For anyone who may be inclined to ask a gun owner why they buy and own guns, or why they think they need guns, this YouTube vid explains it all in just 2 minutes.
____________________________________________________________
You know what else is an acceptable answer: “None of your business”.
Sifting Reality 
I bought guns for two reasons:
1. They are fun to shoot, and I like target practice where I compete against myself!
2. Self defense. It is a cruel world out there and getting worse.
A third reason is just to tick off the liberals!
Guns only job is to kill people. Jesus is disappointed in you.
Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves for theirbown protection.
The job of a gun is to project a piece of metal so as to ward off an attacker from a distance, or drop a game animal for food from a distance. If it is used to kill people, that’s the result of someone putting it to that use.
This all comes down to its purpose. A gun’s purpose is not for murder. It is for the lawful taking of life. Protection and self defense. They are for lawful use.
Only liberals seem to have trouble with the distinction between lawful and unlawful.
I’ve seen that guy before, he’s great!….and yes, none of your business is correct!…I’m from Texas :)
John…
Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves for theirbown protection.
Look, I have no dog in this fight. I don’t care if you own guns or not. I don’t need one, I have no fear to walk my streets unarmed, but if it makes you feel better or whatever, that’s fine, as long as you’re responsible with it.
BUT, this line, John, is a raping of Jesus’ words to make a cheap political point.
Jesus did NOT advocate violence, did NOT advocate getting arms for their own protection. Repeatedly, the Bible teaches us to trust in GOD for our defense, not upon weapons and armies.
The one time Jesus DID say, “go buy a sword,” he did so SPECIFICALLY to fulfill scripture, NOT for self-defense. When the disciples said, “We have two swords between us,” Jesus said, “That’s fine.” The point was that it was to fulfill scripture (that he’d be numbered among the transgressors, I believe it says) NOT for self-defense. If it was self-defense, he would have counseled them all to get weapons.
I don’t care if you own a gun to make you feel better or whatever, John, but don’t tell us that JESUS told you to do it. That is a very ugly raping of Jesus’ words.
~Dan Trabue
So when Jesus is sending out disciples and says to them that if they dont have a sword they need to go buy one, it was for decoration?
Trabue is the one “raping” Scripture, as he usually does.
The context of the passage is blatant – that they are to buy a sword for defense. Trabue’s eisegesis is standard liberal claptrap to force in his personal agenda. NOWHERE in Scripture does it ever deny the right to self-defense. It is NOT advocating violence to advocate self-defense; to say otherwise is more liberal claptrap.
The Bible tells us to rely on God for quite a lot, but never for self-defense against thugs, rapists, etc. God also teaches us that we ARE to trust in armies for national defense, which is what Romans 13 teaches.
Trabue is one of those who decides that God abhors “violence” of any kind from Christians, and that Christians are to be 100% pacifists and let others die to protect their freedoms. They can never find this in the Bible though, without twisting Scripture into a pretzel.
What text are you speaking of?
35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], “When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
They said, “No, not a thing.”
36 He said to them, “But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.”
38 They [the disciples] said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“It is enough,” he replied.
~Luke 22
Or, when Jesus sent out his disciples, HERE are his specific instructions, including specifically what to bring…
Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village. 7 Calling the Twelve to him, he began to send them out two by two and gave them authority over impure spirits.
8 These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9 Wear sandals but not an extra shirt.
~Mark 6
Jesus did NOT send his disciples out with swords. As the time was coming for his arrest and execution at the hands of people who DID have swords, he told them to get one TO FULFILL PROPHECY. When they tried to use the sword in self defense, what did Jesus say?
“PUT THAT SWORD AWAY, for those who live by the sword, die by the sword.”
~Matthew 26
Don’t bastardize Jesus’ words to make cheap political points.
~Dan Trabue
And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one?
“Don’t bastardize Jesus’ words to make cheap political points” Bahahahaha!
