He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one”.
– Jesus Christ, according to Luke 22:36 (New International Version)
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the millenniumSeptember 21st, 2006 |
 29 comments to Samizdata quote of the millennium |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Um, I somehow feel that you are taking this verse out of its context. Jesus said this to some of the disciples before heading out to the Garden of Gethsemane where he would be betrayed. It was a part of his fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy.
It has nothing to do with making war/self defence.
So Gareth, he was not advising people to purchase a weapon?
Sell your cloak and buy a sword.
So Christ was in favour of legislation against concealed weapons…
Quote of The Millenium – huh.
You lot planning on selling “22:36” T-shirts at Libertarian does?
As he was surely not urging his followers to sin, clearly there was nothing wrong with buying a sword. It really is that simple.
What a great idea!
I’ve heard this line of argument before, and I believe it is mistaken. Reread the passage: When Jesus exhorts them to buy a sword if they do not have one, he is speaking of the future when they will be sent out to preach the Gospel again, not of the immediate moment. Jesus fulfilled prophecy by being “numbered among the transgressors” simply by virtue of being arrested and tried as a criminal, not because his followers had swords. I would like to emphasize once again that there is no urgency in Jesus’ exhortation to purchase a sword.
He didn’t say, “Hey do we have swords in here, because if not someone needs to grab a couple quickly.” He said, “Remember when I sent you out to preach the Gospel last with absolutely nothing? How did you do? Fine? Well I’ll be sending you out again, and this time you need to go prepared with plenty of resources: a purse, a bag, and if you don’t have a sword, sell your garment to buy one because it’ll come in handy.”
I think that here Jesus does endorse the use of violence, not as a means of taking vengence upon one’s enemies, but simply as a matter of bare self-preservation when one comes under attack. I also do not find violent self-defense and the exhortation to love one’s enemies to be mutually exclusive alternatives. The crux of the issue is the motive, nature, and context of one’s application of violent force.
There are also several other passages from Scripture that support the libertarian or “classical” liberal point of view. In fact the social architects of the freest government in history, were mostly Christians with a knowledge and understanding of the Bible that greatly surpasses the typical modern Christian’s. I’d also recommend a reading of Locke’s second treatise. I had no clue until I started reading it that he supports his views of government so thoroughly based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, which he constantly quotes and references throughout.
The King James version:
“Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one”
… so Jesus was also advocating the use of non-legal tender currency. Truly a libertarian before his time.
This is clearly about Dungeons & Dragons.
Is there any reliable record of how Jesus supposedly said this in Aramaic? Because once one gets down to debating such nuances, one needs to refer to the exact phrasing in the original language.
Romans 13:2-4
Pshaw! Everyone knows God speaks English!
I, conversely, believe the meaning is best conveyed by paraphrasing. When I cited this verse in a comment to the previous post, the misnumbering was an error but the choice of the word sidearm was deliberate. A sword was the close-range defensive weapon of that age; carrying one today would be silly. A handgun fills the equivalent usage category.
Perry,
More specifically, He speaks English with James Mason’s accent.
Yes, and that is a bit disturbing because she looks a lot like Alanis Morissette!
I truly wish God had spoken English in first-century Judea (and in seventh-century Arabia). No one there would have understood a bloody word, and so the world would have been spared an immense amount of unnecessary bother.
That’s the best libertarian Bible passage you could come up with? There’s way better stuff in there. Try Colossians 2:20-23 (“sin laws” are worthless), or John 12:1-8 (Judas: the first socialist?), or 2 Thessalonians 3:10 (work or starve. Even the most hardcore fiscal conservative would hesitate to make a statement like that!)
As to the Romans 13 passage mentioned above, notice that most libertarians (myself included) do not generally advocate rebelling against the government’s law, but rather seek to change the law through peaceful and orderly means. Most libertarians have the utmost respect for the rule of law, as long as the law is just. Outright rebellion is more likely to spring from ideologies like communism than libertarianism.
carrying one today would be silly.
No it wouldn’t; it would be kind of stylish. Though the police are unlikely to be understanding in a Britain where carrying any kind of knife (not clear how you’re supposed to get cooking utensils back from the shop you buy them in) is a criminal offence.
In the early 80s (when there actually were numerous hijackings ) I was permitted to take an epée on more than one plane as hand luggage – though they would insist on x-raying it first.
But a mere two verses later: The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied.
So what Jesus is really saying is that only one in six of us needs to carry a sidearm. I understand that much of eastern Africa and the Middle East is armed, as are all of Sweden and Switzerland, and much of the US, so I feel it would be against the Lord’s teachings to proliferate weapons any further.
