Orthodoxdj,

“Luke 22:36 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.”

Let’s look at this verse more in context. Although Jesus commands them to buy the sword, and it appears to be the validation of the use of weapons, we see that later when the disciples actually use the sword, Jesus rebukes them for doing so.

Luke 22:51 “But Jesus answered, ‘No more of this!’ And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.”

This verse is clearly Jesus rebuking the use of violence against the persecution that was ensued. Many interpret this as being simply circumstantial because Jesus wants to be taken in order to start the fulfillment, but I would look at Matthew’s account of the incident, which is given more of a universal law.

Matthew 26:52 “‘Put your sword back in its place,’ Jesus said to him, ‘for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.’”

This, I feel, is Jesus giving a more overreaching sentiment concerning the use of weapons. The application seems to be universal. Additionally, when Jesus asks how many swords they have and they respond with “two”, Jesus replies “That is enough”. Later, we see that there was no way that the disciples could have had enough swords (two) to defend themselves from the soldiers that were coming to take Jesus. It was clear that Jesus had no intention of using the swords, but instead advocated for peace. Also, let’s consider this: If Jesus wanted his disciples to carry (and use) the sword while spreading the gospel, why is it that we see every disciple peacefully reacting to persecution. Are you prepared to make the claim the apostles were spreading the word of the Lord in a manner that Jesus didn’t intend? Consider that spreading the gospel with the sword sounds more like Islamic preaching (historically speaking).

Onto the government/citizen relationship. I think that the government is merely a consensus of individuals who decide the laws. Though we see that these laws often derive from the individual’s morality, a government is only as moral as it’s citizens. Obviously, we delegate the government and consent to the government being the source of tax collection, if this were not the case and we do not agree to the social contract that is applied to US citizens, than a person can live in a cabin in the woods (many do). As far as the United States is concerned, the people have delegated that the United States should have the authority to decide the fate of a person. However, the government derives it’s power from the people. So by extension, it is merely people deciding the fate of other people. Do humans really have this authority? I would argue not, I feel that the only case where God gave the authority to decide people’s fate was in Israel, which derived it’s governmental power from Divine providence, not from the people. I would consider Capital Punishment authority part of the Civil Law that was given to Israel, and that authority has ended since the end of the theocracy. Since this civil law was fulfilled by Jesus Christ, I feel that Jesus doesn’t grant humans the authority to decide to take another’s life.

Orthodoxdj,

You asked a lot of questions, but I’ll answer the most important ones.

“Nikoali, are you saying that when Jesus commands people to not lust that He is talking to governments?”

Yes. People do occupy the governments, ergo the government officials ought not lust. Furthermore, governments can lust for power; lust doesn’t refer to just sexual lust, although the passage in the Sermon obviously refers to sexual lust.

“If your argument is true, that governments are just an organization of people, then on what basis can any government be legitimate?”

“Further, where do the collected people get any authority at all except by consent and/or power? If you do not think government occupies a legitimate sphere of power, including the right to exercise capital punishment, then on what basis should anyone obey any laws except on purely moral grounds?”

I see now that I, as I often do, let my words fail to convey my meaning. By saying that “governments are only collections of people,” I am by no means trying to cheapen the the authority of the government. We are called as Christians to respect the governmental authorities; I have no problem paying taxes and doing other sort of things to a legitimate government, especially since I am consenting to pay the taxes. What I mean by saying, “The government is only comprised of people” is that the people within the government are still held to the same Christian standards as non-governmental individuals. Government officials do have unique powers (i.e. the right to collect taxes), but they don’t have a “second ethic” that allows morality to change for them. Although they have the unique power to collect taxes, for instance, they are still held to the same moral obligations that individuals are (doing things responsibly, not stealing, etc). I refer to the government as a “collection of individuals” because that is what they are. They are comprised of individuals that have the same moral worth as non-citizens.

“Do people have an inalienable right to drugs? If so, what’s your warrant? If not, then why not allow people to vote on whether or not they want drugs legalized?”

Certain drugs, yes. There are clear reasons: Vicodin can be just as deadly as some hard illegal drugs if used in the wrong way, but Vicodin’s medicinal benefits indicate that, if legal and used properly, individuals should have the right to use. This becomes less clear when drugs like marijuana are considered (which I personally think should be legalized), but there’s that. And yes, absolutely, I think individuals should have the right to vote on whether or not drugs can be legalized. While I advocate for marijuana legalization, I’m more concerned about real threats to rights like abortion.

“If you do not think government occupies a legitimate sphere of power, including the right to exercise capital punishment, then on what basis should anyone obey any laws except on purely moral grounds? Are laws even binding on anyone? Did Jesus send a bad message when He rendered to Caesar what was Caesar’s? Is anything Caesar’s?”

The government does occupy a legitimate sphere of power, but my suggestions are merely trying to avoid the danger that the government is this “second entity” that exists absent the people. It necessarily comes from the people occupying the country. Personally, I don’t think the government should use capital punishment, on both pragmatic and moral grounds. But that’s not because I don’t think they lack the grounds to punish, it’s because I think the death penalty is bad.

Luke 22:36 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.”

Agreed. Government isn’t this transcendent “second existence” that comes when a bunch of people decide to form a society. It comes from the people, thus it should reflect the will and ethics of the people.

Arthur,

Right on. There are still arguments for just war that make me see the warrants of the other side (I don’t think just war is an untenable position; I in fact believed in it for most of my life), but I can’t read the ethic of Christ and ignore the implications he makes for peace.