Each Christmas I read and hear articles and sermons about the Prince of Peace and how the Lord is a Pacifist. And each Christmas I dust off my own submissions on this subject which say he wasn't and you shouldn't be either. OK, here goes.
Of Course He Had an Armed Guard
by Frank Hilliard
Merry Christmas and may Saint Nicholas leave a box of ammo in your stocking.
Of Course He Had an Armed Guard
by Frank Hilliard
It’s not often a lay person runs across a mistake in interpreting the Scriptures, especially when it involves the common belief Jesus Christ was a pacifist.
The traditional belief is based partly on the Sermon on the Mount where He said “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44) and partly on His comment on Gethsemane that “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew 26:52).
Let me take those two quotes and put them in context; first the Sermon on the Mount. The Roman army was fully in control of Judea and Galilee and was quick to respond to any and all attempts by the Jews to revolt. For a modern comparison, think of the French Resistance during World War II and the German Army.
The Jews had advice coming to them from two directions. On the one hand there were the Zealots who called for an armed uprising against the Roman occupation. On the other hand there was Jesus Christ and His Apostles who had a different message, essentially, 'play it cool.'
The essential mistake in understanding the Beatitudes is in thinking they represent universal injunctions rather than specific, period-related, rules of engagement. Christ was speaking to a subjugated people who, very likely, were meeting 'up into a mountain' (Matthew 5:1) because it was illegal, and dangerous, to meet anywhere else. So, here they all are, far from prying eyes, being given some timely advice on how to live with the Romans.
And then He gets more specific. How—exactly—should you respond when the Romans, or their supporters, start to push you around?
Why would He say this? Why love the Romans? Because any sign of anger or rebellion, any holding back, any indication of intransigence, would trigger a violent response. This could be counter productive and indeed was extremely damaging when the Jews actually did revolt in AD 66.
Viewed in this light, an occupied people meeting at a secret location, the Sermon on the Mount is clearly not a prescription for a free people in a free country two thousand years in the future. This, instead, is practical advice for a people living under an occupation: Keep your head down, don't fight back, smile a lot.
Now, let's look at the Last Supper.
First it’s necessary to understand that a sword at the time was no pocket knife. It would be a Roman short sword called a gladius, about 27 inches long, 2 and a half inches wide, weighing three pounds, with a tapered point for thrusting and two sharp edges for cutting.
This fearsome weapon was extremely lethal in close combat and thus can be considered the handgun of the era. It was also quite expensive, certainly the most expensive manufactured object anyone was likely to own and not something that you would easily mislay or forget.
Now go through the New Testament to the Last Supper where Jesus is wrestling with his conscience over accepting, or resisting, his destiny on the cross.
At first he thinks of resisting and says, “he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one” (Luke 22:36). Remember the Supper is taking place in the room of a stranger none of them had been to before. When the disciples look around for some swords, they find two.
“And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. (Luke 22:38).
Now think about this. First Christ is not referring to all his disciples in the first quote; he is only referencing those who don’t have swords. It’s logical then that when “they” say “here are two swords,” they’re referring to two additional swords, not those being carried by the disciples who owned their own.
Even if you don’t accept that argument, it’s indisputable that the group had at least two swords handy while having dinner at a location they had never been to before.
The next reference to swords is when Jesus and his disciples are attacked by a crowd of men armed with staves and swords sent by the Elders and Chief Priests. As they do so, Peter draws his sword and strikes one of the attackers and cuts off his ear. Here’s how John puts it.
“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” (John 18:10). Jesus tells him to put away his sword and gives three reasons for him to do so.
OK, let’s summarize.
Jesus spent his ministry with disciples some of whom were armed. At no time does he tell them to disarm themselves. Only on the final night, when he is about to be arrested to fulfill his destiny does he tell his closest adviser to put away his sword because, as we would say today, I have to do this.
Like a lot of politicians since, Jesus talked up pacifism, but did so with armed guards. At any time, he was well aware he could count on God sending him “more than 12 legions of angels,” should he need them.
It’s easy to preach peace when you’ve got armed guards and the Air Force on call, then or now.
I hope this brief review of the Scriptures will encourage Canadian Christians, and those who have adopted Christian morals and virtues, to consider going out and getting a Possession and Acquisition Licence and then a handgun. He, and of course she, should then consider lobbying the Federal Government to start issuing Type III Authorizations to Carry for any licensed gun owner who asks for one. This is called a ‘shall issue’ directive.
If going around armed was OK for St. Peter, it’s OK for you too.
My final point is that Christians generally, and post-Christians too, need to be more muscular in defending their beliefs. Our entire Western liberal democratic system is founded on Judeo-Christian morality, especially our understanding of free will and the existence of evil. It was defended in the past by stalwarts like Charles (the Hammer) Martel and the King of Poland, both Christian commanders. It is being fought in Afghanistan by western armies that are still, in the main, Christian.
There is nothing inconsistent in being armed and Christian. The danger is being disarmed, being pacifist, and Christian. That way lies ruin, subjugation and death.
So both on a personal level, and a national level, be armed, be strong and we will all be able to defend what is true and beautiful.
The traditional belief is based partly on the Sermon on the Mount where He said “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44) and partly on His comment on Gethsemane that “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew 26:52).
Let me take those two quotes and put them in context; first the Sermon on the Mount. The Roman army was fully in control of Judea and Galilee and was quick to respond to any and all attempts by the Jews to revolt. For a modern comparison, think of the French Resistance during World War II and the German Army.
The Jews had advice coming to them from two directions. On the one hand there were the Zealots who called for an armed uprising against the Roman occupation. On the other hand there was Jesus Christ and His Apostles who had a different message, essentially, 'play it cool.'
