Soldiers kill on orders - Can a Christian?

[Faithful1]

Part 3

Temple in Jerusalem

When we look at this passage John 2:12-25 we see many different aspects of Jesus. This passage is one of the best examples of His wrath. It is here we see Jesus get a bit worked up- in a truly Holy and Righteous manner. He is not being a pacifist when we grabs money and pours it out. Likewise he isn't being a pacifist when he over turns tables and then later when he tells the Jews he will destroy the temple (irregardless of the destruction being literal or metophoric).

Someone (in an earlier post) pointed out that Jesus did not have his disciples take part in any of this. It seems to me that His point isn't as strong with his squad backing him up flipping over tables. We are talking about the Almighty! Anyone stepping in to assist Him or back Him up is a joke. How foolish and ignorant are we (and were they) to believe that God ever needs our help. Honestly, when we try to step in and "help" God we make a mess of things. I would wager it was no different back then. Jesus went in alone because anything more than The Almighty is a distraction.

[ServantofTruth]

OK SofT here you go.... 3 of the 4. I'll do one scripture per post for ease of reading and understanding.



Jesus is not speaking figuratively here- he is referring to a real life honest to goodness weapon. I don't believe in this particular passage he is ordering his disciples to take up those weapons and fight... that would be a complete contridiction to the scriptures immediately before and following the one in question. However, I don't believe that is verse supports a pacifistic ideal either.

You can use this verse and I can throw another verse out to show war when neccessary- and that could go on for quiet some time. What we are required to do is look at the Bible in its entirety with the udnerstanding that the Word does NOT contradict itself. God does not contradict himself. I believe that if he talks about peace and lack of violence in one passage and war in another that there is obviously a time, place and purpose for both. God talks very clearly on a time for everything- a season for everything. That would have to include peace and war.

The birth and death of Jesus does not negate the OT. If we agree on that, then you have agree that the message, parables, etc in the OT are equally. In addition- since we don't debate the Father, Spirit, and Son are in fact One, then we have to entertain the idea that Jesus (in the NT) would not contradict or speak against himself, in the OT.

So why did Jesus IYO tell them to buy swords? Yes the whole bible agrees page 1 to end Revs. I'm not seeing in this post why he told them to buy these 'real' swords, when would he want them to use them? In what circumstances?
But you have my eternal thanks for posting on this topic and tackling these verses. No one else will you know!

[ServantofTruth]

I'll give it a shot.
The Luke verse speaking of buying a sword (Luke 22:36) is Jesus' way of saying for them to be ready for anything. The sword suggests resistance against the evil one (Eph. 6:17).

The centurion of Matt. 8, Luke 7, shows us how one understands rulers and their God given ability to rule over them. IOW they believe there is no authority given to man, such as that of rulers, that is not of God. They recognize it and are obedient to such rulers.

Not sure what you mean about, John the Baptist, the soldiers who asked what must we do and cleansing of the temple. A scripture ref. would be helpful.

Are you saying Jesus is NOT refering to a literal sword - what what my commentary says? Would you say the centurian verse, supports Jesus approving of being a soldier? Or does the fact that he says NOTHING about the fact he's a soldier, as he also says Nothing about him having a servant!, mean being a soldier is ok and obviously having a servant is ok too!

[Faithful1]

So why did Jesus IYO tell them to buy swords? Yes the whole bible agrees page 1 to end Revs. I'm not seeing in this post why he told them to buy these 'real' swords, when would he want them to use them? In what circumstances?
But you have my eternal thanks for posting on this topic and tackling these verses. No one else will you know!

My understanding of the type of "sword" that would have been used was for protection against wild animals, thieves, etc. These same "swords" or specifically daggers were even ok for to be worn in the temples.

[ServantofTruth]

Part 2



Typically speaking, at this time, soldiers were brutal to civilians and often took part in extortion. I believe, very simply, John was been literal with them... don't take money by force (extrotion). I believe this is an example of one of my favorite sayings "Text out of Context is nothing more than Pretext." When you take this verse and do not consider all factors- the time, specifically who he was speaking to, what the problems of the day were, etc it is very easy to use it for a supporting arguement against war. However when you factor in everything it becomes a very simple message to men who were often brutal and frequent thieves. Most soldiers (in today's society) are not brutal like these soldiers and extortion is not a problem for soldiers.

This is a very poor explaination indeed. I am sorry saying this, as you are the only person to tackle these 4 for us. We are meant to back arguements with other scriptures. Your opinion of history is no more valid than mine.
Like you said on the previous scripture - you can say soldiers were usually violent so he said act honerably (my paraphrase) . I can say if he'd told them to lay down their arms and they had , both they and him would have been arrested, tried and crucified within 24 hours! Both are probably true infact. But are just your opinion and mine. We need to back arguement with other scriptures - not personal opinion!

