Did Christ advocate violence?

[Prodigal_Son1]

This thread is being started from a discussion on the Political forum entitled, "Obama: limit guns to ‘sporting purposes’ only.

I had posted scriptures, along with Catholic commentaries, that some posters disagreed with. Since the scriptures were pointed out by several posters as being “off topic”, I decided to start this thread in hopes we could have an honest discussion on whether or not Christ advocated violence.

The scriptures posted were:

**Mat 26:52 Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Luk 12:4 And I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do.

Mat 5:21 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment.**

GodsGadfly:

The Apostles all “died by the sword,” so, apparently, they “lived by the sword.”

I am well aware of the interpretations you offer. They’re in the footnotes, after all. But the “pacifist” attitude is not in keeping with the clear teaching of Jesus ,which advocates “violence,” if only spiritual violence.

I have a couple of questions about the above post.

As it is my understanding that Peter was crucified, upside down, how do you consider he died by the sword?

I was surprised to see the post stating that the “pacifist” attitude is not in keeping with the clear teaching of Jesus. With that statement I will add another Bible passage below:

**Mat 5:38 You have heard that it hath been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
Mat 5:39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other:
Mat 5:40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away.
Mat 5:43 You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: **

**Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. **

Since the Church’s teaching also came into question, and in the interest of fairness of this discussion, I am going to add excerpts from the Catechism below:

**2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, “You shall not kill,” and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.**

While I’m ready to concede the Church does allow and define instances of self defense, I can only concede to the authority of the Church. That is to say, I believe greater theologians found a purpose for self defense. I, being one of the laity in much need of greater teaching, have not found those instances yet. It is my hope that through this thread, I might discover those reasons through fellow Catholics, or Protestants as all are invited to participate.

To provide more understanding of my statement above, I do not know of an instance where Christ, Himself, advocated violence. Can anyone provide support for this idea?

I would also like to point out how many of the early Church fathers and other Christians preferred martyrdom over self defense. As I am now studying the writings of the early Church fathers, I am looking forward to learning when and why that changed in the Church history.

 

[Sellaman]

the early Church fathers and other Christians preferred martyrdom over self defense.

If we were all like that and Jesus there would never be any wars.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

To provide more understanding of my statement above, I do not know of an instance where Christ, Himself, advocated violence. Can anyone provide support for this idea?

How about “let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one” (Luke 22:36)?

Is that a possible instance?
VC

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How about “let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one” (Luke 22:36)?

Is that a possible instance?
VC

Well, they used that on me and I provided the Catholic commentary provided on it and it seemed to say it didn’t. Of course the others were quick to point out that Catholic commentaries are not official Church teachings.

**35-38. Proper to Lk. The apparent contradiction of our Lord’s former and later teaching (10:4 ff.; 22:49-51, cf. Mat_26:52) must be explained in this way: he now wishes to impress upon them that although the principles of his teaching have not altered, nevertheless the times have changed. They are about to enter on a situation of the utmost gravity and danger. Compare the advice concerning the way they are to act in 17:22 ff.; 21:8 ff. When he first sent them out it was with the counsel to depend on the goodwill of their hearers for their needs; now there will be no longer goodwill but hatred for his sake. In fact they will be Ishmaels, like men who have no friends and can obtain even the bare necessities of life only by violence; that is the meaning of’ he that hath not (a sword) let him sell his coat and buy one’, a proverbial expression, not that he recommends such a measure to his disciples (cf. 12:22). This furnishes the meaning of his answer to their simplicity in 38: ‘It is enough’. He does not mean that two swords are enough for their protection, but, seeing that they have not understood him, he says with a smile, ‘That would be enough for what I meant’. Some think, less probably, that he answers abruptly to change the subject which they have misunderstood: ‘Enough of that’. 37. In confirmation of the advice in 36; the quotation is from Is 53 which deals with the Sufffering Servant of Yahweh. Jesus envisages his speedy death: ‘the things that have to do with me are coming to their completion’. He has frequently warned his disciples that the servant must not expect to fare better than the master.

Luk 22:37 For I say to you that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in me. And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end.

Luk 22:38 But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said to them: It is enough.

