As The Church Makes Them Out To Be
As The Church Makes Them Out To Be
 |
Church has absolutely no defense against procurement of swords. |
|
It is true that the disciples of Jesus exhibited some laziness in carrying out the instructions of Jesus strictly, due to their physical exhaustion, but without a double they were very loyal to their master and were ready to lay down their lives for him to ensure his safety.
Did they not say that they were ready to die with him?
“PETER SAID UNTO HIM (Jesus) THOUGH I SHOULD DIE WITH THEE, YET I WILL NOT DENY THEE. LIKE WISE ALSO SAID ALL THE DISCIPLES” (Matt: 26:35)
One can well imagine and understand how the disciples abided by their commitment under the situation at that time when they were completely surrounded by the enemy. The disciples were only a handful armed with just two swords, where as the enemy was very large in number, fully armed with weapons. It was not a single combat to show each other’s might or to fight one at a time, but to be charged by the enemy en-masse. And the disciples were helplessly encircled by the enemy. In a situation like that does any one dare oppose or use swords against the enemy? But see how courageous and ferocious and firm the disciples were in the service of their master!.
“They said unto him, lord shall we smite with the sword?” (Luke: 22:49)
And even without waiting for the consent of Jesus to take that step, Peter drew out his sword and smote one of the enemy.
(Thus we read in Matthew 26:51).
“AND BEHOLD, ONE OF THEM WHICH WERE WITH JESUS STRETCHED OUT HIS HAND AND DREW HIS SWORD AND STRUCK A SERVANT OF THE HIGH PRIEST AND SMOTE OFF HIS EAR”. (these two verses prove the loyalty of the disciples).
Though the Church does not agree that the swords were acquired for defense, the aforesaid two verses clearly mean to say that the swords acquired by them were for defense purposes only. Had it not been so, how could the disciples dare seek permission from Jesus to smite the enemy with the swords? And how could Peter have used the sword against the enemy in the presence of the prince of peace?
CHURCH HAS ABSOLUTELY NO DEFENSE AGAINST PROCUREMENT OF THE SWORDS
But the Church would present the following verse in which they take shelter and contend that if Jesus had actually prepared them for the attack and also to defend themselves from the enemy then why did Jesus warn peter not to use the sword? They contend that,
“THEN SAID JESUS UNTO HIM, PUT UP AGAIN THY SWORD INTO HIS PLACE; FOR ALL THEY THAT TAKE THE SWORD SHALL PERESH WITH THE SWORD’’ . ( Matt: 26:52).
The above verse not only preaches pace as the church contends, but has a very broad triangular meaning too in it. Jesus always talked in the same meaningful way. The worth of the words of Jesus and his teachings cannot be easily weighed. His teachings are full of morals, facts and truths and covered spiritual, political and social values. They are useful in many angles and ways of life, as a great prophet of God is blessed to do.
Now let us examine how this verse carries the triangular meaning_____ Through the above verse, he teaches in the first instance the fact that whoever uses the sword shall die with ( by) the sword. Thus he established the truth in general.
Secondly he scolded Peter, who was hasty-tempered and who used the sword without calculating the power of the enemy to retaliate, and warned him to put it again into its sheath, as it was not a favourable time for them to attack the enemy, for the reason that not only the Jews were in the multitude, but the soldiers of the emperor too were present there. Jews fighting Jews would have been a different matter, but to fight the soldiers of the emperor was to court one’s own death at one’s own hands for treason. In this verse the word “Sword” was used twice the word “SWORD” which was used while saying “FOR ALL THEY THAT TAKE THE SWORD 2” Was meant that “FOR ALL THEY THAT OPPOSE” – and the second time the word “SWORD” which was used while saying “SHALL PERISH WITH THE SWORD 3 was meant that “SHALL PERISH WITH (by) THE “POWER OF RULER (or) EMPEROR”.
The whole verse was to mean that “whoever opposes the soldiers of the emperor, shall be put to death by the ruler (Emperor)”. So Jesus warned Peter to refrain from his attempt of attacking the soldiers of the emperor. Accordingly, he advised his disciples to surrender themselves.
Thirdly Jesus, indirectly threatened the enemy that if they use swords (meaning if they oppress the helpless) they might also meet with the same fate by the others. Thus Jesus wanted the enemy to realise their mistake, and go their own way by leaving Jesus and his companions there. Therefore he tactfully tried to get rid of the enemy.
Now I request the Church to understand the real message of Jesus carefully as to how it had been expressed in one verse, particularly to Peter advising him not to fight and oppose the soldiers of the ruler blindly, and in general to everyone as well not to oppress the helpless which had been used mainly as an appeal to the enemy indirectly.
Thus the foregoing verse serves the purpose intended but does not preach just the message of peace as the Church advocates. The Church should not interpret the doctrines created by it to suit it convenience. If the swords were not meant for defence purposes the Church should explain the reason for acquiring them.
REPERCUSSIONS, HAD PETER ATTACKED THE ROMAN SOLDIERS
As per (Matthews 26:51) Peter attacked the enemy with the sword. The man he attacked was fortunately a servant of the high priest, but not any one of the soldiers of the emperor. And also the man luckily escaped death narrowly by merely having his ear cut. If the injured man had died by Peter’s sword and if he had been a soldier instead of a servant of the high priest, Peter would have been accused of murder or as being a traitor by having opposed the Roman soldiers. But fortunately Peter was saved from such accusations which is a different matter with which we are however not concerned with the present arguments.
