I need to tell you about my journey to Christ, as it is the reason for starting this blog.
For most of my life I was a Christmas (c)hristian. Growing up, I went to Church every Sunday. I was baptized, confirmed, and married in the Church, but I wasn’t a Christian.
About 15 years ago my daughter began attending church on her own. She was in her early 20’s and over the next few years she established her relationship with Christ. We began talking about her experiences and I realized that I really had no idea about what it meant to be a Christian.
Through her guidance, and at times insistence, I started reading the bible and attending various study groups. Through God’s word, I was able to better comprehend the nature of the triune God I serve, and through His great mercy, I began my own relationship with Christ.
My own walk with Christ began only after I was able to set aside my ego and unconditionally accept God. Initially I was subjected to a sense of vertigo where many things that I had taken as gospel, were not.
Along the way, I examined many aspects of my life, especially my career which had some interesting twists and turns. The most unsettling realization I had in this personal examination involved my occupation.
My company delivers training, specifically firearms training to businesses, churches, schools, and communities. Our core competency is training individuals and teams to actively defend against violent threats, which in some cases requires the application of lethal force.
My reading and research generated many questions. Most were about the use of violence, whether it be a “just” war or basic self defense.
I had one particularly enlightening conversation with a pastor who had previously been in the Special Forces. Our conversation centered around the hypothetical situation of a man with a gun headed to your church nursery.
Do we standby and let the murder happen? Or do we employ any means necessary to defend the innocent?
Going further, what about pro-life supporters who are violently assaulted? Pregnancy support centers that are firebombed? Christian Churches in small town America vandalized? Or Christian parents imprisoned for defending their children from sexual grooming by activist educators?
As Christians we are taught to pray. The Lord gave us the model of prayer in the Lord’s prayer. Deliver us from evil, we ask. And through prayer we call on Jesus Christ to defend us from evil.
But what happens when prayer does not repel the violent attack? Is it God’s purpose for the slaughter to happen? What if we could have stopped it? Do we allow the slaughter to proceed?
Does God answer some of our prayers with the means and the ability to defend the innocent? And repel these attacks?
What happens when spiritual warfare results in physical attack? When the fiery darts are real?
Those were some of the questions that contributed to my vertigo.
It took me several months of prayer and conversation to find my equilibrium. I found my answers in the integration of several verses – Nehemiah 4:17 and Ephesians 6:10-12.
Together these verses provided a grounding that lead me to the conclusion that God wants us to engage, he wants us to defend the innocent, to push back the darkness, and most importantly, to learn how to defend his Kingdom.
The purpose of The Wall is to open up a conversation on the topic of Kingdom defense. You will find articles, posts, research, scripture and other items of interest that contribute to the conversation of Kingdom defense.
I have posted many sources I used in my research, both passive and active voices. I will regularly add other resources along with commentary on current events impacting Kingdom defense.
And I will continue to go deep on my cornerstone verses, Nehemiah 4:17 and Ephesians 6:10-12.
Please feel free to contact me directly at smock@defend.center. And comments are open, your input and participation is encouraged.
The story of Joshua has long confounded many Christians because of the violence. In Joshua 5:13-15, Joshua confronts an unknown soldier with drawn sword:
15 “And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?
14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come.
New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 2020)
One of the more debated verses in the Bible is that of Luke 22:36, which has Jesus telling his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword.
Luke 22:36 “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his cloak and buy one“.
Most contemporary theologians bend over back backwards to convince their audiences that Jesus was only speaking metaphorically. I disagree, but then I am not a theologian. Below are several sources that take on Luke 22:36.
As Jesus helps his disciples prepare for the future, he reminds them of the previous instructions he gave them when he sent them out on mission. Now Jesus indicates that a major change has occurred in how the things will fare for them in the future. After his death, Jesus’ disciples will experience hardship and persecution, and they must make certain they are prepared for future difficulties. It is likely that Jesus refers to acquiring a sword metaphorically, but the disciples take his word literally.
22:35 In 9:1–6 and 10:1–12, when Jesus sent out the Twelve and the Seventy, he told them that they did not need to worry about supplies, as God would supply all their needs.
22:36 In contrast with his earlier instructions, Jesus says that the time has come when his disciples need to be concerned about what supplies they have on hand. They need money, supplies, and a sword. It is not clear whether Christ’s instructions are for the immediate future or the ongoing future, but it seems that these words are Jesus’ way of helping the disciples prepare for greater resistance than they have ever faced before.Jesus’ instructions about buying a sword, while taken literally by the disciples, may have been intended metaphorically to describe their need to be on the defensive. Jesus has previously spoken against retaliation and violence and stopped his disciples when they attempted to use swords (22:51).