[ServantofTruth]

Part 3

Temple in Jerusalem

When we look at this passage John 2:12-25 we see many different aspects of Jesus. This passage is one of the best examples of His wrath. It is here we see Jesus get a bit worked up- in a truly Holy and Righteous manner. He is not being a pacifist when we grabs money and pours it out. Likewise he isn't being a pacifist when he over turns tables and then later when he tells the Jews he will destroy the temple (irregardless of the destruction being literal or metophoric).

Someone (in an earlier post) pointed out that Jesus did not have his disciples take part in any of this. It seems to me that His point isn't as strong with his squad backing him up flipping over tables. We are talking about the Almighty! Anyone stepping in to assist Him or back Him up is a joke. How foolish and ignorant are we (and were they) to believe that God ever needs our help. Honestly, when we try to step in and "help" God we make a mess of things. I would wager it was no different back then. Jesus went in alone because anything more than The Almighty is a distraction.

No mention is made of violence towards man or beast. Yes he turned over a table of money, yes he showed God's anger. But anger is not violence. Can a pacifist not get angry? I'm not sure? He asks the dove sellers to take them out. He doesn't release them, he doesn't kill them (as a sacrifice that they were to become). He doesn't deprive any man of a living, or any possession. He doesn't act violently at all. He in effect says do your trade outside the temple.
He uses their own knowledge of scriptures against them and they leave - not being punched and kicked, but because they were religious people who knew they were acting wrongly. Anyone want to argue that a Jew wouldn't know scripture or live by it?

[ServantofTruth]

My understanding of the type of "sword" that would have been used was for protection against wild animals, thieves, etc. These same "swords" or specifically daggers were even ok for to be worn in the temples.

Are you telling us that the word translated here 'sword' refers to a specific type of sword? Because if not, again it is personal opinion and inadmissable. And the use it would be put to is therefore also personal opinion.
I actually hope you can add to our understanding by telling us the exact sword that this refers to. If not the 3rd part about it being ok to wear it in the temple would also be invalid.
This is the level we need to go to, to get understanding and truth and not PERSONAL OPINION.

[Teke]

Are you saying Jesus is NOT refering to a literal sword - what what my commentary says? Would you say the centurian verse, supports Jesus approving of being a soldier? Or does the fact that he says NOTHING about the fact he's a soldier, as he also says Nothing about him having a servant!, mean being a soldier is ok and obviously having a servant is ok too!

It can be a literal sword, but I don't believe that He is being so literal. They are about to take Him and crucify Him, so He is telling them to defend themselves.
I believe He leaves the choice to us.

Those not able to stand without a sword will take one up. Those able to stand without a sword will stand without one.
Either way we must stand. Both before others and God.

As for being a soldier or servant, both are beholding to their masters or leaders.

Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

[Teke]

No mention is made of violence towards man or beast. Yes he turned over a table of money, yes he showed God's anger. But anger is not violence. Can a pacifist not get angry? I'm not sure? He asks the dove sellers to take them out. He doesn't release them, he doesn't kill them (as a sacrifice that they were to become). He doesn't deprive any man of a living, or any possession. He doesn't act violently at all. He in effect says do your trade outside the temple.
He uses their own knowledge of scriptures against them and they leave - not being punched and kicked, but because they were religious people who knew they were acting wrongly. Anyone want to argue that a Jew wouldn't know scripture or live by it?

It was an example that He too was human as we are. But we do not have to let anger become sin.

Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

Christians still get angry and try to protect holy places like the churches, but without sinning. And without harming anyone if possible. Else they flee.

[Teke]

This is a very poor explaination indeed. I am sorry saying this, as you are the only person to tackle these 4 for us. We are meant to back arguements with other scriptures. Your opinion of history is no more valid than mine.
Like you said on the previous scripture - you can say soldiers were usually violent so he said act honerably (my paraphrase) . I can say if he'd told them to lay down their arms and they had , both they and him would have been arrested, tried and crucified within 24 hours! Both are probably true infact. But are just your opinion and mine. We need to back arguement with other scriptures - not personal opinion!

Commandment number 9, not bearing false witness against others.

[Slug1]

I can say if he'd told them to lay down their arms and they had , both they and him would have been arrested, tried and crucified within 24 hours! Both are probably true infact. But are just your opinion and mine. We need to back arguement with other scriptures - not personal opinion!

There's that big IF again. He didn't say it and that is clearly stated in scripture. John said to be content with your pay and that is where opinion enters and each persons opinion warps the true meaning.

Luke 3:14

14Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or (A)accuse anyone falsely, and (B)be content with your wages."