Ver. 38.—And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. They did not understand the mind and words of Christ clearly. He did not mean that they should buy swords, but He wished to show them the impending danger. Christ did not explain His meaning to the Apostles, but concealed it, saying, “It is enough,” meaning that Peter and the other Apostles might carry these swords, and even cut off Malchus’ ear, which He Himself afterwards restored and healed, showing that He was not compelled by force, but was urged by love, willingly and freely to suffer and die. Some think that they were not military swords, but rather large butchers’ knives, which the apostles used for the slaughtering, sacrificing, and disjointing of the Paschal Lamb. So S. Chrysostom, from whom I have said more on Matt. xxvii. **

I checked the Catechism for a Church interpretation, but it appears one is not offered on those particular verses.

Thanks for posting though!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I haven’t checked your other thread, but did you cite the commentary you are quoting from, perchance?

Thanks.

VC

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I haven’t checked your other thread, but did you cite the commentary you are quoting from, perchance?

Thanks.

VC

I have several commentaries in my e-sword program. Those particular commentaries came from one entitled, “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture”, which I’m afraid I could not find online.

Below is an excerpt from, “The Great Biblical Commentary of Cornelius A Lapide.” This one can be found online.

**Ver. 36.—But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip. A purse filled with money, a scrip with food, that they might have support in the impending persecution; for they will never find either, “because men will fly from Me, who am bound and accused, and consequently from My disciples as men wicked and condemned.”
And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Christ, in these words, did not command them to take a purse and a scrip, and to sell their garment and buy a sword, for He soon after forbade Peter to draw his sword; but they were a warning of the fierce persecution which was about to fall upon Himself and the apostles, and which was so heavy to those that regarded the difficulty of the case with the eyes of mere human wisdom, that food and weapons would appear things absolutely necessary for the preservation of life. The meaning therefore is this, “Everything, so far, has happened to you, 0 my Apostles, well and prosperously; for when I sent you to preach the Gospel without purse, or scrip, or sword, you were kindly received by most, fed, and sheltered, and had no need of these things. But now so grievous a persecution is impending over you, and so great is the danger to your lives, that in human prudence it may seem necessary to each to think of the preservation of his life, and therefore to take a scrip and purse for provision, and a weapon for defence, and to sell his cloak, and buy a sword. But to Me, who weigh circumstances by the design and decree of God the Father, there is no need of such things; for I go voluntarily to the cross, and to death, and I offer Myself of My own free will, to those who will persecute Me and crucify Me, so that I may conform Myself to the will of My Father.” So S. Chrysostom (Hom. 85 on S. Matt.), and from him Theophylact on this passage, Jansen, Maldonatus, and others. S. Ambrose says well, “0 Lord, why commandest Thou me to buy a sword, and forbiddest me to strike, unless that I may be prepared for my defence, and that Thou mayest appear able to avenge though Thou wouldst not?”
Ver. 38.—And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. They did not understand the mind and words of Christ clearly. He did not mean that they should buy swords, but He wished to show them the impending danger. Christ did not explain His meaning to the Apostles, but concealed it, saying, “It is enough,” meaning that Peter and the other Apostles might carry these swords, and even cut off Malchus’ ear, which He Himself afterwards restored and healed, showing that He was not compelled by force, but was urged by love, willingly and freely to suffer and die. Some think that they were not military swords, but rather large butchers’ knives, which the apostles used for the slaughtering, sacrificing, and disjointing of the Paschal Lamb. So S. Chrysostom, from whom I have said more on Matt. xxvii.
**

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks, PrSon.

So, what is your next step? Do you wish to continue to seek instances where Christ advocated violence?

You mentioned discussing why defense is reasonable and permitted (and in some cases obligated). . . I’m not sure, but perhaps that might be a more fruitful approach for your thread.

VC

 

[Bennie_P]

Of course Christ didn’t advocate violence, but your use of scripture was used out of context concerning gun ownership and the use of weapons for defense of self and others in the thread where you started this discussion.