The essential mistake in understanding the Beatitudes is in thinking they represent universal injunctions rather than specific, period-related, rules of engagement. Christ was speaking to a subjugated people who, very likely, were meeting 'up into a mountain' (Matthew 5:1) because it was illegal, and dangerous, to meet anywhere else. So, here they all are, far from prying eyes, being given some timely advice on how to live with the Romans.
Who are the 'poor in spirit,' 'they that mourn' and 'the meek?' Since all his listeners were under occupation, He is referring to them all. It is Jewish society as a whole that is emotionally depressed, is in mourning and is feeling meek. But, fear not, He says, there is hope, both here on Earth and later in Heaven.3Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
And then He gets more specific. How—exactly—should you respond when the Romans, or their supporters, start to push you around?
In other words, don't for Heaven's sake rock the boat. If a Roman soldier hits you, let him hit you again. If he takes your coat, give him another. If he forces you on a march, go even further. Love? By all means, love your enemies.39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But 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;
Why would He say this? Why love the Romans? Because any sign of anger or rebellion, any holding back, any indication of intransigence, would trigger a violent response. This could be counter productive and indeed was extremely damaging when the Jews actually did revolt in AD 66.
Viewed in this light, an occupied people meeting at a secret location, the Sermon on the Mount is clearly not a prescription for a free people in a free country two thousand years in the future. This, instead, is practical advice for a people living under an occupation: Keep your head down, don't fight back, smile a lot.
Now, let's look at the Last Supper.
First it’s necessary to understand that a sword at the time was no pocket knife. It would be a Roman short sword called a gladius, about 27 inches long, 2 and a half inches wide, weighing three pounds, with a tapered point for thrusting and two sharp edges for cutting.
This fearsome weapon was extremely lethal in close combat and thus can be considered the handgun of the era. It was also quite expensive, certainly the most expensive manufactured object anyone was likely to own and not something that you would easily mislay or forget.
Now go through the New Testament to the Last Supper where Jesus is wrestling with his conscience over accepting, or resisting, his destiny on the cross.
At first he thinks of resisting and says, “he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one” (Luke 22:36). Remember the Supper is taking place in the room of a stranger none of them had been to before. When the disciples look around for some swords, they find two.
“And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. (Luke 22:38).
Now think about this. First Christ is not referring to all his disciples in the first quote; he is only referencing those who don’t have swords. It’s logical then that when “they” say “here are two swords,” they’re referring to two additional swords, not those being carried by the disciples who owned their own.
Even if you don’t accept that argument, it’s indisputable that the group had at least two swords handy while having dinner at a location they had never been to before.
The next reference to swords is when Jesus and his disciples are attacked by a crowd of men armed with staves and swords sent by the Elders and Chief Priests. As they do so, Peter draws his sword and strikes one of the attackers and cuts off his ear. Here’s how John puts it.
“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” (John 18:10). Jesus tells him to put away his sword and gives three reasons for him to do so.
- In John 18:11 he says “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?” In other words, his fate requires him to be crucified.
- The second reason he gives is that if he’d wanted to resist, he would have called in a legion of Angles. “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53)
- The third reason is the most interesting and the one that’s caused all the confusion. Here’s the quote from the previous verse: “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.” (Matthew 26:52)
OK, let’s summarize.
Jesus spent his ministry with disciples some of whom were armed. At no time does he tell them to disarm themselves. Only on the final night, when he is about to be arrested to fulfill his destiny does he tell his closest adviser to put away his sword because, as we would say today, I have to do this.
Like a lot of politicians since, Jesus talked up pacifism, but did so with armed guards. At any time, he was well aware he could count on God sending him “more than 12 legions of angels,” should he need them.
It’s easy to preach peace when you’ve got armed guards and the Air Force on call, then or now.
I hope this brief review of the Scriptures will encourage Canadian Christians, and those who have adopted Christian morals and virtues, to consider going out and getting a Possession and Acquisition Licence and then a handgun. He, and of course she, should then consider lobbying the Federal Government to start issuing Type III Authorizations to Carry for any licensed gun owner who asks for one. This is called a ‘shall issue’ directive.
If going around armed was OK for St. Peter, it’s OK for you too.
My final point is that Christians generally, and post-Christians too, need to be more muscular in defending their beliefs. Our entire Western liberal democratic system is founded on Judeo-Christian morality, especially our understanding of free will and the existence of evil. It was defended in the past by stalwarts like Charles (the Hammer) Martel and the King of Poland, both Christian commanders. It is being fought in Afghanistan by western armies that are still, in the main, Christian.
There is nothing inconsistent in being armed and Christian. The danger is being disarmed, being pacifist, and Christian. That way lies ruin, subjugation and death.
So both on a personal level, and a national level, be armed, be strong and we will all be able to defend what is true and beautiful.
Merry Christmas and may Saint Nicholas leave a box of ammo in your stocking.
1 comments:
Here, here. I'm also inclined to believe that this pacifist interpretation of Christian morality is relatively recent. I would not be surprised if there was little talk of pacifist interpretations prior to the relativist arguments initiated in the late 1800's. This pacifist interpretation reeks of Marxist moral "relativity" which prescribes that one validate the "other" even where there is no reciprocation - which is Satanic. The Christian establishment has been infected by Marxism. Especially considering that most of the last century was relatively prosperous overall, you can see how people would accept these narratives b/c they were not in a pressured, warring society. Love they neighbor obviously does not mean one has to like or approve of one's neighbor or not seek that justice be done upon them. It means to wish them well, that they might change and salvage their souls so that one doesn't lapse into pride or hatred -- it doesn't mean one should be a doormat for the heathen and immoral wretches of the world -- which is a narrative I'd class as a "Marxist's wet dream". RoR
Post a Comment