Memories
Some stories are so incredible that a person is hesitant to relate them. 
Such is a story of one woman I taught to shoot.
Everyone has a God given right to self defense. The Lord helps those who help themselves.
Such is a story of one woman I taught to shoot. "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."
Luke 22:36
Everyone has a God given right to self defense. The Lord helps those who help themselves.
Labels: Memories, Neophyte Shooters, Photographs
posted by Xavier at 6:05 AM
12 Comments:
Context is important. Leaving it out from that quotation can be misleading.
Jesus certainly seems to be the consummate pacifist. His example seems clear. Indeed, one of the rare times he mentions weapons (Luke 22:38) is when he expects to be arrested and, so say some apologists, he wants the disciples to look like a band of criminals to facilitate his arrest. When he instructs the disciples to get swords and they say they have two of them, he responds, "That is enough."
Jesus' tone of voice in that phrase would have told us quite a lot about his feelings concerning weapons but, sadly, the printed word just does not convey it. We don't know if he means, "Weapons are evil and I don't want to hear anymore about them," or "Two swords are sufficient to make us convincingly look like a band of criminals," or even, "That's a trivial detail; let's get on to more important things now." The available commentaries on this verse have different opinions. My bottom line has to be that I just don't know.
But I do carry.
Thanks for including a what appears to be a Saint's card in one of your photos. Shame on me for not remembering, but who is it?
It appears to me that Jesus is a CONDITIONAL pacifist. He made a mess of the money changers market in the Temple, even using a whip against them. He never condemned soldiers or self-defense. He did NOT defend Himself because to do so would have interfered with His very mission, which was to be the perfect atonement sacrifice.
The classic orthodox interpretation of the Luke 22:38 passage is simply Jesus informing the disciples that He will not be with them as he has been in the past, and they will need money, clothes and weapons with which to provide for themselves.
The suggestion that they were to have swords to depict themselves as criminals does not make sense, for several reasons:
1) as there was no general prohibition of men being armed, so the fact of the disciples being armed would not have enhanced the groups "criminality" and Jesus liklihood for arrest. Mark 14:48 , Jesus says to the officials come to arrest Him " Am I leading a rebellion that you come with swords and clubs to capture me...?"
Those are not the words of someone who feels He must goad His opponents to arrest Him.
2) Jesus already knew what was going to happen, and knew He was to be betrayed, arrested and condemned- the wheels had already been set in motion, see Luke 22:18-22. - just as He knew Peter would deny Him 3 times see Luke 22:34, There was no need to "pretend to be criminals" to get him arrested. It was already a "done deal". He didnt need to "nudge "the situation along.
3) The discourse on telling the disciples to bring their purses, cloaks and swords - he tells them to bring their purses with them, and "if you dont have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one". This is clearly a discussion of general process , note he doesnt say something like "go sell your cloaks so we can have some swords".
The disciples will no longer be under the personal protection of Jesus, and therefore must provide in a thoughtful way for their personal needs, including defense.
As an aside , why does Jesus tell Peter to put his sword away during the fracas in the Garden? The simple , and orthodox, answer is that Jesus is both the High Priest and the Lamb, being sacrificed for Israel. According to the Law, to interfere with the High Priest and the sacrifice would have been blasphemy of the highest order, and Peter, in his devotion to Jesus, was interfering in that which must be done. Peter was rebuked , NOT for the SWORD, but for INTERFERENCE.
--------------------------------
Each must follow the dictates of his own conscience and duty.
I believe the duty of a father and a citizen is to protect his family, self and home - and nothing in the Bible condemns lawful self-defense.
This piece does not compute. What do the obscure opening sentence and the bible quote have to do with each other? I think you left too much out of this.
Good points, Greg. I won't belabor the discussion. Rather, I'll just leave it for each person to decide whether or not to arm themselves. And again, I do.
Good stuff, G.T.
Xav, I hope you won't delete this post of yours things get out of hands with regards to religion and morality, etc.
God protects and cares for the flowers and tigers. He just gave the tigers teeth and claws. BE THE TIGER!!
Xavier:
I got off track - I originally checked out the comments to see if you had somewhere related the story of the woman you taught to shoot.
Can you relate the story?
Greg, I might someday.
Until then, the photo in my neophyte shooters section will remind me of her.
Jack, that's St. Clare of Assisi: she was friends with St. Francis, and founded her own Franciscan order for women, the Poor Clares.
Greg, you countered Ed's argument very well. I agree with you except for one thing. Jesus is not a "conditional" pacifist. In fact, He isn't a pacifist at all. Revelation 19:11-21 pictures Him leading His armies to war.
Everyone has a God given right to self defense until God takes it away through the government passing a law, you mean?
Post a Comment
<< Home