The message Christ was portraying in Luke 22:38 But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said to them: It is enough. In context - the sword was of no use for his path was already decided, so self-defense against those coming for him was against the Fathers will, for it was the will of the Father for the actions that were about to happen. Peter didn’t have full understanding of the coming passion. The understanding that the Kingdom Christ came to set up would not be ebstablished as a political or earthly kingdom which the Jews were expecting. This passage is not a defense for people to take up arms, nor justification to take arms away from people, or *forbid the use of them for legal defensive purposes. *

The argument concerning gun ownership is a constitutional matter and the Church does teach we must defend the innocent and protect our families, as you pointed out in CCC 2263.

We are Catholics and we should not use our personnel interpretation of scripture, as fundamentalist do, to justify our personal choices, or our rights, or deny a given right of others. We have the Church to give us guidence.

The right to bear arms for defense is written into law and the constitution and there is no where in Church teaching to contradict that right. And that right is not a call to violence but to prevent violence from harming others.

If you have personal reasons to oppose personal gun ownership, even based on how Christ speaks to your heart on the issue, don’t you think you may be passing judgment on others really based on your own personal convictions as opposed to what the Church teaches on that subject? If you don’t want to own or use firearms you have that right, your convictions concerning your own actions in that area are totally justified by scripture and Church teaching. But for those that want to own guns even if they are for possible use for the defense of self and others are just as justified. IMHO

No Christ didn’t advocate violence…

 

[Sir_Knight]

** … , a proverbial expression, not that he recommends such a measure to his disciples (cf. 12:22). This furnishes the meaning of his answer to their simplicity in 38: ‘It is enough’. He does not mean that two swords are enough for their protection, but, seeing that they have not understood him, he says with a smile, ‘That would be enough for what I meant’. Some think, less probably, that he answers abruptly to change the subject which they have misunderstood: ‘Enough of that’.** 37.

…

Luk 22:37 For I say to you that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in me. And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end.

Luk 22:38 But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said to them: It is enough.

Ver. 38.—And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. They did not understand the mind and words of Christ clearly. He did not mean that they should buy swords, but He wished to show them the impending danger. Christ did not explain His meaning to the Apostles, but concealed it, saying, “It is enough,” meaning that Peter and the other Apostles might carry these swords, and even cut off Malchus’ ear, which He Himself afterwards restored and healed, showing that He was not compelled by force, but was urged by love, willingly and freely to suffer and die. Some think that they were not military swords, but rather large butchers’ knives, which the apostles used for the slaughtering, sacrificing, and disjointing of the Paschal Lamb. So S. Chrysostom, from whom I have said more on Matt. xxvii.

**Ver. 36.—But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip. A purse filled with money, a scrip with food, that they might have support in the impending persecution; for they will never find either, “because men will fly from Me, who am bound and accused, and consequently from My disciples as men wicked and condemned.”
And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Christ, in these words, did not command them to take a purse and a scrip, and to sell their garment and buy a sword, for He soon after forbade Peter to draw his sword; but they were a warning of the fierce persecution which was about to fall upon Himself and the apostles, and which was so heavy to those that regarded the difficulty of the case with the eyes of mere human wisdom, that food and weapons would appear things absolutely necessary for the preservation of life. The meaning therefore is this, “Everything, so far, has happened to you, 0 my Apostles, well and prosperously; for when I sent you to preach the Gospel without purse, or scrip, or sword, you were kindly received by most, fed, and sheltered, and had no need of these things. But now so grievous a persecution is impending over you, and so great is the danger to your lives, that in human prudence it may seem necessary to each to think of the preservation of his life, and therefore to take a scrip and purse for provision, and a weapon for defence, and to sell his cloak, and buy a sword. But to Me, who weigh circumstances by the design and decree of God the Father, there is no need of such things; for I go voluntarily to the cross, and to death, and I offer Myself of My own free will, to those who will persecute Me and crucify Me, so that I may conform Myself to the will of My Father.” So S. Chrysostom (Hom. 85 on S. Matt.), and from him Theophylact on this passage, Jansen, Maldonatus, and others. S. Ambrose says well, “0 Lord, why commandest Thou me to buy a sword, and forbiddest me to strike, unless that I may be prepared for my defence, and that Thou mayest appear able to avenge though Thou wouldst not?”
Ver. 38.—And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. They did not understand the mind and words of Christ clearly. He did not mean that they should buy swords, but He wished to show them the impending danger. Christ did not explain His meaning to the Apostles, but concealed it, saying, “It is enough,” meaning that Peter and the other Apostles might carry these swords, and even cut off Malchus’ ear, which He Himself afterwards restored and healed, showing that He was not compelled by force, but was urged by love, willingly and freely to suffer and die. Some think that they were not military swords, but rather large butchers’ knives, which the apostles used for the slaughtering, sacrificing, and disjointing of the Paschal Lamb. So S. Chrysostom, from whom I have said more on Matt. xxvii.
**

