"Thou shall not kill" question

[Brendan]

There were a number of times that people came to arrest Jesus, if he had a sword, then he could have defended himself. But it seems that Jesus lived more by the greatest commandments, and chose to escape capture instead of defending himself…

Correct. Christ had to die so that our sins might be atoned for, and that we might share in His Resurrection.

That is true for no other person.

It seems that Jesus never carried a sword to defend himself with, so why would he ask his disciples to take two swords to the Garden of Gethsemane, if he was not going to use one himself?

So that they might defend themselves. Christ had legions of angels at His disposal, and yes, He could have called on them to defend Him from Death.

But then mankind would never had been Redeemed. That was the entire purpose for Christ becoming Incarnate, so that He could die in atonement for our sins.

The death of the disciples would have Redeemed no one, thus they, like us, are charged to defend our lives.

it seems that he didn’t want his disciples to defend him, so why did he even bother to say two swords are enough.

The swords were not to defend Christ, but to defend themselves. Note that Christ was issuing instructions on how they should go out to Preach the Gospel, not what they should do in the Gethsemane.

He said to them, “When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?” “No, nothing,” they replied.
He said to them,* “But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.

He asked them to bring a money bag, a sack and sandals. What was the money for, to bribe the guards? Or the sack.

These are instructions on how to go out into the world, exactly as He sent them before. The prior time, they were sent and told to bring no money, and it was only for a short period. This time, the permanent time, they were to carry money, a sack, wear sandals and bear a sword.

As to what He meant when he said ‘Enough’, it simply mean that they had a sufficient quantity

See post #17 - forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13730335&postcount=17

 

[Gorgias]

As to what He meant when he said ‘Enough’, it simply mean that they had a sufficient quantity

So… two swords among 11 apostles is “a sufficient quantity”?

Oh – I get it, now! Jesus meant “two of ya’ll are allowed to defend yourselves; the rest of ya are outta luck…”

See post #17 - forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13730335&postcount=17

The definition of the word doesn’t give you the meaning of the sentence. “OK, guys… That’s enough, now!” would fit, too…

 

[Brendan]

Please understand that a gun is not a defensive weapon. It is offensive. .

Every weapon, by definition is offensive. But they are also defensive.

The fact of their presence deters. Hence why nations have militaries.

When a police officer draws at points a gun at a criminal and gives instruction to cease their activity, that is defense. The purpose and use is to stop violence, to cause the violent action to cease.

Christ, being omniscient, understands that simple fact more deeply than even we do.

 

[Ender]

Please understand that a gun is not a defensive weapon. It is offensive.

Guns, as well as knives, axes, clubs, etc are neither; they are merely tools. The defensive or offensive nature of their use comes entirely from the individual who employs them.

That is part of the problem and why I think that Jesus would see guns as something that escalates violence rather than protects and defends from it.

I think it’s usually best not to try to speak for Jesus.

To become a Christian nation however, means that we need to amend the constitution and remove guns from the entire nation.

Amending the Constitution is a right citizens enjoy, and you have every right to try to ban the private ownership of guns. There is nothing particularly Christian, however, about being on either side of that debate. That is a political judgment about the likely effect of enacting a particular law, and neither the church nor Christ can be appropriately cited in support of it.

More to the point, what the American Constitution does or should say on the matter has nothing to do with what the church teaches, and she clearly does not oppose self-defense even if it results in the death of the aggressor.

Ender

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Correct. Christ had to die so that our sins might be atoned for, and that we might share in His Resurrection.

That is true for no other person.

Amen

The swords were not to defend Christ, but to defend themselves. Note that Christ was issuing instructions on how they should go out to Preach the Gospel, not what they should do in the Gethsemane.

But Gethsemane happened before they were sent out, and Jesus said, to put away your swords, those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

He asked them to bring a money bag, a sack and sandals. What was the money for, to bribe the guards? Or the sack.

If the disciples tried to bribe the guards, I am sure Jesus would have made a comment.

These are instructions on how to go out into the world, exactly as He sent them before. The prior time, they were sent and told to bring no money, and it was only for a short period. This time, the permanent time, they were to carry money, a sack, wear sandals and bear a sword.

Jesus never carried a sword, and Jesus lead by example during his ministry. There are many martyrs, who rather than fight for their faith, died for their faith, and we recognise them. St. Paul could have done with a sword, his journeys were long, dangerous and extraordinary.

If we have to try and justify using swords and guns, then it is probably not the best thing to do. If I want to go and help homeless people, I don’t have to quote scripture to justify what I want to do, it is just right to do help them, and it falls in line with the greatest commandments, unlike swords.

 

[Ender]

But Gethsemane happened before they were sent out, and Jesus said, to put away your swords, those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

If you put your own interpretation on scripture you can probably get it to mean pretty much anything. If you want to understand what scripture actually says, however, you need to know how the church interprets it. *Secondly, it is proved from the testimony of the Fathers. … St. Hilary says that it is certainly lawful to kill in two cases, if a man is fulfilling the duty of a judge, or if he is using a weapon in his own defense. *(St. Bellarmine)
One can hardly use a weapon justly in his own defense if he may not justly have the weapon in the first place.

