Matthew Henry on this section;
"They must therefore expect troubles, and must not think now to have such an easy and comfortable life as they had had; no, the scene will alter. They must now in some degree suffer [i]with[/i] their Master; and, when he is gone, they must expect to suffer [i]like[/i] him. The servant is not better than his Lord. [1.] They must not now expect that their friends would be so kind and generous to them as they had been; and therefore, [i]He that has a purse, let him take it[/i], for he may have occasion for it, and for all the good husbandry he can use. [2.] They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce upon them than they had been, and they would need magazines as well as stores: [i]He that has no sword[/i] wherewith to defend himself against robbers and assassins (2Co_11:26) will find a great want of it, and will be ready to wish, some time or other, that he had sold his garment and bought one. This is intended only to show that the times would be very perilous, so that no man would think himself safe if he had not a sword by his side. But the [i]sword of the Spirit[/i] is the sword which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves with. [i]Christ having suffered for us[/i], we must arm ourselves with the same mind (1Pe_4:1), arm ourselves with an expectation of trouble, that it may not be a surprise to us, and with a holy resignation to the will of God in it, that there may be no opposition in us to it: and then we are better prepared than if we had sold a coat to buy a sword. The disciples hereupon enquire what strength they had, and find they had among them [i]two swords[/i] (Luk_22:38), of which one was Peter's. The Galileans generally travelled with swords. Christ wore none himself, but he was not against his disciples' wearing them. But he intimates how little he would have them depend upon this when he saith, [i]It is enough[/i], which some think is spoken ironically: “Two swords among twelve men! you are bravely armed indeed when our enemies are now coming out against us in great multitudes, and every one with a sword!” Yet two swords are sufficient for those who need none, having God himself to be [i]the shield of their help and the sword of their excellency[/i], Deu_33:29."
(Italics extant)
Had shelved something, now lost in regards to some of these very same questions, the two swords ... Another, regarding persecution;
[i]But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.[/i] Mat 10:23
Before going further and pray with great charity, I have often been bothered by measuring out of 'camps' and by having something of a terminology as the dividing line ... In other words, a 'doctrine' enforced as such that the only recourse is to disprove of it or join ranks. It starts with a breaking or a dividing based on suppositions, less with an effort of [i]to see if these things be so[/i]'. This is one of those that I find trouble with as it is coined, 'non-resistance' or 'Christian non-resistance'.
In the situation with the soldiers coming for the Lord I wonder if there is not a parallel to even our present day authorities. Even if wrongly accused, we still submit to their authority and like Peter if we were to brandish a sword and cut off an officers ear even if they had the wrong individual, certainly we would now have a very serious charge held against us and would be guilty under all the penalties of law.
[i]For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:[/i] Rom 13:3
I do believe that by making this whole matter one of 'doctrine' that applies across the board and in all circumstances and situations is an even greater error, one of application.
This situation, this tragic and horrific tragedy that spurned this discussion had me originally with very mixed feelings. Without the wrong intention being applied to those discussing this, there is a sense of bystanders milling about a traffic accident, giving opinion and conjecture, analysis. It is always easier to put forth 'should haves' and 'this is what ought to have been done' from our standpoint, outside looking in and as has been mentioned here prior on similar discussions, the hypotherticals that branch off can often be just as spurious. But, perhaps there is no getting around some of them to draw out our thinking, maybe it is just a guard against making statement about just how any of us might react in a given situation, when the reality of it is almost always not quite in-line with our ideals or musings.
There was something earlier mentioned about 'violence' being a default and that seems quite unnecessary and hyperbolic, especially for a Christian. There seems to be something missing in what those of us (who would be entirely honest), in being in effect, forced into doing in a situation like this, such as this sister having to take down this very troubled individual. Hardly I might suppose would she be comforting herself as a hero (though her efforts were heroic) but rather mourning over the whole situation. To have the very means of stopping and preventing even more devastation and to not use it ... I cannot fathom nor reconcile this with reason nor with scriptural mandate. It seems just as applicable to apply ...
[i]Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.[/i] Joh 15:13
as anything else that might be said. Just as easily might she have been cut down and if that had been the case, would this not take on a whole different perspective? The hypotheticals could go on to many other things, were their children present? If they were your own children and though your stance might be that of 'non-resistance', in this situation knowing there was a means of prevention and it was not used ... I am pleading for some true honesty here. It is something of an inversion but maybe I am trying to forward something that holds true by and large even of the 'unsaved' who are in positions of authority and protection; The use of firearms are those that they wish never to have to use, I have known a few police officers in the past in various employment, one a neighbor growing up.
This is not a simple matter of 'persecution' either as was pointed out. There is a great difference here and my chagrin that it could even be considered as such. Appealing back to the verse above, the Lord Himself told them to [i]flee[/i]. How does 'non-resistance' apply if one is contradicting the definition by running away?
Perhaps my discomfort with so much of this is that it is made to be far too simple when the tension and circumstances each have there own place and might I say, provision.
To imagine the very worst of someone attempting to do violence to my loved ones, the Brethren, one of you, even he that might be my 'enemy' in a particular situation if the greater injustice was to stand by and do nothing for him ... is unthinkable. There is something entirely spurious to spiritualize incredible situations that demand an action and a reaction in the moment they occur and do nothing, it is highly irrational. But I am also equating this not to true persecution but to that which ... I just do not find these particulars so difficult to resolve, it seems we can be talking right past each others "I know" by being far too didactic.
[i]Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?[/i] Mat 26:52,53
Right in the midst of this particular incident is a very grave threat from the Lord Himself, in effect He was threatening them with ... violence no? What else might He have been trying to imply here? Yet He goes on;
[i]But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?[/i] Mat 26:54
For a purpose otherwise, that which we all are quite aware of. Yet still the threat. Furthermore, how can we also reconcile a doctrine of non-resistance positions to those things expressed in the book of Revelations or for instance;
[i]Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;[/i] 2Th 1:7-9
[i]And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?[/i] Rev 6:10
[i]And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.[/i] Rev 14:20
The correlation to angels spoken earlier in a threat if you will with these passages, recompense, vengeance and avenging. Much horrific bloodshed, Gods righteous indignation, note even that it is a [i]righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you[/i].
So how to reconcile all the passages that we do know very well of in regards to our taking our own vengeance, to turning the other cheek and so forth with all the other mentions and considerations? Is it simple, all the things we have had many discussions over this? In one sense I would like to say yes, it is. Much in scripture is spoken to our place of personal effrontery to our often peevish offendedness to defending ourselves, interesting to note this manner of 'resistance', where we are admonished to practice it most we seem to do least, defending ourselves by quarreling and being divisive, quite unwilling to practice ...
[i]I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.[/i] 1Co 6:6-8
[i]And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,[/i] 2Ti 2:24
All this just being presented for consideration. On the other hand there is much in way of difficulty that makes other matters not so easy to simply resolve. War. And Christian participation. True persecution, that which is happening presently in our times and that in the past. There are a number of veterans in our midst who speak from experience, indeed pastorfrin has challenged much of my heart and thinking, I recall making one of his posts 'sticky' for this very reason. It may be my poor memory but I seem to be having trouble locating it, at any rate there is much to be considered, a good place would be here;
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=15338&forum=35&post_id=&refresh=Go]We Need to Talk About Peace[/url]
It would be quite audacious to speak towards anything in this realm (war) having never entered into it, that makes so much of all these things mentioned only thoughts in expression not necessarily in conclusion. Perhaps it is all a long way around stating that it just depends.
