This is very interesting. Would it be correct to submit to the law at this point?

__________________
Ben
First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA)
Ada, OH

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

While I agree that the taking of a life is always a terrible thing, how do you reconcile your view with the following scripture, which has been quoted a few times in this thread already?

"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him," - Exodus 22:2 (esv)

That scripture makes no mention or implication of your life being obviously or overtly threatened, only of there being a "thief found breaking in."

__________________
Michael Mason (a.k.a. Dwimble)
Fort Worth PCA
Fort Worth, Texas
www.dwimble.com

I understand where we had crossed lines then because I was thinking more along the lines of protecting the home as the Law permits deadly force at night but forbids it in they daylight. There's an implicit distinction between protection and vengeance there.

What instrument would I have in my hands in such cases? Is it necessary to use lethal force to protect another life. If I had a weapon to stop a violent criminal in the act then I would use it. If I did not then I would use the means I have. Again, I think protection is key here and not that I'm meting out vengeance at that point.

I understand what you are driving at in the last point with the unborn baby. I'm not certain I can articulate a completely adequate response. There's sort of a different dynamic in the fact that it is the guardian that is complicit in the act of murder as well as the State. The parallel in the early Church were the people that left their babies to die of exposure or even infant sacrifice in the OT.

The hypothetical assumes I'm in the room with the physician. Am I supposed to kill the guard first to get past him in and break any other number of laws in order to get to a room where I know a crime is being committed? I think we've crossed the line where it becomes more apparent why the State must protect life and why it is so wicked that they do not.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
PCA

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Let's not forget that people didn't have shotguns back then. In order to kill somebody by hand it takes quite a bit of effort even with a club. I think that's why the Law holds a man guiltless for a thief in the night.

Hello Semper Fidelis and Larry,

I appreciated the exchange between both of you. You both have helped me - including how both of you conducted yourselves. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Brian

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona
Scientiam Dei

Although I have no problem with those who want to defend their homes by guns or whatnot, In my opinion Jesus words can not be used to defend this practice. I don't think that's what he is talking about.

In Luke 9 we see Jesus sending out the disciples to spread the kingdom of God, and he tells them not to take anything with them. The kingdom of God does not need food, or money or anything else to grow. But later Jesus needs to ensure that he is crucified as if he is a sinner. This symbolic action (similar to the actions of the prophets) will point toward the true meaning of his death. He is going to take the place of sinners. So at the last supper, what does he do to ensure that this will happen?

"And he said to them, 'When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?' They said, 'Nothing.' He said to them, 'But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: "And he was numbered with the transgressors." For what is written about me has its fulfillment.' And they said, 'Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.'" (Luke 22:35-38).

Jesus reminds them that God's kingdom didn't need swords or any other earthly thing to spread, but now he must be numbered among the transgressors so that he might fulfill Isaiah 53. In this case, he plans to be numbered among those who try to bring in their kingdom by violence. Rome brought in their kingdom in this way. The Jews did it in the days of the Maccabees. Shortly after this the Jews would rebel against Rome and try to bring in the kingdom by the sword. And previous to this meal Jesus had prophesied this very thing would happen and it would end in utter failure for the nation.

So Jesus and the disciples take their swords and go off down to the garden. Jesus knows Judas is going to show up with soldiers. The soldiers show up to take the king of the kingdom off to be judged, and Peter, misunderstanding why Jesus asked them to bring swords thinks the Jesus wanted them to bring the swords for defense (as many seem to also mistakenly, in my opinion, believe) picks up his sword and swings. Christ yells at him "NO MORE OF THIS!" This is not why Christ wanted his group of disciples to be caught holding swords. No more of this. No more of Jews trying to win their kingdom by the very violence that Babylon and Greece and Rome won their kingdoms by. This kingdom would win by suffering and death. Jesus again explains why they have the swords. It is so he would be counted as a transgressor and put to death. He says to the soldiers:

“Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs?" (Luke 22:52-53).

The gospels define what this term which is translated "robber" means. Compare John 18:40 with Luke 23:19 and Mk 15:7 and we see that the word Jesus uses can mean insurrectionists. If I am remembering correctly, Josephus also uses this word to refer to Jewish insurrectionists against Rome: Those who try to bring in God's kingdom by the sword.

So then Jesus is dragged off to trial, eventually standing before Pilate, who asks him if he's a king. Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world... if it were, my servants would have been fighting to keep me from being handed over to you." (John 18:33-36). Remember, Peter and started to do this very thing and fight to defend his king as is the way of the kingdoms of this world, but Jesus stopped him. Jesus kingdom does not come or sustain or try to protect itself by the sword like Rome or the earthly Jewish nation.

Pilate offers the Jews the option of either having Barabbas or Jesus set free. Barabbas was, notice the sin again, "a robber" (Jn 18:40) meaning he was guilty of "insurrection and murder" (Lk 23:25, Mk 15:7). The people plead to have the insurrectionist freed and then Jesus dies as if he himself is an insurrectionist. "If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar... We have no king but Caesar" (John 19:12-15). So Jesus ends up dying as if he had taken up the sword and fought against Rome to bring in the kingdom... he dies as a transgressor, the very reason he told the disciples to get swords. And as he walks to his death he tells the woman, "Don't weep for me, weep for you and your children!" A generation later this very nation would become the insurrectionists and be destroyed as they try to defend and bring in God's kingdom by the sword.