Typical Trabue conflation of contexts to make them seem as one.
No one who is using a weapon solely for self-defense is “living by the sword.” Those such as gang members who live in consistent violence will indeed die by violence. Peter, by attacking the guards was not defending himself, and he was interfering with what had to take place. Jesus never told them to now go sell their swords.
But let’s look what John MacArthur says about the passage:
When Christ sent them out before, He had sovereignly arranged for their needs to be met. Henceforth, they were to use normal means to provide for their own support and protection. The money bag, knapsack, and sword were figurative expressions for such means (the sword being emblematic of protection, not aggression). (my emphasis)
Matthew Henry certainly was not in this current religiously liberal culture, and he stated the following:
“They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce upon them than they had been, and they would need magazines as well as stores: He that has no sword wherewith to defend himself against robbers and assassins (2 Co. 11:26) will find great want of it, and well be ready to wish, some time or other, that he had sold his garment and bought one. This is intended only to show that the times would be very perilous, so that no man would think himself safe if he had not a sword by his side….
The disciples hereupon enquire what strength they had, and find they had among them two swords (v. 38), of which one was Peter’s. The Galileans generally travelled with swords. Christ wore none himself, but he was not against his disciples’ wearing them. ”
Of course, one will find commentaries from both sides of the fence, because rather than take Scripture at face value, pacifists will always make Jesus into a feminized wimp who wants everyone to always “turn the other cheek” (contextually about personal insults) as they watch wives being raped, and family being killed by home invasions, etc.
Trabue is the one who need to stop raping Scripture for little liberal political points.
Glenn, also raping the words of Jesus (without actually quoting them, I note, so that you can see how wrong he is)…
The context of the passage is blatant – that they are to buy a sword for defense.
See my response to John above WITH Jesus’ actual words. NO WHERE does Jesus tell them to get swords for self defense. When he sent them out through dangerous lands, he told them specifically what to take – and a sword was not among the items. When they had a sword (TO FULFILL PROPHECY, according to Jesus) and tried to use it in self defense, Jesus told him to put the sword away.
Stop raping Jesus’ words to make your cheap little political points and to defend your fearful living. Trust in guns all you want, I don’t care – I don’t think it’s morally wrong to own guns (although owning one because you’re fearful is probably not a good reason to own one). Just don’t say Jesus told you to buy them.
~Dan
John, cite the passage and read it in context. IT does not say what you’re making it say.
The responsible thing to do would be to admit you misspoke and apologize for it. No problem. BUT, if you’re going to dig in your heels and try to defend your words, then CITE THE PASSAGE and look at the context.
As to Glenn’s suggestion that we ARE to trust a military, consider…
No king is saved by the multitude of an army;
A mighty man is not delivered by great strength. 17 m A horse is a 1 vain hope for safety;
Neither shall it deliver any by its great strength.
18 Behold, the eye of the LORD is on those who fear Him,
On those who hope in His mercy, 19 To deliver their soul from death,
And o to keep them alive in famine.
20 Our soul waits for the LORD;
He is our help and our shield. 21 For our heart shall rejoice in Him,
Because we have trusted in His holy name. 22 Let Your mercy, O LORD, be upon us,
Just as we hope in You.
~Psalm 33
Trust in a measly gun or military if you want and it makes you feel better. My trust is in God.
~Dan
Look, John, take a breath, think this through… It’s OKAY to be man enough to admit a mistake. Like this…
“Look, I misspoke. My fault. I said, ‘Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves for their own protection…’ and, clearly, Jesus did NOT say that. He LITERALLY DID NOT SAY ‘arm yourselves for your own protection…’ that line does NOT exist in the Bible. I was sloppy when I say that and for that, I apologize.