The problem with this “commentary” (which, by the way is NOT considered to be OFFICIAL Church teaching but merely an opinion) is the fact that it ignores the rest of scripture which tells us that while Jesus spoke in symbolic terms, He ALWAYS explained His teaching to His Apostles and we ALWAYS see that explanation in scripture. That does not happen in this passage. Either this is the one exception or no explanation is given because no explanation was needed because the apostles understood correctly and Jesus was commanding them to purchase weapons for themselves even if they had to sell their coats to do so – showing that being well armed was more important than even giving to the poor because the money from selling the coat was not to be used to take care of the poor but to buy a weapon.

Additionally, these passages were written many years later AFTER the Holy Spirit opened the mind of the Apostles to the message of the Gospel. Again, why would they explain all of Jesus’s symbolic messages but not do so here? The answer is obvious – no explanation was given because the passage means what it says … Jesus is talking about buying real swords for his followers to use for self defense purposes.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I was surprised to see the post stating that the “pacifist” attitude is not in keeping with the clear teaching of Jesus. With that statement I will add another Bible passage below:

**Mat 5:38 You have heard that it hath been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
Mat 5:39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other:
Mat 5:40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away.
Mat 5:43 You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: **

**Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. **

You need to keep in mind two things - one, 2,000 years ago the customs and laws were very different. Two, the middle east was a conquered land, harshly occupied by armed Roman soldiers.

In Roman times, conduct between citizens and conquered peoples was often strictly formalized and controlled in many small ways.

As such, a Roman citizen or soldier could chastise a slave or non-citizen, and the slave could not retaliate - that would be mutiny, and punishable by death.

A slave or servant was chastised with a slap on the face with the open hand. This was an insulting blow, delivered to an inferior person or an animal. A non-citizen could be beaten by a citizen as much as desired with the open hand, and had no recourse. Defending themselves would mean death.

A blow with the back of the hand or a closed fist, however, was a fighting blow - one delivered between equals, and one to which anyone, even a slave could respond.

So, Jesus taught his followers a practical way of dealing with a common problem by offering the other side of their face. The natural response would be to strike again - with the back of the hand!

If the citizen yielded to the temptation to strike again with the back of the hand or the closed fist, then he had offered a challenge to fight as an equal. Now the slave (or non-roman) could retaliate without fear of being condemned to death for mutiny.

The same can be said when Jesus advised people, when asked to walk a mile, then to respond by walking a second mile. Roman soldiers could legally require any non-citizen to carry their packs (weighing 60 pounds) for one mile. But there was a very severe penalty for compulsion beyond one mile. A non-citizen who carried a pack a second mile could cause the soldier to be demoted, fined, flogged or even discharged.

Our retired Monsignor once gave a very informative homily on all of this.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thanks, PrSon.

So, what is your next step? Do you wish to continue to seek instances where Christ advocated violence?

You mentioned discussing why defense is reasonable and permitted (and in some cases obligated). . . I’m not sure, but perhaps that might be a more fruitful approach for your thread.

VC

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut VC. At this point, I’d like to continue on with the discussion.

I had hoped some from the Political forum thread would have joined, especially those who had stated Christ advocated violence.

I see a couple have shown up and posted some information I found intriguing and given me some new perspectives to research and relect upon.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We are Catholics and we should not use our personnel interpretation of scripture, as fundamentalist do, to justify our personal choices, or our rights, or deny a given right of others. We have the Church to give us guidence.

The right to bear arms for defense is written into law and the constitution and there is no where in Church teaching to contradict that right. And that right is not a call to violence but to prevent violence from harming others.