So we have Jesus saying the kingdom doesn't need earthly things, then telling the disciples to get swords because he must fulfill the prophesy that he will be counted as a transgressor, then he yells at Peter not to defend him–the king–by the sword, then he asks the soldiers if they have come out against him with swords and clubs as if he is an insurrectionist, then he tells Pilate his kingdom is not of this world or his disciples would have been fighting, then an insurrectionist is freed and Jesus dies instead.

To me, if my interpretation is correct, this means the passage about Jesus telling the disciples to get swords should not be used to defend taking up the sword. That is borrowing from Rome and the Jew's worldview, which is the very reason it seems that Jesus said it: so that they would appear as if they were insurrectionists.

__________________
C. Gorsuch
Glencullen Baptist
Portland, Oregon

However Jesus was not crucified because he was seen as an "insurrectionist" but because he was a ""blasphemer".

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA,
Fairmount ARP Church
Candidate Under Care Pittsburgh Theological Seminary & Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
"The benefit of deliverance becomes the more precious in the same proportion in which we are brought to apprehend the magnitude of the evil from which we have been rescued"
-- Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism

The state and the church had different motives for putting him to death there.

I don't understand why the previous poster made some reference to Christ telling the disciples to buy swords in order to "appear to be insurrectionists".
Christ would never tell them to give off a false impression - that would be a violation of the 9th commandment - so he must have had other reasons. Perhaps I mistook the poster's meaning, but I vehemently deny that Christ would have had them buy swords only in order to present the Roman guards with false appearances. He's no liar.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

The State put him to death to shut up and appease the Sanhedrin. The State found no fault with Christ.

Indeed, that is the ultimate reason - I'm only speaking about possible motivations for the state do so (not that they actually acted on them) Sorry, I was terribly unclear and really should have just left that alone. My main point was to ask why the previous poster seemed to be implying that Christ intended that the disciples, by taking up arms, would "appear to be insurrectionists", and to firmly state that such a supposition is a claim that Christ lied.

I find this discussion a bit distracting. I agree that the idea that Christ told His disciples to buy swords in order to appear to be an insurrectionist is a fantastic notion.

I don't think you have to go to great lengths to argue that Luke 22:36-38 is speaking figuratively. I personally agree that it is a poor prooftext for people to rely upon to become armed given the context. The "Enough!" is more of a curt reply to an enthusiastic Peter who still doesn't "get it". Th context totally doesn't support some notion that Christ is now teaching on the importance of arming yourself for self-protection right before His Crucifixion.

Of course, I think one of the reasons there is a "felt need" to appeal to this passage is that folks are often not comfortable with the whole Biblical data. We've just got to find that New Testament passage that re-iterates an Old Testament idea because God has mutated between Testaments.

The bottom line for me is that the Scriptural data is absolutely rock solid that we are not only permitted self-defense but are commanded to defend the weak in the moral Law. I do not think it is a responsible use of the Scriptures to bolster the case by appealing to Luke 22:36-38 as a prooftext for buying guns.

I agree with your main point Todd. I also do not understand the posters point.

As n aside and definitely I have for a while been bothered by the "suffered under Pontius Pilate" line in the Apostles Creed.

What about it bothers you? Acts 4:26-28--"The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

__________________
Kim G
Non-denom church (holds to the WCF)
Zion Community Church, Greenville, SC

Teach me Your way, O LORD;
I will walk in Your truth;
Unite my heart to fear Your name.
Psalm 86:11

A theif who enters my home does so at the cost of his safety.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo, Deacon, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body."(James 3:2)

If a missionary is attacked "in the pulpit" (in the field or in any official capacity) for preaching Christ, perhaps he might choose to give up his right to defend himself to show the glory of Christ better.

But his actions as an ordained representative of Christ in public (an official act) is different than personal defense of his family.




I see a HUGE gulf of difference between dying a martyr's death and letting a criminal kill you without retaliation for 20 dollars on your nightstand.



We all are not trying to make first contact with a aggressive tribe, nor are we called to endanger our lives like that. If a thief breaks into my house in the USA I would assume that this thief has had sufficient exposure to the Gospel and that it might be more honoring to prolong my life in order to tell others about Jesus than to give an unrepentant sinner a free pass.

Of course, perhaps shooting in a leg if able is advised. But when in doubt, shoot to kill. It is evident that Piper did not condemn the act of merely threatening to kill people or else he would have condemend the missionaries for even carrying guns.



An alternate view of Piper's words: Perhaps Piper just got off a 4th of July where he saw patriotism and Christianity mistaken and he got sick of all the usual mistaken sentiment that patriotism is inherently Christian and so this is perhaps his reaction (or over-reation).

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

He is referring to Paul Hill, who killed and abortionist and went to the death penalty unrepentant and stating that he was just for preventing murder by killing an abortionist. Several prominant Christians wrote letters to him to repent before his death.

Can anyone link some facts to confirm this instead of my memory?

A letter which Gary North sent to Hill, in response to letters from Hill, is available here.

__________________
T W Hopper
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church
Currently between churches since PRC closed here - attending Crossroads Christian Church.
Canberra, Australia.

Gary North, for one, wrote such a letter (start on page 3):

GNLG.html

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?