When Jesus sent his disciples out in pairs, he specifically did NOT tell them to take a sword. When, near the end and the Roman army was coming down, he DID say, ‘now, you might want to get some swords SO THAT prophecy could be fulfilled’ – NOT for self-defense, but the prophecy was that Jesus would be numbered among the transgressors – and, with the entire Roman army coming down on them, Jesus’ disciples said, “Um, we have two swords here…” and Jesus said, “that will be sufficient to fulfill the prophecy…” and obviously, it was not sufficient for self-defense, so that was clearly and literally not the purpose.
Further, when one of Jesus’ disciples DID draw the sword in self-defense (when approached by the Roman army), Jesus REBUKED him for using it like that, saying, “Put that sword away!” and issuing a curse, even… “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword…”
So, clearly, I misspoke when I said Jesus told his followers to arm themselves for their protection. I’m sorry.
But here’s a separate point: At least at that point, in that situation, Jesus did not object to his followers having two swords among them. I think then, that if there is anyone who says Jesus would disapprove of us having arms, well, that given that example, they might be mistaken… since Jesus allowed it then, then we might reasonably assume that at least at times, arming ourselves might be okay.
That’s a more reasonable point I could make. But again, sorry for misrepresenting Jesus, who clearly did NOT say to arm ourselves for self defense purposes…”
Like that, John. You can still defend your desire to own a gun, if you want, just don’t misrepresent Jesus to do it…
There’s no shame in admitting a mistake.
~Dan
Dan’s further raping of Scripture to suggest that God has no use for military in protecting His people completely overlooks the fact that God used Israel’s military for His purposes! And that Israel did indeed trust in their military – as guided by God!
What about self-defense? It was validated by God in the Law (Exod. 21:13; 22:2; Num. 35:22ff), but it was not commanded. Self-defense is when life – not material – is in jeopardy. Christ implied the disciples were to practice self-defense when he had them buy swords if they didn’t have them already (Luke 22:36-38). Although some people use Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” to claim we are not to defend ourselves, the real meaning of this is for non-defense of personal insult or non-life-threatening attacks. This “turning of the other cheek” can also be seen in Rom. 12:17-21 and 1 Pet. 3:9, and in 1 Corin. 6 in the discussion about lawsuits.
Theologians J.P. Moreland and Norman Geisler tell us that “to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.”
Now we come to the issue of war. God used war often in the Old Testament, leading his people to war against infidels to cleanse the land. He also used other nations to war against Israel as punishment. In Revelation we see God using war also. So there is not an inherent problem with the use of war; the problem becomes what it is used for.
Again, Rom. 13:1-7, as well as 1 Pet. 2:13-14, point out that the government was given the sword by God to punish wrong-doers. On the occasions the N.T. mentions military officials they all appear favorable (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 3:14; Acts 10:1ff). No one told the soldiers to “go and sin no more,” but in Luke and Acts instructions were given on how to do right and to be acceptable to God in their military service.
Hey Trabue,
As you said, there is no shame in admitting a mistake. So how about admitting it then!
Glenn…
Dan’s further raping of Scripture to suggest that God has no use for military in protecting His people completely overlooks the fact that God used Israel’s military for His purposes!
No, rather, I just cited the scripture for their clear intent. Our trust IS TO BE IN GOD.
That was MY point. Do you disagree with MY actual point?
But let’s look at the OT and military. The way they did it, by God’s command, was NOT to have a standing army. They were NOT to have many weapons or the most powerful of weapons. If they did that, God repeatedly said, they would think that they did it, but their trust was NOT NOT NOT to be in a military, but in God.
Do you disagree with my actual point?
When Gideon was fighting the tens of thousands of aggressive philistines, he gathered an army of hundreds. ISRAEL DID NOT HAVE A STANDING ARMY, just a small pulled-together military in times of desperation. And what did God tell Gideon? “YOUR ARMY IS TOO BIG, reduce it’s size.” and they did, dwinding that army down to a few hundred to fight the tens of thousands of Philistines.
That’s just one example, I could provide many from scripture.