If you have personal reasons to oppose personal gun ownership, even based on how Christ speaks to your heart on the issue, don’t you think you may be passing judgment on others really based on your own personal convictions as opposed to what the Church teaches on that subject? If you don’t want to own or use firearms you have that right, your convictions concerning your own actions in that area are totally justified by scripture and Church teaching. But for those that want to own guns even if they are for possible use for the defense of self and others are just as justified. IMHO

No Christ didn’t advocate violence…

Thanks for posting BennieP,

Even though I may be reflecting more deeply on this subject as I entered into the discussion, I am not relying on private interpretation of scriptures alone. I am reading scriptures, Catholic commentaries, writings of the early Church fathers and the Catechism, as well as willing to discuss this issue with fellow Christians. As you realize there are some scriptures that have no instruction or interpretations in the Catechism. In these instances, it is left up to us and our faith based consciences and research to decide what is being said, wouldn’t you agree?

I posted what the Catechism said about self-defense and defense of life and found it instructing prudence be used when and if that defense is necessary.

As for your question of, if I might be judging or not, I don’t feel it is judgmental to have a difference of opinion. If it were, then none of us should be participating in the elections, where more than candidates are voted on, but also changes in laws that will affect each other. For example, are you judging me for the way I think society might be safer? I am just asking the question as an example of how differing opinions are not judgmental, in my opinion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The problem with this “commentary” (which, by the way is NOT considered to be OFFICIAL Church teaching but merely an opinion) is the fact that it ignores the rest of scripture which tells us that while Jesus spoke in symbolic terms, He ALWAYS explained His teaching to His Apostles and we ALWAYS see that explanation in scripture. That does not happen in this passage. Either this is the one exception or no explanation is given because no explanation was needed because the apostles understood correctly and Jesus was commanding them to purchase weapons for themselves even if they had to sell their coats to do so – showing that being well armed was more important than even giving to the poor because the money from selling the coat was not to be used to take care of the poor but to buy a weapon.

Additionally, these passages were written many years later AFTER the Holy Spirit opened the mind of the Apostles to the message of the Gospel. Again, why would they explain all of Jesus’s symbolic messages but not do so here? The answer is obvious – no explanation was given because the passage means what it says … Jesus is talking about buying real swords for his followers to use for self defense purposes.

Thanks for posting Sir Knight,

You’ve brought up the fact that Catholic commentaries are not official Church teachings, twice now. I am in agreement. I however have to ask how we decide what the teaching should be on scriptures that are not referenced in the Catechism? Then would it be alright to consider Catholic commentaries and the writings of the early Church fathers, in your opinion?

Just as you think no explanation was given because the passage means what it says, as you say, “Jesus is talking about buying real swords for His followers to use for self defense purposes”, I offer the writings of other Catholic opinions on these scriptures, which are not referenced in the Catechism. These writings comes from the St. Thomas Aquinas Catena Aurea (Golden Chain), I feel confident you will recognize the names of the authors of those writings.

Because of character limitations, I am spreading those writings over the next two posts.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Continued…

**Luk 22:35-38

Ver 35. And he said to them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked you any thing? And they said, Nothing.36. Then said he to them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip, and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.37. For I say to you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.38. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough.

CYRIL; Our Lord had foretold to Peter that he should deny Him; namely, at the time of His being taken. But having once made mention of His being taken captive, He next announces the struggle that would ensue against the Jews. Hence it is said, And he said to them, When I sent you without purse, &c. For the Savior had sent the holy Apostles to preach in the cities and towns the kingdom of heaven, bidding them to take no thought of the things of the body, but to place their whole hope of salvation in l km.

CHRYS. Now as one who teaches to swim, at first indeed placing his hands under his pupils, carefully supports them, but afterward frequently withdrawing his hand, bids them help themselves, nay even lets them sink a little; so likewise did Christ deal with His disciples. At the beginning truly He was present to them, giving them most richly abundance of all things; as it follows, And they said to them, Nothing.