Jesus never carried a sword…

Clerics are held to a different standard.*…all the clerical Orders are directed to the ministry of the altar, on which the Passion of Christ is represented sacramentally, … Wherefore it is unbecoming for them to slay or shed blood, and it is more fitting that they should be ready to shed their own blood for Christ, so as to imitate in deed what they portray in their ministry. *(Aquinas ST II-II 40,2)
It is also appropriate to point out that Jesus never condemned those who carried swords, neither those who served in the military nor private individuals.

Ender

 

[Frankenfurter]

The real issue with guns is that they fall into the wrong hands.

I think the gun debate usually goes astray. We worry about self defense, people’s rights, which are legitimate issues.

But we don’t discuss the fact that so many innocent kids are hurt or killed by accident. Or the fact that guns find their way to crazy people.

Perhaps we could use a less emotional surrogate. Suppose we were instead discussing, say rat poison.

Now rat poison can be used to defend your house against an infestation. But nobody thinks we should give rat poison to kids to play with, and we take care to store it away from where our kids or pets could come in contact with it. But it is for sale in hardware stores, and can be bought be anyone. We seem to have found a balanced approach and we are OK with it. Common sense has prevailed.

Now imagine a new kind of rat poison that works instantly and can kill a dozen rats with the flick of a switch in a10 foot radius, but if accidentally came in contact with kids or pets would kill them too. I bet that such a new potent kind of rat poison would be banned. The problem is the potential for accidents is too high, even though it works really well on rat infestations.

Now what would Jesus say about or new rat poison?

I am thinking the Gospel quotes about swords and self defense don’t apply here. But instead the one’s referring to how Jesus loves children are more appropriate.Or Though shall not kill.

Or perhaps we need: Though shall not make it really easy to kill a lot of people really quickly by accident.

Do we really need to wait for the second coming, or for Moses to go back up the mountain to figure this common sense one out for ourselves?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

If you put your own interpretation on scripture you can probably get it to mean pretty much anything. Ender

What did Jesus mean when he said, ‘put away your swords, those who live by the sword, die by the sword.’ How can you justify self defence using this passage?

If you want to understand what scripture actually says, however, you need to know how the church interprets it.

*Secondly, it is proved from the testimony of the Fathers. … St. Hilary says that it is certainly lawful to kill in two cases, if a man is fulfilling the duty of a judge, or if he is using a weapon in his own defense. *(St. Bellarmine)
​

This sounds like an Old Testament solution, very much like saying, Moses gave us the right to divorce, but it was always intended to be marriage for life.

One can hardly use a weapon justly in his own defense if he may not justly have the weapon in the first place.

But what did Jesus say, that justifies this?

Clerics are held to a different standard.

*…all the clerical Orders are directed to the ministry of the altar, on which the Passion of Christ is represented sacramentally, … Wherefore it is unbecoming for them to slay or shed blood, and it is more fitting that they should be ready to shed their own blood for Christ, so as to imitate in deed what they portray in their ministry. *(Aquinas ST II-II 40,2)
​

I believe this is what Jesus intended for all of us, God first, neighbour second, self last.
You can do nothing greater than love God and neighbour, these commandments are sacrificial.​

 

[Rau]

I believe this is what Jesus intended for all of us, God first, neighbour second, self last.

Love neighbour as self would seem to put the two on par. I don’t think that calls for us to sacrifice one self to an errant neighbour. And when one neighbour attacks another unjustly, I don’t think it suggests we should stand by meekly.

 

[Ender]

What did Jesus mean when he said, ‘put away your swords, those who live by the sword, die by the sword.’ How can you justify self defence using this passage?

My interpretation of that passage is meaningless. I can, however, cite an explanation by someone whose understanding has real credibility.*And as for “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” these words cannot be rightly understood except in this sense: Every one who commits an unjust murder ought in turn to be condemned to death by the magistrate. *(St. Bellarmine)

This sounds like an Old Testament solution, very much like saying, Moses gave us the right to divorce, but it was always intended to be marriage for life.

Yet this interpretation is given by a Father of the Church and cited approvingly by a Doctor of the Church. Those are not OT views. They are Catholic views.

But what did Jesus say, that justifies this?

Why does it matter whether Jesus expressly addressed this issue? The church has never restricted her doctrines to what can be gleaned from scripture. This is why you should not do it either.*…sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others. *(Dei Verbum #10)
You cannot ignore what the church teaches, and she does not base her teaching solely on scripture.

I believe this is what Jesus intended for all of us, God first, neighbour second, self last. You can do nothing greater than love God and neighbour, these commandments are sacrificial.

But this is directly contrary to what the church teaches. She has always made a distinction between what was proper for the clergy and what was proper to lay professions. *18. **Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood ***
*No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out. … A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics. *(Fourth Lateran Council)
This canon even prevented clerics from serving as surgeons: No subdeacon, deacon, or priest shall practice that part of surgery involving burning and cutting.
You have an opinion on the subject, but it is not in accord with what the church actually teaches.

Ender

 

[Frankenfurter]

Proposed 2nd amendment change (change in bold).

