The question is not about recompense nor avenging, right?? It’s about prudently protecting yourself. Am I missing something?

Well, I think the directive is to each of us personally that are in Christ. The United States is not in Christ.

As for this verse:

Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

The Sword again is a reference to the Word of God.

Eph_6:17 And take the helmet of salvation,** and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
**

I believe God can protect each of us (that are in Christ) and if He has a purpose for calling you in this world then that is the purpose that is going take place and nobody is going to stop that from happening.

Consider that Paul:

2Co 11:23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.
2Co 11:24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.
2Co 11:25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
2Co 11:26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
2Co 11:27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
2Co 11:28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
2Co 11:29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?
2Co 11:30 If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.
2Co 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

God protects us until we serve the purpose He has for us as Christians. It doesn’t mean we wont suffer persecutions and all these other things but those things will not take away the purpose that God has for us and we will NOT die until that purpose as Christians is completed.

We do not know that Paul carried no sword, however against an angry mob, a sword wouldn’t be much help. In any case, whether or not Paul carried a sword, Jesus saw fit to advise His disciples to purchase one even if it meant selling that one’s cloak. The sword goes along with the purse and etc. The disciples didn’t require them on their earlier journeys but they WILL need them on subsequent occasions.

Regarding Jesus saying “I didn’t come to bring peace, but a sword,” this was a metaphor meant to warn His listeners that He would be a cause of contention and division even in the closest of relationships.

Regarding nations going to war, the idea that the USA is not “in Christ” is irrelevant. The man or woman who gives the order to launch a counter strike is a human being and either in Christ or not yet in Christ. If he is in Christ, is he thereby forbidden to come to the defense of his countrymen? Is it then immoral for a president who is a Christ follower to give the order to defend the nation? Or is it okay to give the order but not to personally pull the trigger? By this logic, if we’re to be consistent, all LEOs must be non-Christians and Christians must not ask to be defended by them, because that would be no better than sin by proxy. If the POTUS (or similar) is a Christian, wouldn’t it be hypocritical for her/him to accede to being accompanied by armed bodyguards? You see the logical extremes to which this extra-biblical doctrine takes us?

The sword is for self defense. It’s the only logical conclusion. If it offends your personal ethic, then don’t carry a “sword.” As for myself I’d never carry a sword except maybe as a costume accessory. I prefer a Shield. It’s much easier to conceal.

HCW, As John 9:4 says “While it is daytime, we must do the work of Him who sent Me. Night is coming when no one can work.”

That thought can easily lead us, into a kind of fatalism. Like that the Muslims, Calvinists and “no free will” Christianity presents. We need to thread carefully here. :wink:

By the way. Let’s look at the answer given, by the Calvinist site Got Questions:

What did Jesus mean by coming to bring a sword in Matthew 10:34-36?

The answer they give is more in line with Cindy’s answer…then yours, as the word of God.

I think we need to strive for balance, between being peaceful and being practical.

On the one hand, if mankind doesn’t change their ways…It could lead to the tribulation, and the Zombie Apocalypse. And I am like Paul Revere, yelling:

On the other hand, I see things - in a positive vein. Like that seen by the Eastern Orthodox/ Eastern Catholics and TV evangelist Joel Osteen.

I try to live in harmony - between these two extremes.

I’m sorry to say this, but I don’t find this entire discussion (argument?) to be very edifying.

It’s called practical or pragmatic Christianity. You might be trying to frame everything - in the NT - into a framework of peace. Like the Quakers and Mennonites do. I can respect it. But we live in a fallen world. And we sometimes have to make choices - that aren’t very pleasant. Like not being peaceful, if push comes to shove. If you want to ALWAYS be peaceful…because that’s how you view Christ and the NT - so be it. I can still be a Christian, in the FULL sense. But NOT always be peaceful - if push comes to shove.

Now suppose I have a black belt in Jiu-Jitsu, I’m an expert marksman, have a concealed weapons permit and I’m a Christian…I honor all scripture as true…as well as the historical creeds. And I try to be peaceful. From my perspective, I can use the Jiu-Jitsu - and the firearm…should the need arise…and still be a Christian.