Are you wanting to establish a military like Israel had here in the US, so that we can clearly trust in God, not a military? I fully support your efforts to try that Glenn.
But you know what? I rather doubt that you truly want to establish a small, unpaid, volunteer army, only at times of trouble. I suspect that you feel safer with having the largest army in the world, with the latest in bombs and WOMD. And if that’s what makes you feel safer, you’re welcome to it.
Just don’t claim that Jesus ordained it.
Thou shalt not blaspheme.
~Dan Trabue
Trabue,
Did it ever occur to you that using the O.T. theocracy of Israel as an example of how modern countries are to defend themselves against evil is totally illogical – and downright dishonest! Romans 13 tells us the purpose God gave for the government, and there is nothing against standing armies.
False teacher Trabue strikes again.
Glenn…
Christ implied the disciples were to practice self-defense when he had them buy swords if they didn’t have them already (Luke 22:36-38).
I’ve already demonstrated, LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL WORDS, rather than your self-serving paraphrase, that the meaning can not be what you falsely claim it is.
YOU say, “Jesus IMPLIED self defense”
That passage, however, says,
Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals [NOTE: NO sword for “self defense” -dt], did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
36 He said to them, “But NOW [ie, NOW specifically that the end is near and the Roman army is closing in on us… as it does in a few verses ~dt] if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. [AND WHY does Jesus change the rules? Is it for self defense? NO! Jesus says SPECIFICALLY why… ~dt]
It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
[see? The quite SPECIFIC reason for needing a sword “NOW” – at THAT point in time, according to Scripture – was to fulfill scripture, that he would be numbered amongst the transgressors – amongst the violent, the criminal, the “lawless ones” in some translations… ~dt]
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
[TWO swords amongst all the disciples as they face down the Roman army. Are two swords sufficient for “self defense” AT THAT TIME against the Roman army? No, of course not. THAT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE. ~dt]
“That’s enough!” Jesus replied…
[it’s enough because their purpose was that he would be considered an outlaw, NOT that he would use them for self defense. ~dt]
A FEW verses later (ie, IN CONTEXT), we read…
When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” [ie, self defense… dt]
50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
This same scene, in another book, is where they draw their sword and Jesus COMMANDS them to put away the sword, rebuking them with the curse that those who live by the sword DIE by the sword.
Clearly, the ONE passage that you all are citing does NOT say ANYTHING about using swords for self defense, nor is it Jesus’ generally commanding his followers to get weapons for self defense.
THAT is a bastardization of Jesus’ words, a blasphemy of taking his meaning and perverting it to mean THE OPPOSITE of what he is actually saying, in context.
~Dan Trabue
Wow. what a contortion. I think I might start deleting your comments because they are off topic, like you do at your blog. Whadda you say, should we apply your rules to yourself Dan?
Trabue, you again ignored my previous comments from even solid theologians who disagree with your abuse of Scripture.
We already know that you are a false teacher, and that no one should listen to anything you say about the Bible and the Christian faith because you do not represent proper teachings about either one.
http://wolfsheep2.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/false-teacher-profile-updated/
Earlier, Glenn worried…
It is a cruel world out there and getting worse.
Actually, in the US, violent crimes have been trending down for years, as this gun-rights site points out…
And, in a world with a history of mass slaughters of “the enemy,” of genocide, rape and slavery, in many ways, things are much better off than we were in old times. Even our wars are tending to be less destructive (~30 million in WWII vs hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan and Iraq, for instance).
Of course, the genocides, murders, wars and other awful violence ARE still horrifying and awful, but I don’t know that we can make a factual, rational case that things are, in general, getting worse, when we’re speaking of deadly violence. As bad as things are, they’ve been much worse in the past.
~Dan Trabue
Well, Dan, should I apply your own rules to yourself or not?
John made an unfounded and unsupported claim…
what a contortion.