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

Many scholars and judges actually think that these 4 words actually clarify the real meaning and that the NRA was responsible for a campaign to ALTER the original meaning.

Was the original wording just bad writing?

And BTW the well regulated Militia is the National Guard.

 

[Gorgias]

Proposed 2nd amendment change

Many scholars and judges actually think

And that would be a particular interpretation, and would be an opinion, and a ‘change’, rather than a ‘clarification’. The real question is whether that clarifies the original intent of the framers, or if it’s the intent of those offering the opinion… right?

And BTW the well regulated Militia is the National Guard.

Unless you assert, as many have, that “well-regulated” meant “appropriately armed” in 18th century parlance…

 

[Rau]

And that would be a particular interpretation, and would be an opinion, and a ‘change’, rather than a ‘clarification’. The real question is whether that clarifies the original intent of the framers, or if it’s the intent of those offering the opinion… right?

Unless you assert, as many have, that “well-regulated” meant “appropriately armed” in 18th century parlance…

The larger issue for the people is not so much what the Constitution originally meant, but whether it expresses clearly the will of the people today. While amending Constitutions should not be routinely required, the need to do so on occasion should not itself dissuade the people from implementing important, well supported societal changes. The Constitution must serve the people in the present and beyond. It is not sacrosanct.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Proposed 2nd amendment change (change in bold).

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

I am so grateful to live under UK law, anyone caught carrying a gun or knife, even for defensive purposes, can face imprisonment.

 

[Gorgias]

I am so grateful to live under UK law, anyone caught carrying a gun or knife, even for defensive purposes, can face imprisonment.

Does that gratefulness make you feel safer?

“The United States is often seen from abroad as a relatively lawless society, with murders and gun-related crimes aplenty. But a recent series of Gallup surveys in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States suggests that the image may be somewhat distorted. According to the surveys, the overall crime rate in the United States is lower than in Britain and about the same as in Canada.”

 

[Eric_Hyom]

But this is directly contrary to what the church teaches. She has always made a distinction between what was proper for the clergy and what was proper to lay professions. *18. **Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood ***

Although these teachings are intended for the clergy, there seems to be no reason as to why a lay person should not live by these teachings also.

I abhor violence and I hate to see people get hurt, having said that, I have been going out with the Street Pastor team for the last eight years on a Friday night, we can be out until 3 - 4 am. We come into contact with a fair amount of drunk violence.

We saw a group of about a dozen people fighting, as we approached, I saw a man punched to the ground, I saw a man on the floor being kicked repeatedly , and a woman was punched in the face. We walked in the middle of all this violence, and I am never sure what we do, but gradually it calmed, but there was still anger and people hurting. We stopped with this group for some time, we were thanked for being there, and had so many hugs and handshakes as the crowd dispersed at around 3 am. I was the youngest pastor in the team, I was around 65 at the time, the two ladies with me were both in their seventies.

There’s a story that makes me chuckle, we came across a group of about a dozen lads, two big lads were locked together in combat. I was with a lady in her sixties, she was about five feet tall, she grabbed hold of this big guy’s shirt, and tried to pull him off the smaller guy. The police arrived quickly, and half a dozen of these lads disappeared round the corner, we followed them to the front of our church. Angry exchanges were going on for about fifteen minutes, until the big guy turned to us and said, 'Go away, you are intimidating us.

What he said was the truth, we had intimidated them, the four lads who had hung around to see some blood, had left, one by one, leaving just the two protagonists. We phoned CCTV to keep an eye on them, they said the two lads had stopped together for a while after we left, they then shook hands and parted.

Looking at the little lady who was with me, I could understand the big guy feeling intimidated, you don’t mess with the ladies, especially if they are Irish.

I should be feeling fear and worry during these incidents, so I cannot explain to you about the profound sense of peace that I experience, it is beyond my understanding.

Everything we do depends on prayer, we put our trust in the Lord and go.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I am so grateful to live under UK law, anyone caught carrying a gun or knife, even for defensive purposes, can face imprisonment.

We really could use some help in interpreting proper English over here. I mean, the use of that pesky comma in the 2nd amendment is hideously inconvenient.

Reminds me of that classic book: Eats, Shoots, and Leaves: amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038

 

[Ender]

Although these teachings are intended for the clergy, there seems to be no reason as to why a lay person should not live by these teachings also.

A lay person may live by these teachings, but there is nothing in church doctrine that suggests he should, let alone that he must. The issue here is church doctrine on self-defense. It doesn’t matter what the US Constitution does say or should say; that’s not relevant to what the church teaches.

There really isn’t any question that the church recognizes self-defense as justifiable. Nor is there any doctrine that rules out, or raises an objection to, the personal ownership of weapons including firearms.

Ender

 

[Rau]

Although these teachings are intended for the clergy, there seems to be no reason as to why a lay person should not live by these teachings also.

The lay person may find that course appropriate. Or, the lay person, or any person, may conclude that protecting their life or that of others has merit, and that sometimes, force is necessary.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Nor is there any doctrine that rules out, or raises an objection to, the personal ownership of weapons including firearms.

I am just so pleased that I live in the UK, where it is against the law for the majority of people, to buy or own a gun.