But when it was necessary for them to show their own strength, He withdrew from them for a little His grace, bidding them do something of themselves; as it follows, But now he that has a purse, that is, wherein to carry money, let him take it, and likewise his scrip, that is, to carry provisions in. And truly when they had neither shoes, nor girdle, nor staff, nor money, they never suffered the want of any thing. But when He allowed them purse and scrip, they seem to suffer hunger, and thirst, and nakedness. As if He said to them, Hitherto all things have been most richly supplied to you, but now I would have you also experience poverty, therefore I hold you no longer to the former rule, but I command you to get purse and scrip. Now God might even to the end have kept them in plenty, but for many reasons He was unwilling to do so. First that they might impute nothing to themselves, but acknowledge that every thing flowed from God; secondly, that they might learn moderation; thirdly, that they might not think too highly of themselves. For this cause while He permitted them to fall into many unlooked for evils, He relaxed the rigor of the former law, lest it should become grievous and intolerable.

BEDE; For He does not train His disciples in the same rule of life, in time of persecution, as in the time of peace. When He sent them to preach, He ordered them to take nothing in the way, ordaining in truth, that He who preaches the Gospel should live by the Gospel. But when the crisis of death was at hand, and the whole nation persecuted both the shepherd and the Hock, He proposes a law adapted to the time, allowing them to take the necessaries of life, until the rage of the persecutors was abated, and the time of preaching the Gospel had returned. Herein He leaves us also an example, that at times when a just reason urges, we may intermit without blame somewhat of the strictness of our determination.

AUG. By no inconsistency then of Him who commands, but by the reason of the dispensation, according to the diversity of times are commandments, counsels, or permissions changed.

AMBROSE; But He who forbids to strike, why does He order them to buy a sword? unless perchance that there may be a defense prepared, but no necessary retaliation; a seeming ability to be revenged, without the will. Hence it follows, And he who has not, (that is, a purse,) let him sell his garment, and buy a sword,**

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Continued…

**CHRYS. What is this? He who said, If any one strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, now arms His disciples, and with a sword only. For if it were fitting to be completely armed, not only must a man possess a sword, but shield and helmet. But even though a thousand had arms of this kind, how could the eleven be prepared for all the attacks and lying in wait of people, tyrants, allies, and nations, and how should they not quake at the mere sight of armed men, who had been brought up near lakes and rivers? We must not then suppose that He ordered them to possess swords, but by the swords He points at the secret attack of the Jews. And hence it follows, For I say to you, that this that is written must, be accomplished in me: And he was numbered with the transgressors.

THEOPHYL. While they were contending among themselves above concerning priority, He said, It is not a time of dignities, but rather of danger and slaughter. Behold I even your Master am led to a disgraceful death, to be reckoned with the transgressors. For these things which are prophesied of Me have an end, that is, a fulfillment. Wishing then to hint at a violent attack, He made mention of a sword, not altogether revealing it, lest they should be seized with dismay, nor did He entirely provide that they should not be shaken by these sudden attacks, but that afterwards recovering, they might marvel how He gave Himself up to the Passion, a ransom for the salvation of men.

BASIL; Or the Lord does not bid them carry purse and scrip and buy a sword, but predicts that it should come to pass, that in truth the Apostles, forgetful of the time of the Passion, of the gifts and law of their Lord, would dare to take up the sword. For often does the Scripture make use of the imperative form of speech in the place of prophecy. Still in many books we do not find, Let him take, or buy, but, he will take, he will buy.

THEOPHYL. Or He hereby foretell to them that they would incur hunger and thirst, which He implies by the scrip, and sundry kinds of misery, which he intends by the sword.

CYRIL; Or else; When our Lord says, He who has a purse, let him take it, likewise a scrip, His discourse He addressed to His disciples, but in reality He regards every individual Jew; as if He says, If any Jew is rich in resources, let him collect them together and fly. But if any one oppressed with extreme poverty applies himself to religion, let him also sell his cloak and buy a sword. For the terrible attack of battle shall overtake them, so that nothing shall suffice to resist it. He next lays open the cause of these evils, namely, that He suffered the penalty due to the wicked, being crucified with thieves. And when it shall have come at last to this, the word of dispensation will receive its end. But to the persecutors shall happen all that has been foretold by the Prophets. These things then God prophesied concerning what should befall the country of the Jews, but the disciples understood not the depth of His words, thinking they had need of swords against the coming attack of the traitor. Whence it follows; But they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords.