Douglas Mangum, ed., Lexham Context Commentary: New Testament, Lexham Context Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Lk 22:35–38.
Wikipedia collects a number of opinions and sources for the meaning of Luke 22:13
Sell your cloak and buy a sword is an instruction by Jesus to his disciples during the Last Supper[1] which has been interpreted in several ways.
Then He said to them, “But now, 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. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”
Ellul, Yoder and Archie Penner claim that two swords could not possibly have been “enough” to defend Jesus from his pending arrest, trial and execution, so their sole purpose must have been Jesus’ wish to fulfill a prophecy (Isaiah 53:9-12).[2] As Ellul explains:
The further comment of Jesus explains in part the surprising statement, for he says: “It is necessary that the prophecy be fulfilled according to which I would be put in the ranks of criminals” (Luke 22:36-37). The idea of fighting with just two swords is ridiculous. The swords are enough, however, to justify the accusation that Jesus is the head of a band of brigands. We have to note here that Jesus is consciously fulfilling prophecy. If he were not the saying would make no sense.[3]
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, in their 1871 biblical commentary, indicate “…And He said to them, It is enough – not ‘Two swords will suffice,’ but ‘Enough of this for the present’. The warning had been given, and preparation for coming dangers hinted at; but as His meaning had not been apprehended in the comprehensive sense in which it was meant, He wished to leave the subject”.[4]
Motyer, Stibbs and Wiseman in New Bible Commentary: Revised Third Edition (1977) states:
35-38- Finally, Jesus spoke of the new situation. Formerly, when the Disciples had gone out, on mission, they had not lacked anything. Now they would need a purse, a bag and even a sword. The saying is heavily ironical, for Jesus knew that now He would have to face universal opposition and be put to death. But the disciples misunderstood Him and produced weapons. ‘That is enough’, said Jesus to end a conversation which they had failed to understand. The way of Jesus, as they should have known, was not the way of the sword, but of love.[5]
Figurative
Pope Boniface VIII referred to the two swords in the medieval papal bull Unam sanctam, to represent the temporal and spiritual authority of the church. He wrote: “We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: “Behold, here are two swords” [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient.”[6]
Theologian John Gill said in his Exposition of the Entire Bible:
These words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said, as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient; which could not be enough for eleven men; or have forbid Peter the use of one, as he did in a very little time after this: but his meaning is, that wherever they came, and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries, and these powerful, and would be used with great violence, and be followed with rage and persecution; so that they might seem to stand in need of swords to defend them: the phrase is expressive of the danger they would be exposed to, and of their need of protection; and therefore it was wrong in them to be disputing and quarrelling about superiority, or looking out for, and expecting temporal pomp and grandeur, when this would be their forlorn, destitute, and afflicted condition; and they would quickly see the affliction and distress begin in himself. In “seven” ancient copies of Beza‘s, it is read in the future tense, “he shall take, he shall sell, he shall buy”.
Is there such a thing as a “just war? A bunch of academics from Emory debate the question. From the article
The idea of creating conditions that make war “morally just” dates back to the Romans and Greeks, and was further developed by St. Augustine, who, while believing that Christians should be pacifists, made an exception for fighting defensively or in the defense of innocents. In an age of terrorism, counter-insurgencies, predator drones, and PSYOP units, however, do the principles of a just war—one waged defensively, by a proper authority, for a lasting peace—still apply? We asked a cross-section of University experts to share their thoughts.
“When you go near a city to fight against it, then proclaim an offer of peace to it. And it shall be that if they accept your offer of peace, and open to you, then all the people who are found in it shall be placed under tribute to you, and serve you. Now if the city will not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the Lord your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword. But the women, the little ones, the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall plunder for yourself; and you shall eat the enemies’ plunder which the Lord your God gives you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations.” – Deuteronomy 20:10-15
From the article:
The Bible teaches that war is a result of man’s rebellion (Romans 3:10-18); that war is not something to be desired (1 Peter 3:8-12); and that Christians are looking forward to a day when all war will be eradicated (Isaiah 2:4). In this sense, Jesus is anti-war and his followers should be as well. But not all physical violence is immoral. The Bible teaches that physical violence can be a noble and righteous engagement.
Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens, loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. NEH 4:17
The Wall is part blog, part journal, part bulletin board, and part archive I set up in order to further the discussion about the use of force in defense of church and community. Learn MORE ABOUT THE WALL.