Where specifically? DID Jesus literally say (as you falsely claim) that we are to buy weapons for self defense? No, of course he didn’t. That I have correct your distortion – using clear scripture – does not mean that I have contorted anything. But, IF you have any SUPPORT for that false claim, by all means, present it. I can be taught, but only with evidence.
As to deleting off topic comments, that is up to you and would be entirely fair. I responded to an off topic and demonstrably FALSE claim that you made. The rational thing to do would be to have admitted your mistake and moved on. But that I defended my admittedly off topic correction of your off topic falsehood, well, that’s only because you couldn’t be man enough to admit the mistake. It didn’t have to be so long. You and Glenn are still hanging on to what has been demonstrated to be false.
Jesus did NOT ANYWHERE claim that we are to arm ourselves for self defense.
Delete if you wish, I won’t object. But I’d hope that you would be man enough to deal with your false claim at another point, rather than cowardly slinking off without admitting your mistake or demonstrating where Jesus DID claim that we are to arm ourselves.
~Dan
Swords serve no purpose other than warfare or defense. Case closed.
Glenn, John is telling us this is off topic, so we should probably let it go. Besides, I’ve made my point quite clearly, whereas you all have ignored clear scripture nor addressed the holes in your arguments.
But let me run this past you: MY claim is that John is factually mistaken when he says that “Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves for their own protection…” That is a simple fact that is easily established by seeing that THOSE WORDS DO NOT EXIST in the Bible.
Can you all admit that much? That Jesus never LITERALLY told his disciples to arm themselves? That should be easy because it’s just a simple fact.
Now that we can hopefully agree upon that much, can we also agree that, AT BEST, the only claim that you all can rationally make is that Jesus said, “Now, I’m telling you to sell your cloak and get a sword…” and FROM THAT we can EXTRAPOLATE that MAYBE what Jesus meant is that “whereas before it was strictly and specifically NOT part of what I commanded, NOW you should arm yourselves with swords…”? Can you agree that this is NOT the text, but your extrapolation or reading into the text a meaning?
Beyond that, can we agree that it would be a FURTHER extrapolation to say that Jesus meant the reason they should “arm themselves” (not Jesus words) was for “their own protection” or “self-defense…” Can you agree that this is an INTERPRETATION – a separate and additional READING INTO the text what isn’t there?
If you can admit that much, well, at least you’ll be in the realm of reality.
Beyond that, if you all are so blinded by your fear or love of guns or militarism or whatever is causing this blindness… that you can’t see that this passage teaches – even PERHAPS teaches – “get weapons for self-defense” as a teaching of Jesus, well, I can’t help you there. That is wishful thinking of modernistic fear-mongerers and gun lovers, I guess. It is eisegesis in the extreme and very poor eisegesis at that.
We’ll have to disagree on that much because, well, you all aren’t even addressing the points I’ve made taken DIRECTLY from Scripture, just ignoring them, but hopefully you can see that, at the least, you are reading into the text something that simply isn’t there and you think you are reasonably reading into it, but that you ARE certainly reading into it what isn’t there.
Here’s hoping…
~Dan Trabue
I guess the sword was for decoration
Trabue,
I posted my comments, commentaries from scholars, all addressing exactly what the Scripture was saying. YOU are the one in error, as you almost always are when it comes to understanding the Bible and the CHristian faith. Which isn’t surprising because you have been proven over and over again to be a false teacher and even a heretic. John is the one who is correct.
And see how you don’t answer the questions?
The question is quite simple: DO YOU AGREE that factually speaking, the Bible does NOT literally say what John said Jesus said? It’s simply not there, right?
Yes, Glenn, you posted all sorts of nonsense, but you did not address the holes in your arguments. If you can’t address the obvious holes, then, well, there REMAIN serious holes in your argument.
If you want to address the holes, answer the questions.
Same for you, John.
If you aren’t worried about your arguments being wholly based on your holey reasoning, not what the Bible ACTUALLY says, neither am I. You just can’t expect people to take you seriously.