What is the true meaning? That's easy... it means for the soldiers to be content with their pay

Not, you can't be a soldier, or it's a sin to be a soldier, or you soldier you bad

What else can the words, "be content with your pay" mean?

BTW, that false accusation part in that scripture fits your story about those sailors sinking that ship. They falsely sank it, it wasn't a proper thing to do and that is what John was taking about exactly.

He was speaking directly to soldiers and I'm sure he knows what soldiers are capable of. Never told them not to do their job, just not to abuse their position as soldiers... no stealing, no unjust killing (if this needs more explanation on my part I can elaborate in another post), and to be happy with their pay... which IMO means enjoy being a soldier.

OK, I knocked 1 of the 4 out so far

edit: OK, no unjust killing - Don't accuse falsely is the words in the scripture. If a soldier accuses falsely and I'll take this from a battlefield or war situation, then innocent or non-combatants are killed. This was wrong then just as it's wrong now and a crime today. Soldiers in the American military get tried in court if they "accuse falsely" and do any sort of warcrime.

John said it over 2000 years ago and it still stands today. If soldiers don't do any of the stuff John said not to do then they're able to be content with their pay cause they're doing the correct and honorable duty of a soldier.

[Faithful1]

This is a very poor explaination indeed. I am sorry saying this, as you are the only person to tackle these 4 for us. We are meant to back arguements with other scriptures. Your opinion of history is no more valid than mine.
Like you said on the previous scripture - you can say soldiers were usually violent so he said act honerably (my paraphrase) . I can say if he'd told them to lay down their arms and they had , both they and him would have been arrested, tried and crucified within 24 hours! Both are probably true infact. But are just your opinion and mine. We need to back arguement with other scriptures - not personal opinion!

There is not a scripture that says The soldiers were brutal and extortionists. Does that make what I am saying any less valid? No! It is imparative when studying the orginial meaning of a verse or passage to consider the original language, all variables of the translation, what life was like at the point in time, how society operated, etc. Surely you don't believe that those factors are invalid when understanding scriptures?

The Word does not preface every passage with a detailed description of these things. Those people already knew what thier time and society was like! It is our responsibility, in our pursuit to gain full understanding, to take into account everything.

[Faithful1]

No mention is made of violence towards man or beast. Yes he turned over a table of money, yes he showed God's anger. But anger is not violence. Can a pacifist not get angry? I'm not sure? He asks the dove sellers to take them out. He doesn't release them, he doesn't kill them (as a sacrifice that they were to become). He doesn't deprive any man of a living, or any possession. He doesn't act violently at all. He in effect says do your trade outside the temple.
He uses their own knowledge of scriptures against them and they leave - not being punched and kicked, but because they were religious people who knew they were acting wrongly. Anyone want to argue that a Jew wouldn't know scripture or live by it?

pac·i·fist [pas-uh-fist]–noun
1.a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.

vi·o·lence [vahy-uh-luhns]–noun
1.swift and intense force: the violence of a storm. 2.rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence. 3.an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence. 4.a violent act or proceeding. 5.rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred. 6.damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration


By definition alone he took part in violence of some kind. There is no debate as to the fact that it was Holy, Righteous, and Justified. There is no debate on whether he took action against any human or animal- he did not. He did overturn tables and grab money bags and pour them onto the floor. He did make it clear the temple would be destroyed by Himself. Do you honestly contend that Jesus did not go into the temple hopping mad and it was something the Jews didn't know? If He was mad and the Jews knew it- when He began to turn the temple inside out he was showing an aggressive behavior. Yes yes... we all agree that it was a Holy anger- He was never unrighteous in His actions.

[Faithful1]

This is a very poor explaination indeed. I am sorry saying this, as you are the only person to tackle these 4 for us. We are meant to back arguements with other scriptures. Your opinion of history is no more valid than mine.
Like you said on the previous scripture - you can say soldiers were usually violent so he said act honerably (my paraphrase) . I can say if he'd told them to lay down their arms and they had , both they and him would have been arrested, tried and crucified within 24 hours! Both are probably true infact. But are just your opinion and mine. We need to back arguement with other scriptures - not personal opinion!

Slug already addressed this and I agree with him. Like I said in an earlier post- you HAVE to consider all factors when attempting to understand what a passage means.

Can you honestly believe that the Soldiers of that time were good natured, honest, law abiding people? Any basic research on that should show otherwise.

The time that this take place is under ancient Roman rulers. A little research on Roman soldiers during this time period would show what their typical life was like- what type of army it was and how they operated.

This is not my opinion but rather well documented information on one of the most famous armies in History.

