Sunday, February 20, 2011

Christ & Self-Defense

Jesus the Christ sent his disciples out without any possession to spread "The Good News" (Luke 22:35). Upon their return and (Can we assume?) because of what they experienced on that earlier expedition on the dangerous roads and among the contentious people of Israel and surrounding areas, He had other instructions and commands for them.

Among those other commands was that they should do every thing possible (Including selling their most basic garments) to obtain swords. When his disciples presented him with the two such weapons they had, He said: "They are sufficient" or "They are enough" (Variation by translation for the balance of Luke 22:35). Since the Christ was NOT sending out armies to reestablish an independent Israel (A disappointment to some of his followers), two swords appeared to be "sufficient" to protect his law-abiding followers on their travels.

Now--I have read a variety of interpretations of these verses which all appear to be pathological pacifists' misreadings of plain text. Some have claimed that Jesus was being sarcastic or ironic or using a parable--Without any proofs of that and in opposition to the most direct statement and the usual parable-style of His other teachings.

Others have claimed that Jesus, the "Prince of Peace", would not support the arming of his followers with swords (The AK-47s or AR-15s of that era), conveniently forgetting his whipping out of the money changers in the Temple, his words about child abusers and Judas and the frequent Words about the punishment of evil doers and unworthy servants.

Yes--He did teach peace and "turning the other cheek"--To insults. However, there is nothing in the Gospel teaching that anyone should submit to such criminal attacks as murder, rape, robbery, genocide (The use of which are supported by the Koran, Nazi ideology and practices and the injustices inflicted by other tyrants now and throughout history),

We should also remember: The advice of St. John the Baptist to the soldiers, which was NOT to give up their swords and profession; The writings of St. Paul as to the State's authority to use the sword to punish wrongdoers; And, the very clear advise of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (In his De Laude Novae Militae) as to waging war against those who attack Christians (Muslims in his time and, as likely as not, in our time).


Anonymous said...

Hey James, what do you think about the governor vs. the unions?

On the one hand I'm guessing you vote Republican. While on the other you were a public employee.

Anyway, I'm eager to hear your take on the situation.

James Pawlak said...

Dar "Anonymous":

Very good deduction.
Please note that I have the courage to put my name and address on all letters and will offer it to anyone who wishes open communications. Why not you?

Anonymous said...

Why do you allow anonymous posts on your blog? Is it so you have a rationale to be mean to people? Is that the type of human that you are?

Or was you cheap shot just the best you could do to avoid answering my question?