No it wouldn’t; it would be kind of stylish. Though the police are unlikely to be understanding in a Britain where carrying any kind of knife (not clear how you’re supposed to get cooking utensils back from the shop you buy them in) is a criminal offence.
Where is Scramasax when you need him?
‘As long as the law is just’ is indeed the issue and if it is just, there is no problem to begin with.
For all the rest however there is a wide range of options between open (and presumably armed) rebellion and cooperation… I am a great believer in ‘spanner-throwing’. Just making laws unworkable via civil disobedience or ‘playing the letter’ can be rewarding activities. And minor ‘Captain Gatso’ style acts of rebellion make for good sport as well
The office took quite an interest in this quote this morning and the answer we got from Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust seems to agree with the line that the quote endorses self-defence and certainly not forced conversion:
Quite apart from the rest of the teaching of the New Testament which is
quite clear that violence has no place in the advancement of the Christian
message, the immediate context in Luke 22 shows that the sword is not to
be used to inflict violence on Christ’s enemies.
See verses 47-51:
“47 And while He was still speaking, behold, a multitude; and he who was
called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them and drew near to Jesus
to kiss Him. 48 But Jesus said to him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son
of Man with a kiss?” 49 When those around Him saw what was going to
happen, they said to Him, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right
ear. 51 But Jesus answered and said, “Permit even this.” And He touched
his ear and healed him.”
Jesus here clearly condemns the use of the sword against his enemies.
Elsewhere in the NT, it is clear that violence is not to be used as a
means of spreading the gospel message. For example:
2 Corinthians 10:4-5: “4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but
mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and
every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing
every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ”
Christianity has always been a religion of the word, not of the sword.
This is reflected in the ‘armour’ of the Christian soldier in Ephesians 6,
where the only offensive weapon listed is “the sword of the Spirit, which
is the word of God” (Eph 6:17), and certainly the practice of the apostles
with their emphasis on preaching and teaching was in keeping with this.
So how, then, are we to understand Christ’s words in Luke 22:36 – “he who
has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has
no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one”?
I think the point being emphasised is that the disciples are now facing a change in their circumstances. Up until now, Christ has been with them in
the flesh; he has taken responsibility for them, and the missions he has
sent them on have been short-term. That is about to change. The shepherd
is about to be struck, and the sheep will be scattered (Zech 13:7; Matt
26:31). They must prepare for flight. Later, they would be sent on
missionary journeys further afield. On their travels, they would need
their money, a knapsack for their belongings and a sword as a means of
defence and protection against wild animals and bandits (swords were
commonly carried by Galileans, not as an offensive weapon, but as a means
of protection and for the preparation of food etc). It has nothing to do
with the use of force to impose the Christian message or to take vengeance
on their enemies.
Once you’ve bought the sword, you can always use it to rob the seller and get your cloak back.
I’ll get me cloak.
“As to the Romans 13 passage mentioned above, notice that most libertarians (myself included) do not generally advocate rebelling against the government’s law, but rather seek to change the law through peaceful and orderly means.”
Wasn’t intending to imply otherwise. The point of the verse is to say the function of rulers is to smite evil on behalf of God, and one is not supposed to stop them doing so. My point was that the New Testament isn’t entirely as pacifist as it is portrayed, but does set limits and controls on the use of violence.
I and no doubt some others would have problems with ‘the divine right of kings’ being the basis and authority for that control, but that’s a sideline to the argument. It is simply a less ambiguous example of non-pacifism than the ‘sword and cloak’ verse. Christianity is not some hippy fantasy about love and flowers.
I have long been able to imagine some human rights lawyers re-writing Revelations so the Archangel Michael follows the Geneva Conventions about banned weapons, collateral damage, treatment of prisoners, respecting legal procedure on capturing Satan, etc.
(Before I get told, Yes, I know Michael isn’t in Revelations, we’re talking about a re-write.)
ummm… WILDLY IN FAVOR of the Luke 22:36 t-shirt. I’ll buy one! I’ll design it, if anyone wants me to. (real live graphic designer here.)
doesn’t jesus refer to non believers as ‘dogs’ at some point? Also (if not already mentioned) he speaks of ‘coming not to bring peace,but a sword’….
Where can one purchase Luke 22:36 bumperstickers?
I should have kept my earlier suggestion to myself until I’d set it all up on Cafepress. Bugger!
Nick M, what makes you think you’d have been the first anyway?
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/cloak%20sword/-/cfpt2_/copt_/cfpt_/source_searchBox/x_0/y_0
Rich
Rich,
Just rub it in. Just rub it in. I wanted a fortune and a fatwa.