[ServantofTruth]

Hi everyone, as usual i am disappointed. On these forums things are discussed at different levels for many reasons. Those searching for example. Those who are 'New in Christ.' Those with a few years of church going, bible reading. Those with many years and some 'proffessional' training, afew times only expert v expert - you can read but please don't join in or post.
I like to take part in various levels - certainly not the expert, although reading can really help us learn. But i have found certain posters, moderators especially helpful and senior members who have done 1,000s of posts. No i don't always agree, but quite often i see their points and do adjust slightly in my thinking.
But the only level i can learn from, is those posters who use SCRIPTURE as the one true ultimate authority. This passage means what i put forward because these other passages suggest that position. You will normally not see these moderators or senior members post on a lower level. Which is why i have been able to move from respecting people who 'represent the site' just because of their given position - to loving their posts for genuine faith, understanding and bible wisdom. Which is why i am so surprised on this topic, that those same people can't just post their understanding of these 4 gospel scriptures in the same way, alongside mine and we can all move on!
The next level of lower level evidence is authorities within the church past and present. I use the 'church' as meaning all 'called out' christians, saved believers - not the narrow definition of a man made organisation. Men and women we can acknoledge for guided by the Holy Spirit not to reveal new truths - but to help each generation understand in their own day the eternal truths of God. Which is why i am surprised again that as i continue to offer to listern to the understand of OTHER PEOPLE'S authorities on these verses and others - their is silence.
When i posted Matthew Henry's commentary - i said look this is not my authority, it was recommended by you guys on this site. I know nothing about this man or if he comes from any angle. Either agree with HIS comments or don't. That is when serious discussion ended and many people left NEVER TO RETURN. It is not good to assume and i shouldn't do it here, but i will. I think they could not prove their arguement from THEIR OWN AUTHORITIES. I invited them then and i do again now, bring the authorities you learn from, the authorities you study with and use to teach others here and POST what they say. If they back you it would add weight to your arguements, not the weight of scripture but a 'lesser' weight.
Lastly we have personal opinion. Personal opinion is the least valid of all posts. Note i say it isn't of no value at all, but of the least value. This is an individual's opinion backed by no scripture at all. Or a the bible says this or means this generally, so i say..... To back by scripture is to jump to the top hard evidence scriptural authority at once. But some posters think to say the bible says this, so this verse means that, fits the top catergery. It does not, which is why you will never see a moderator or senior poster not back by solid chapter and verse.
I do thank Faithful1 - for tackling these scriptures, in the way she thinks is appropriete. But it does not move the 'serious' debate/ arguement on even a inch. The arguements wouldn't even satisfy my 14 1/2 year old son who has just joined the site. It is on the level of all the Anglican/ church of England bible study i have ever attended, which is the denomination i am most familiar with and grew up in - with a reader/ lay preacher for my father. Now i can not return, because you don't need a bible to attend bible study - the words of my mother's priest!
Last night my son made his first post in young adults. He asked me to read it first and we discussed it while waiting for anyone to respond. As soon as we began and i disagreed with him, over the trinity, he grabbed a bible. I glowed with pride. He was facing me, not with his personal opinion, but with God's eternal never changing Word. I was able to use the scriptures HE chose to show his error, that the trinity is correct and Jesus is the one true God.
If he will only disagree because the bible does and he is 14 1/2 - why would people post here without backing every arguement with scripture - not the bible says this, CHAPTER & VERSE.
Faithful1 if you feel able and can spare the time, i would ask you to repost on the 4 verses using scripture as your AUTHORITY. I know you are busy with your family and limit your computer time, both of which i respect. Also you probably want to move round the site like we all do and discuss many issues. Please feel free to take as much time as you feel you would need. Also if you wish to leave the discussion, i will think none the less of you. You stood up and posted, when other people suggested these scriptures but were unwilling to post meaning. A christian should always try to do what they say they will do. 2 moderators have offered to post meaning but refuse to post meanings on these 4 gospel scriptures.
That is my main point. 3 moderators have posted on this topic. 2 have said they will post the meanings of these 4 scriptues. None have. The days tick by, for one of them weeks now! Slug1 is able to keep popping in and reading and posting. He even said one day i'll do it tonight.
People, readers and posters have to draw their own conclusions. If these 4 scriptures back their position why aren't they posting. Some of these moderators are ministers/ pastors/ priests trained by authorities. If they submit to those denominations and have Commentaries that list the understanding that defends from HERACY, why not post those authorities.
I don't quite understand who owns and runs this site. But the site itself must be from from a recognised position and have an authority. Surely it must have a position on each scripture that the moderators can't violate? Therefore someone high enough within the authority of this site, which may also be a moderator or admin?, could post the authority of the site on these 4 gospel scriptures?
Once posted we can all move on in love.