CHRYS. And in truth, if He wished them to use human aid, not a hundred swords would have sufficed; but if He willed not the assistance of man, even two are superfluous.

THEOPHYL. Our Lord then was unwilling to blame them as not understanding Him, but saying, It is enough, He dismissed them; as when we are addressing any one, and see that he does not understand what is said, we say, Well, let us leave him, lest we trouble him. But some say, that our Lord said, It is enough, ironically; as if He said, Since there are two swords, they will amply suffice against so large a multitude as is about to attack us.

BEDE; Or the two swords suffice for a testimony that Jesus suffered voluntarily. The one indeed was to teach the Apostles the presumption of their contending for their Lord, and His inherent virtue of healing; the other never taken out of its sheath, to show that they were not even permitted to do all that they could for His defense.

AMBROSE; Or, because the law does not forbid to return a blow, perhaps He says to Peter, as he is offering the two swords, It is enough, as though it were lawful until the Gospel; in order that there may be in the law, the knowledge of Justice; in the Gospel, perfection of goodness. There is also a spiritual sword, that you may sell your patrimony, and buy the word, by which the nakedness of the soul is clothed. There is also a sword of suffering, so that you may strip your body, and with the spoils of your sacrificed flesh purchase for yourself the sacred crown of martyrdom. Again it moves, seeing that the disciples put forward two swords, whether perhaps one is not of the Old Testament, the other of the New, whereby we are armed against the wiles of the devil. Therefore the Lord says, It is enough, because he wanted nothing who is fortified by the teaching of both Testaments.**

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You need to keep in mind two things - one, 2,000 years ago the customs and laws were very different. Two, the middle east was a conquered land, harshly occupied by armed Roman soldiers.

In Roman times, conduct between citizens and conquered peoples was often strictly formalized and controlled in many small ways.

As such, a Roman citizen or soldier could chastise a slave or non-citizen, and the slave could not retaliate - that would be mutiny, and punishable by death.

A slave or servant was chastised with a slap on the face with the open hand. This was an insulting blow, delivered to an inferior person or an animal. A non-citizen could be beaten by a citizen as much as desired with the open hand, and had no recourse. Defending themselves would mean death.

A blow with the back of the hand or a closed fist, however, was a fighting blow - one delivered between equals, and one to which anyone, even a slave could respond.

So, Jesus taught his followers a practical way of dealing with a common problem by offering the other side of their face. The natural response would be to strike again - with the back of the hand!

If the citizen yielded to the temptation to strike again with the back of the hand or the closed fist, then he had offered a challenge to fight as an equal. Now the slave (or non-roman) could retaliate without fear of being condemned to death for mutiny.

The same can be said when Jesus advised people, when asked to walk a mile, then to respond by walking a second mile. Roman soldiers could legally require any non-citizen to carry their packs (weighing 60 pounds) for one mile. But there was a very severe penalty for compulsion beyond one mile. A non-citizen who carried a pack a second mile could cause the soldier to be demoted, fined, flogged or even discharged.

Our retired Monsignor once gave a very informative homily on all of this.

I found this post informative and the perspectives thought provoking. I wished I knew some sources for these perspectives, so I could research them in more depth.

I question that Jesus taught to offer the other cheek for the purposes of possibly turning an insulting blow into an opportunity to respond to violence with violence, because of the writings of the Saints and Church Doctors. I would be willing to post those writings on the “offer the other cheek” verses, which are not referenced in the Catechism, if you wish.

Also, causing me to question the interpretation, in checking 10 versions of the Bible, only 1 used the word “slap”, and that was the modernized version (New Jerusalem Bible). All the others use the words “striketh” or “smiteth”. The Greek word used was “tupto”. The Latin word used was “percutit”, which is “beat, strike; pierce.”

