Luk 22:36
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.
I think it is appropriate that we quote this again, considering most people have probably forgotten what Tilia and Lotus have been berating each other over.
Here is an analyzation by a Biblical scholar and Greek expert, Bishop Pearce:
"Bishop Pearce supposes that the word μαχαιραν, sword, has been inserted here from what is said in Luk_22:38, as it is evident our Lord never intended to make any resistance, or to suffer a sword to be used on the occasion; see Mat_26:52. The word stands rather oddly in the passage: the verse, translated in the order in which it stands, is as follows: And he who hath none, let him sell his garment and buy - a sword. Now it is plain that the verb πωλησατω, let him buy, may be referred to πηραν a scrip, in the former part of the verse: therefore if, according to the bishop’s opinion, the word sword be omitted, the passage may be understood thus: “When I sent you out before, Luk_10:1, etc., I intended you to continue itinerants only for a few days, and to preach the Gospel only to your country-men; therefore you had but little need of a staff, purse, or scrip, as your journey was neither long, nor expensive; but now I am about to send you into all the world, to preach the Gospel to every creature; and, as ye shall be generally hated and persecuted for my sake, ye shall have need to make every prudent provision for your journey; and so necessary will it be for you to provide yourselves victuals, etc., for your passage through your inhospitable country, that, if any of you have no scrip or wallet, he should sell even his upper garment to provide one.”
Others, who are for retaining the word sword, think that it was a proverbial expression, intimating a time of great difficulty and danger, and that now the disciples had need to look to themselves, for his murderers were at hand. The reader will observe that these words were spoken to the disciples just before he went to the garden of Gethsemane, and that the danger was now so very near that there could be no time for any of them to go and sell his garment in order to purchase a sword to defend himself and his Master from the attack of the Jewish mob.
Judea was at this time, as we have already noticed, much infested by robbers: while our Lord was with his disciples, they were perfectly safe, being shielded by his miraculous power. Shortly they must go into every part of the land, and will need weapons to defend themselves against wild beasts, and to intimidate wicked men, who, if they found them totally defenceless, would not hesitate to make them their prey, or take away their life. However the matter may be understood, we may rest satisfied that these swords were neither to be considered as offensive weapons, nor instruments to propagate the truth. The genius and spirit of the Christian religion is equally against both. Perhaps, in this counsel of our Lord, he refers to the contention about supremacy: as if he had said, Instead of contending among yourselves about who shall be the greatest, ye have more need to unite yourselves against the common enemy, who are now at hand: this counsel was calculated to show them the necessity of union among themselves, as their enemies were both numerous and powerful."
I hate to side with Tilia (or rather, his questionable tactics), but it
does appear that the purpose of carrying the sword was protection. This makes sense esspecially considering there are absolutely NO accounts throughout the entire Biblical text of the disciples being anywhere remotely violent when teaching.
One might make a similar case in the present circumstance. No, we should not go to war and commit violence. However, because we are imperfect and live in an imperfect world, God will acknowledge this and allow us to, in our own free will, decide what we should do in a given situation.
So, my initial answer is that 'turn the other cheek' is the true Christian teaching, but that God understands the choice to follow this teaching can be extremely difficult, so much so that he will forgive us should we not follow it, especially if we have done all we can to avoid practicing violence.
Personally I don't find this to be an ideal attitude.
Rom 5:20-6:1
Laws were added to increase the failure. But where sin increased, God's kindness increased even more. As sin ruled by bringing death, God's kindness would rule by bringing us his approval. This results in our living forever because of Jesus Christ our Lord. What should we say then? Should we continue to sin so that God's kindness will increase? That's unthinkable! As far as sin is concerned, we have died. So how can we still live under sin's influence?
I find that many people will embrace imperfections in order to justify their actions. This sort of mentality might have been present during periods such as the Inquisition, ect.
I contend we should always work towards perfection so that a continuously increasing inclusiveness to sin does not drag us down farther and farther.
How would you know?
