What does the bible say about guns and other weapons?

[Robert_Sock]

“…for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
Matt 26:52

 

[chero23]

In my opinion that’s as simple as you can put it, when it comes to guns, knives and violence

 

[bilop]

“…for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
Matt 26:52

Yet Christ also said,

But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.

St. Luke, Ch. 22

God Bless

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yet Christ also said,

St. Luke, Ch. 22

God Bless

The Great Biblical Commentary of Cornelius Lapide

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?”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yet Christ also said,

St. Luke, Ch. 22

God Bless

The St. Thomas Aquinas Catena Aurea

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,

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.

To be continued:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

…continued.

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]

Yet Christ also said,

St. Luke, Ch. 22

God Bless

A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture

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.

 

[PJM]

=Robert Sock;10147996]"…for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."
Matt 26:52

OK, BUT

Swords like guns don’t Kill; people do.

IMO having removed God from our schools and OUR government buildings has a GREAT bit of responsibility in what has “shocked” us.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

OK, BUT

Swords like guns don’t Kill; people do.

IMO having removed God from our schools and OUR government buildings has a GREAT bit of responsibility in what has “shocked” us.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

When the Lord spoke of living by the sword and perishing by the sword, He addressed the consequences of human participation, and not of the inanimate object itself.

Living by the sword would be preaching everyone take up a sword and be ready…

 

[Robert_Sock]

OK, BUT

Swords like guns don’t Kill; people do.

IMO having removed God from our schools and OUR government buildings has a GREAT bit of responsibility in what has “shocked” us.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

But people kill too easily with guns!

 

[superamazingman]

But people kill too easily with guns!

If someone wants to kill, they’ll get it done, whether it’s slightly easier with a gun, or a little harder with something else.

 

[bilop]

When the Lord spoke of living by the sword and perishing by the sword, He addressed the consequences of human participation, and not of the inanimate object itself.

Living by the sword would be preaching everyone take up a sword and be ready…

My quote was simply meant to show that “verse picking” is meaningless. We rely on the Church, not isolated lines of Scripture. You’ll also note that Christ never said those people who take up the sword are damned.

But, bottom line, the Church is not pacifist. The Church had always allowed self-defense, and the keeping of arms for self-defense.

The Church also defines the defense of others as a “grave duty” for those with responsibility for them.

CCC

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.

If you have a wife or child, you are *morally required *to be able to defend them.

God Bless

 

[aicirt]

But people kill too easily with guns!

Many people were killed well before guns were invented.

In 1927 in Michigan, a school was bombed and kids were killed. Uni-bomber used explosives in letters, OK was accomplished by bombs. 9/11 with box cutters. A Sunday school was bombed druing the civil rights struggle in the 1960s.

 

[bilop]

Many people were killed well before guns were invented.

In 1927 in Michigan, a school was bombed and kids were killed. Uni-bomber used explosives in letters, OK was accomplished by bombs. 9/11 with box cutters. A Sunday school was bombed druing the civil rights struggle in the 1960s.

Very true. The murder rate in Medieval Europe was far higner than in the modern world.

God Bless

 

[Robert_Sock]

Many people were killed well before guns were invented.

In 1927 in Michigan, a school was bombed and kids were killed. Uni-bomber used explosives in letters, OK was accomplished by bombs. 9/11 with box cutters. A Sunday school was bombed druing the civil rights struggle in the 1960s.

Yes, people kill. But how many were killed with the assistance of a gun as opposed, say, a box cutter?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My quote was simply meant to show that “verse picking” is meaningless. We rely on the Church, not isolated lines of Scripture. You’ll also note that Christ never said those people who take up the sword are damned.

But, bottom line, the Church is not pacifist. The Church had always allowed self-defense, and the keeping of arms for self-defense.

The Church also defines the defense of others as a “grave duty” for those with responsibility for them.

CCC

If you have a wife or child, you are *morally required *to be able to defend them.

God Bless

It seems you overlooked the explanation of your purpose of posting the scriptures. It appeared to be a refutation of what the other poster posted.

Has anyone stated that we have no duty to protect the innocent?

We can protect others in many ways, one of which is to limit the implements of death, as well as actually defend them physically. To say we all need to arm ourselves and be on the ready, seems to be living by the ‘sword’, or gun in this case. Conversion of hearts works on the necessity of having to live by the ‘sword’.

Just as we cannot cherry pick lines of scriptures, we shouldn’t be cherry picking teachings from the Church. Scriptures and the Church are supportive of each other and not independent, putting one at odds with the other.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Many people were killed well before guns were invented.

In 1927 in Michigan, a school was bombed and kids were killed. Uni-bomber used explosives in letters, OK was accomplished by bombs. 9/11 with box cutters. A Sunday school was bombed druing the civil rights struggle in the 1960s.

Scriptures tell us that people were killed with ‘stones’ also; however, Christ stopped the legitimate law of the times to save the woman from being stoned.

Do we today require that Christ should have said, ‘those who live by the bow, sword, stone, spear, knife, poison, bludgeoning, etc.?’ We understand His teachings. They are not something to be litigated, and dissected, in hopes we can stretch it to fit our own personal views. Our views should succumb to His teachings.

 

[superamazingman]

Our views should succumb to His teachings.

But don’t forget that he also teaches through the church, who’s role is to interpret the scriptures for us. And the church is quite clear that we not only can act in self defense, but if we are responsible for others, we are obligated to do so.

THAT’s what He teaches. See the catechism.

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.

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

I’m confused Is this discussion about whether or not it is ok to posess/use weapons or whether or not it is ok to use them against another human being?

There are different answers to each of these questions.

Is it ok to have a weapon? If I need it for hunting, trapping, killing wild animals to protect my livestock, then I think the answer is Yes.

Is it ok to use my weapon to harm another human being? Well that’s a whole different kettle of fish. I must only do so in valid defense of myself or another, never out of vengence, hatred, or lack of self-control; never should I forget that the person, whom I am bringing injury to, is a child of God made in His Image and likeness, with an immortal soul; and only if I have exhausted every other opportunity and means at my disposal to find a non-violent end to their attack. Our intention behind the action is everything.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But don’t forget that he also teaches through the church, who’s role is to interpret the scriptures for us. And the church is quite clear that we not only can act in self defense, but if we are responsible for others, we are obligated to do so.

THAT’s what He teaches. See the catechism.

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.

I provided Catholic Bible commentaries and excerpts from the early Church fathers. I have not tried to privately interpret scriptures.

I have not denied a duty to defend.

I believed there is a reasoned defense, don’t you?