~Dan
There were no holes Trabue. WE proved OUR case, as well as proving you to be a false teacher who has no clue about what Scripture says, let alone what the Christian faith is all about. It is only nonsense to you in the same way the gospel is foolishness to the unbelievers.
Now go wet yourself in fright the next time you see a picture of a gun.
..aaaaannd SEE how you DON’T answer the questions? Are you just totally living in fear so much that you have to have a little gun to make you feel safe and you can’t even answer questions because it’s too scary?
Of course, I’m mocking you, returning the favor. More seriously, once again: If you can’t deal with the holes in your argument, don’t expect people to take you seriously.
As to the picture of a gun jibe, I’m not the one who’s afraid and needs a gun to feel safe. That would be you. Right?
Life is to be lived, man. Live it, don’t fear it.
~Dan
Trabue
I have never needed a gun to feel safe. I have no doubt that I could whip your butt – even at 61. I was trained as a lean, mean, fighting machine. A rompin’, stompin’, dancin’, romancin’, super-dooper, U.S. Paratrooper. And I stay in pretty good shape so as to be able to deal with morons like you. At 5′ 7 1/2″ and 165 lbs I threw a 6’2″ 225 lb man off my front porch two years ago when he came threatening me for helping his wife move out of their home and away from his continual physical abuse. My guns were in my closet and not even thought about! SO put that in your pipe and smoke it, wimp.
And we did answer ever question you posed – you just don’t like the answers given because you can’t stand truth.
Glenn, I have to thank you for the greatest belly laugh of the day. I really did laugh out loud. You want to FIGHT me to prove your manhood? What, are you a fifth grade bully or something?
Glenn, my brother in Christ, I LOVE you, I have no desire to fight you and don’t need to “prove” my courage by fighting you. Seriously, while I did laugh, is that what courage means to you? To be “brave” enough to beat people up and carry a weapon?
My dear brother, courage comes from within, not from your muscles and pistols.
Come, let us reason together like adults, not scrap like adolescents.
The question that remains unanswered is this:
DO you agree that the text you reference does NOT say what John said it said?
John said, “Jesus TOLD his disciples to ARM THEMSELVES for their own PROTECTION…” Can we you answer this question: DO YOU AGREE with the reality that this is LITERALLY NOT what the text says? That John has READ INTO the text something that is LITERALLY NOT there?
If it IS literally there, then demonstrate where it says “ARM YOURSELF” for your “OWN PROTECTION” because I’m not seeing it.
The reason I’m not seeing it? IT’S NOT THERE.
Instead of puffing out your chest and putting up your fists, can you demonstrate your courage instead by just answering that question?
And John saying, “SO, they carried swords for decoration??” is not an answer to that question. I’m asking DOES IT LITERALLY SAY THAT?
The answer is no.
Love you, bud, but seriously, grow up a little. “whip your butt…” chortle… Do adults really talk like that anywhere any more?
~Dan
Dan you repeatedly refuse to offer a reason for jesus to mandate they obtain a sword, a weapon with no other purpose than for protection or war.
Trabue,
You know, you are a real jackass. You always have to twist what people say to distort their intent so as to make them look foolish.
There was no intent to “prove” my manhood – I’ve never in my life felt my “manhood” threatened. I was challenging your contention that I needed guns to feel safe and was demonstrating that was a bald-faced lie on your part. And also pointing out that I have no respect for you as a man, let alone as a so-called “Christian” who is in reality a rank false teacher.
I have told you over and over that JOHN is the one who is correct in the understanding of the text. I have demonstrated that solid biblical scholars also have the same understanding – but of course they are all wrong and Trabue is the only correct one.
All I can say is that you apparently did NOT read my citations from MacArthur or Henry or else you don’t care what they had to say because they disagree with you.
John…
you repeatedly refuse to offer a reason for jesus to mandate they obtain a sword, a weapon with no other purpose than for protection or war.