Well, thanks for putting me straight, HFPZ. I accept your counsel. Hereon, although I don’t have a sword. I guess I can feel free to take the gloves off.

Take them off mainly with HFPZ. :laughing: :laughing:
(Just kidding - we do kidding too).

I think we need, a lesson in fighting. From a first class terror. :laughing:

Mainly, I think we need to align ourselves - with the historical church fathers, the historic creeds and the thoughts of reformers. Otherwise, we can get many interesting variations. Like:

My own tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse. Which I feel is the most realistic, of the statistical outliers…, of traditional, bell-shaped curve theologies - presented here. We have everything done - Full Preterism. Ultra universalism - God waves his magic wand and let’s everyone in. Or no free will and universalism. God and the devil are equal, in power and might. And everything is idealism - Christian science. All equally plausible and defendable - by sola scriptura.

But we need, BOTH Christian men and women of peace…As well as, Christian men and women of war - at times.

I think we need to discern the Spirit in the words that Jesus said. When we take what He said literally then I believe we have stumbled.

Yes, that Night is fast approaching. The Word is to preach the Truth. In fact that is what my website is about. So I know the verse well and deeply concerned about it.

I think to discern the things of Christ then you have to throw out the literal interpretation of what He says and look Spiritually to discern the message that He is communicating.

I disagree with the Got Questions website more often than not it seems. I don’t think it a question of looking at the verses as needed into make a choice. I think if we look at them Spiritually, we will conclude the same thing.

But let’s consider Love, is it enough? Yes, but on condition. For the Bible tells us there is no reward if we only love those that love us. We need to love those that persecute us. Not return evil for evil. Not take vengeance. But be led to the slaughter as Christ was. For those in Christ emulate Him.

Would you agree that is unlawfull to oppose (violently) the government but not unjust to oppose thugs, home-invaders and the like, even with deadly force?

I liked Cindy’s take on the matter. From my view, In the USA, our constitution was created around a group of people who wanted certain freedoms, and realized that at some time armed conflict might ensue. So the idea of our 2cnd amendment was both for the intrusion of outside forces as well as the well being of the citizens against a tyrannical government like they left in England. This does bring up different cultures and views here in the 21st century.

sven said:

I opinion that, (and I think others have waxed greatly on the point) opposition to harmful force (thugs) in a defensive position makes the use of firearms of utmost value. And from my view, totally within Gods natural rights as He has established. It gets fuzzy with Paul and Peter’s talk about conforming to the rulers. Which once again leans me toward the pantelistic/historic reading of the bible, to where they were talking to a specific group at a specific time. So how we use deadly force today may be different than how the first century Christians looked at it. Very basic to many of you but very befuddling to some.

Peace.

Not to me - you made an obvious and good point.
Pantelism as I understand it has nothing to do with it.

My point :smiley: was that many think we should somehow look at the scripture as a sort of ‘we need to wait on Jesus, or we need to give our cloak’ mentality. I will not go there because of my respect for you. :wink: It is a ongoing issue with Christians here in the US.

Basic stuff. We’ve been through it :laughing:

I don’t know what pantelism is, but my understanding of Paul’s advice to obey the government is that it was the right advice for the time. They weren’t going to take down Rome, and even if they could have done, it may have made things even worse. They did have the Pax Romana, which, cruel though the Romans absolutely were, nevertheless created a consistent, more-or-less stable environment that facilitated the spreading of the gospel.

The barbarians (who were at some point (maybe not Paul’s time–I’m not sure–) the chief threat to Rome) would not have cared at all about being “better than the Romans.” There was no such thing as political correctness back in the day. There was only power. But that was all moot, because there was no way in hell anyone (at that time) was going to succeed at putting an end to the Roman Empire’s dominance in any of its occupied territory. OTOH, Roman subjects were apparently permitted to defend themselves against those on the wrong side of Roman law… highwaymen, for example. Thus, the advice to sell a cloak and buy a sword because (presumably) the sword would be the more vital piece of kit to have in one’s possession.