**G5180
τύπτω
tuptō
toop’-to
A primary verb (in a strengthened form); to “thump”, that is, cudgel or pummel (properly with a stick or bastinado), but in any case by repeated blows; thus differing from G3817 and G3960, which denote a [usually single] blow with the hand or any instrument, or G4141 with the fist [or a hammer], or G4474 with the palm; as well as from G5177, an accidental collision); by implication to punish; figuratively to offend (the conscience): - beat, smite, strike, wound.
**

I am open minded on this subject, as I said, I found this post thought provoking. Do you by any chance have any sources where I could read more on the subject?

Thanks again for posting Sir Knight.

 

[GailMac]

How about this - Be a good soldier for Christ and try not to get hurt in the process!

May God bless you and Mary keep you!

Peace,

Gail

P.S. When you get home pray a hundred Rosaries for every blasted one of 'em! Go team!

 

[Sir_Knight]

I found this post informative and the perspectives thought provoking. I wished I knew some sources for these perspectives, so I could research them in more depth.

I question that Jesus taught to offer the other cheek for the purposes of possibly turning an insulting blow into an opportunity to respond to violence with violence

Why would you question it when the OT tells us “an eye for an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth” AND Jesus often said that He did NOT come to abolish the old law but to fulfill it.

I am open minded on this subject, as I said, I found this post thought provoking. Do you by any chance have any sources where I could read more on the subject?

Unfortunately, no. We had a retired Monsignor in our parish a few years ago and he was a fountain of information. Just about every one of his homilies contained this type of “historical stuff”. Our family made it a point to try and attend his masses as often as possible (which was hard to do since we never knew in advance which priest had which mass) so we could learn as much as we could about the history of our faith – which, as you have observed, does not appear to be common knowledge any more.

Thanks again for posting Sir Knight.

You are most welcome.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why would you question it when the OT tells us “an eye for an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth” AND Jesus often said that He did NOT come to abolish the old law but to fulfill it.

Christ was the new covenant and he specifically addressed the Old Testament verses speaking of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”

**Mat 5:38 You have heard that it hath been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
Mat 5:39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: **

 

[Sir_Knight]

Thanks for posting Sir Knight,

You’ve brought up the fact that Catholic commentaries are not official Church teachings, twice now. I am in agreement. I however have to ask how we decide what the teaching should be on scriptures that are not referenced in the Catechism? Then would it be alright to consider Catholic commentaries and the writings of the early Church fathers, in your opinion?

Just as you think no explanation was given because the passage means what it says, as you say, “Jesus is talking about buying real swords for His followers to use for self defense purposes”, I offer the writings of other Catholic opinions on these scriptures, which are not referenced in the Catechism. These writings comes from the St. Thomas Aquinas Catena Aurea (Golden Chain), I feel confident you will recognize the names of the authors of those writings.

Because of character limitations, I am spreading those writings over the next two posts.

We need to look at this logically. Scripture tells us in Mark 4:34 that while Jesus spoke in parables to the crowds, He explained EVERYTHING privately to His Apostles. If, the Apostles misunderstood and Jesus was not referring to real swords, why did He not explain that to them? Maybe because no explanation was needed because the Apostles understood correctly.

Jesus is preparely the Apostles to spread the Gospel message after He is gone. Would it make sense for Jesus to see that the Apostles misunderstood something and not explain it to them since if they misunderstood, they’ll be preaching the wrong message? Not something that one would expect from the “great teacher”.

This Gospel account was writtne many years later after the Holy Spirit opened the minds of the Aposltles to the Gospel. Does it make sense that they would explain all of Jesus’s other teaching but not this one? Highly unlikely. The only possible reason why a true explanation isn’t offered is because the Apostles already understood the true meaning.

None of these “problems” are present if you accept the fact that the Apostles understood Jesus correctly and Jesus was referring to physically swords.

And if Jesus did not mean a physical sword, why did He mix it in with other physical items in that passage? That’s rather confusing ESPECIALLY if He didn’t bother to explain it. Again, something that a “great teacher” would not do.

And, again, if Jesus did not mean a physical sword, then what does this passage mean? * … Sell your coat and buy a sword … * – what does that mean if it isn’t referring to physical items? Sell our coat and but what?

Nope. Jesus was referring to physical weapons. Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken because it raises too many issues which can not be explained away. NONE of these issues come up if one takes the position that Jesus was talking about actual swords.