???!! Did you not read my words? I specifically offered a reason – and that reason was IN THE TEXT.
Here, I’ll point it out again, copy and pasted from above (to make it easier to find the specifics, I’ll capitalize the words so you can’t miss it…):
That passage, however, says,
Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals
[NOTE: NO SWORD FOR “SELF-DEFENSE” -dt],
did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
36 He said to them, “But NOW…
[ie, NOW specifically that the end is near and the Roman army is closing in on us… as it does in a few verses ~dt]
…if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
[AND WHY DOES JESUS CHANGE THE RULES? IS IT FOR SELF DEFENSE? NO! Jesus says SPECIFICALLY why… ~dt]
It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
[SEE? THE QUITE SPECIFIC REASON FOR NEEDING A SWORD “NOW” IS GIVEN – AT THAT point in time, according to Scripture – TO FULFILL SCRIPTURE that he would be numbered amongst the transgressors – amongst the violent, the criminal, the “lawless ones” in some translations… ~dt]
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
[TWO swords amongst all the disciples as they face down the Roman army. Are two swords sufficient for “self defense” AT THAT TIME against the Roman army? No, of course not. THAT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE. ~dt]
“That’s enough!” Jesus replied…
[it’s enough because their purpose was that he would be considered an outlaw, NOT that he would use them for self defense. ~dt]
A FEW verses later (ie, IN CONTEXT), we read…
When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” [ie, self defense… dt]
50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered, “NO MORE OF THIS!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
This same scene, in another book, is where they draw their sword and Jesus COMMANDS them to put away the sword, rebuking them with the curse that those who live by the sword DIE by the sword.
Clearly, the ONE passage that you all are citing does NOT say ANYTHING about using swords for self defense, nor is it Jesus’ generally commanding his followers to get weapons for self defense.
And to pull it out and repeat it yet again so you don’t miss it: Jesus GIVES the reason why the change in rules:
THE QUITE SPECIFIC REASON FOR NEEDING A SWORD “NOW” IS GIVEN – AT THAT point in time, according to Scripture – TO FULFILL SCRIPTURE.
Jesus had them carry TWO swords SPECIFICALLY to fulfill scripture, NOT for self-defense. That is what the text says.
Do you disagree that this is the point of the text?
Later on, when they DID use the swords in self defense, Jesus chastised them and told them to put their swords away. It is CLEARLY not for self defense, this ONE time that he has them acquire TWO swords in preparation for meeting the entire Roman army.
Now, I’ve answered your question again John. Will you directly answer mine?
CAN you admit that the text does NOT literally say what you claimed it says? Can you admit that Jesus did not LITERALLY tell his followers to arm themselves for self defense?
If you want to reason that into the meaning, that’s on you, but that is not what the text says. Can you admit that much?
Thanks.
~Dan Trabue
I disagree with what you think is being said “between the lines”
And all I can say is that you all can’t answer a simple little question, which points to the HUGE hole in your thinking…
Does the text SAY LITERALLY what John says it says?
The answer is, No.
John, what “between the lines” are you speaking of?
The text CLEARLY and LITERALLY shows that, generally speaking, they did not have swords when they went out.
It clearly and literally says, “But NOW, I want you to get a sword…”
and it clearly and literally says WHY Jesus made this change in the rules:
IN ORDER TO FULFILL Scripture.
Where am I reading between the lines?
Do you think the passage about fulfilling scripture is not tied directly to the sword verse IMMEDIATELY before it?
And Glenn, here are some other commentators that note different opinions…
John Wesley says (regarding the obtaining of swords)…
It is plain, this is not to be taken literally. It only means, This will be a time of extreme danger.
…and…
Many of Galilee carried them when they travelled, to defend themselves against robbers and assassins, who much infested their roads. But did the apostles need to seek such defence? And he said; It is enough – I did not mean literally, that every one of you must have a sword.
Matthew Henry’s commentary says
At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves.
Coffman (while disagreeing) notes:
Most commentators view the passage as figurative, as did Geldenhuys, who said, “The Lord intended (these words) in a figurative sense.”
and goes on to say…
As a matter of fact, the swords were a necessary part of the drama of the Lords arrest.
…AS Jesus indicates with his “fulfilling Scripture” explanation for why get TWO swords.
For instance.
What IS interesting to me – as I look at various commentaries – is that very few seem to tie the “swords” text to the verse that immediately follows AND EXPLAINS it. Ultimately, I’m less interested in commentaries and more interested in the text and rationality.
Do you all totally divorce the explanation text that is surrounded by the sword text “get swords… FOR it is written… ‘here are two swords…’ ‘that will be enough…'” why do you think the “it is written” text is in there if not to explain why Jesus is bringing up swords now?
Immediately after false teacher Trabue’s citation of Matthew Henry, Henry says this:
The disciples hereupon enquire what strength they had, and find they had among them two swords (v. 38), of which one was Peter’s. The Galileans generally travelled with swords. Christ wore none himself, but he was not against his disciples’ wearing them. ”
Give it up, false teacher.
So, you agree with Matthew Henry’s guess on the topic? That’s fine with me. But that does not make me a false teacher, dear Brother in Christ.
It’s off topic, but since Glenn keeps bringing up this false witness:
Disagreeing with Glenn is not the measure of “false teacher.”
I am a Christian saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus, the risen son of God. Neither height nor depth, not powers above or powers below – including Glenn’s false accusations – can separate me from the love of God, nor Glenn from my love and God’s love.
I love you, Glenn, as my brother in Christ. I’ll repeat it til my dying days.
In Christ,
Dan
Trabue is a false teacher and not because he disagrees with me, rather it is because he has been proven to be one over and over, and kicked off many Christian blogs for that reason. THis link was made specifically to demonstrate that the case is against him:
http://wolfsheep2.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/false-teacher-profile-updated/
You are not my “brother,” and have been repeatedly asked to not call me that. Your refusal to respect my wishes in this regard just demonstrates you have no “love” for people who disagree with you.
Your statement about what makes you a Christian can be repeated verbatim by a Mormon. But your teachings demonstrate that your God and Christ are not the God and Christ of the Bible.
End of discussion. Readers may check the link I have now posted twice in order to determine for themselves if I am truthful in accusing Trabue of being a false teacher.
You wish me to demonstrate my love by lying to you about our brotherhood? I won’t lie to appease you, dear Glenn. I will call you by your proper name, I will call you brother, I will call you Glenn, I will strive to be at least as respectful as you are towards me, but I won’t lie. We ARE brothers, Glenn, saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus.
That you point to a slanderous and false website where they gossip about folk (strike one, strike two and strike three… ALL three behaviors are “not of the kingdom of God,” according to the Bible) is not evidence that it is true.
Let me ask you this, Glenn: Do you love me, as I love you? As God loves us? As God expects you to do?
For they will know we are Christians by our love, one for another…
If you don’t love me, does that mean that you are not a Christian?
I know, John, all of Glenn’s attacks and my defense against his attacks are off topic. I’m assuming that as long as you don’t mind Glenn’s attacks, you don’t mind my defending myself. Self-defense and all that…
~Dan
Trabue,
Yep, you have so much love for me that you continue to call me your “brother” no matter how offensive I find it, and no matter how many dozens of times I have asked you to cease and desist from doing so.
That link is not a bit slanderous nor is it gossip. It is 100% factual, and I witnessed much of it. It is a warning to everyone out there to not accept any teaching from you. I love you enough to pray that your eyes will be opened to your deceit, to your blasphemy of God, and your false worldview, and that you will come to know the true Christ of the Bible.
Now, I am ending discussion with you!
Good luck with that, sir…