By Kerwin Holmes, Jr.

“Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.”
[“Therefore, let him who desires peace prepare for war.”]
-Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, a late 4th-century AD Roman military authority and strategist…and a Christian in his work De Re Militari, Book III

A brief note before we begin here: This post was long overdue in two ways. For one, its biblical exegetical worth has long been needed. For another, its philosophical outlook has been neglected in times present and desperately needs to be re-injected into the hearts and minds of believers at large. But it is also long overdue in that I actually reached the exegetical conclusion of this post, which I will reason for shortly, last year, amid candid and vibrant disagreements with my fellow Christian brothers and sisters, and amid agreements with a few. I had considered, given the latest tarring and feathering of Christians at large from the recent debacle and riot at the U.S. Capitol (selectively unjust as it still is) to put this off for a quieter and more opportune time. Now, given two weeks of constant slander and the very obvious efforts by talking heads to turn that singular event into the next Covington kids debacle, I have used what wisdom I possess to deduce that there will never be “a right time” to post this other than whatever time I have available to actually write and post this.

That time is now.

A Watershed Moment and an Introduction
My life, just as any other life, has been marked with watershed events that have so impressed themselves into my conscience that I am unlikely to ever forget them. The birth of my youngest sibling is one of those events. Just in the scheme of things, as a child I was given the privilege to grasp the weight of coming to have an additional permanent member of my family. In truth, my entire nuclear family shared that weight. And that moment forward I began to live in a new role, my position age-wise within my nuclear household forever had been shifted– and my responsible duty as an older sibling (duty being something that cannot be eschewed by change of circumstance) forever shifted also.

But one of the crucial instances of my upbringing that stayed with me came from one of my dad’s lessons: evil is a present and foreboding reality in this world, and the good people stand up to it. Sometimes this is done efficiently with words of reason, or simply by passing by bubbling trouble when it is perceived. We were made to read the Proverbs everyday for most of our childhood, and even prior to that, I had come to learn the lesson of grabbing a dog by the ears without ever having done so in my life. This was not a proverb to employ against chivalry or heroism, but to utilize against wanton meddling into an affair that otherwise could be settled by the parties arguing– or even that was the just dessert for the arguing parties. (The funny thing about Proverbs [even if you read them in Hebrew] is that you need wisdom in order to read them, and you simultaneously gain wisdom by reading them over and again.)

I pause here to say: “Thank you Dad (and Mom by extension) for loving us so much as to even keep us from bedtime some nights to ensure that we read our daily chapter from Proverbs (and later on the Psalms and Ecclesiastes).”

But the lesson from my dad continued onward from there. Sometimes, my dad informed me, in order to resist evil one must come to blows. And this is quite different from the verbal blows that arise and are appropriate for casting down the strongholds of false argumentation and pompous fecal-dispensing rhetoric. No, these are actual blows: physical, hurtful, and always dangerous. As it was, I had my share of these moments. It happens that I am a man, which means that first I was a boy, and to come to blows against other boys is a pivotal, essential part of boyish childhood. For an explicit exemplary context, as a child I had the added layer of growing up in a family that was the first black American family to move into what came to be our long-standing neighborhood. For those not entirely familiar with what comes with such a feat, it means that in the immediacy of the situation, should this happen to you, you also become the only black American family in the neighborhood. In my experience, blows often became necessary because the thick skulls of rambunctious kids always seeking to get one over the odd-one-out (as is the nature of children) often, in itself, came to me responding with blows. I also grew up in the Deep South of the United States of America. This is not to tar every single white American family in our neighborhood– no, may it never be! There were people whom I interacted with daily who treated us well and with consistency. And there were others, and in terms of the other children in the neighborhood, many, who did not for reasons obvious and sometimes less than so. For any who may read this who comes from that time and context, and the descriptors apply to you, you know who you are– and so do we. But, I reiterate that I grew up in the Deep South of the United States of America. Now, that is as far as I will go here. Do with that what you will.

Sadly, I have come across many a Christian in my life who, upon hearing some story I have told from my childhood, which I told rather shamelessly and with a sense of honor and esteem, began to quake and grasp their pearls. The gender of these Christians was so comparable (in terms of the reactions from both males and females) that it does not matter that I even attempt to distinguish the reactions of one from the other. That is a problem in itself, but this is not that post. Many of them felt that what I did in defending myself and (thanks be to God alone) often finishing those fights was un-Christian and certainly unbecoming of a man years later reflecting approvingly upon those times. There was a trope– and that’s exactly what it actually is, a trope– that was cited for their disapproval in order to justify it before God:

“He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”

Now, suffice it to say that we ought not be sophomoric with our reactions to their disapproval. I even suspect many reading this post realize that this is their own justification for their discomfort because they are in the same camp as those other Christians. But they were not insinuating that I, as a child, had a sword and was going about swashbuckling my enemies away like a raving berserker (though, had swords been involved on the other side, you can bet I would have been quick to use one, and I still would approve of that action before God to this day). What they mean stems from their default of assuming that pacifism is a Christian virtue, or in its most radical manifestation, that pacifism is a Christian characteristic: it defines who is a faithful Christian from those who are so lacking.

Earlier I stated that this year I will be destroying many misconceived exegeses from the Bible. This is true. I do plan on doing that more this year, if I am able to stay the course while also not neglecting other topics (while also writing whenever I have time, which is limited). But, at the same time, this is actually not fair because the above trope isn’t even in the Bible.

I kid you not.

The phrase: “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword” isn’t even in the King James Bible that is often responsible for the catchy phrases Christians in the Anglosphere share with one another.

So then, what was Jesus talking about? Let’s find out.

The Exegetical Background
Admittedly, this section will not be as lengthy as it could be. Bear in mind this means that my critics will be able to have much longer arguments. But I am relying upon the philosophical edge that gives Ockham’s Razor its ability to fine-tune an argument, while also attempting some economy with my words so that this post remains a digestible adventure into the lives and times of Jesus of Nazareth and His disciples. That said, this post will be long enough. It is imperative to keep in mind that I am working with admittedly limited space here, so arguments responding to this should be measured not by their length but by the quality of the argument in handling the pertinent details for the claim I am making. These details to take into consideration are: language, context, and meaning.

The Gospel of Mark
I begin with the shortest of the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of Mark. In the Bible, the context for the phrase which has inspired the current-day Christian trope “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword” comes from Jesus’s arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. We will be analyzing that episode across all of the gospel accounts to come to the exegetical conclusion that is being defended here. As it is, I do not believe that it is necessary to delve into the Ancient Greek of the text, though I am willing to do that. But, again pointing to the economy of this post, I will work within an English translation, this time the Christian Standard Bible, which has done a fine job across the board for this instance. The account in the Gospel of Mark is found in Mark 14.

In the context leading up to Gethsemane, the writer of the Gospel of Mark wastes no time going into the action, as is typical of the writing for the entire work (just check out how the Gospel of Mark begins). Notably, Jesus is fixated upon telling His disciples exactly what is to take place, and the disciples are all too busy trying to deny it or to find a way to thwart the prediction. For instance, Jesus announces to them at Mark 14:7-8 in a situation that seemed to have nothing to do with the Passover and the foreboding events about to happen that soon He will be buried and no longer with His disciples. Right after this, Judas goes out to make arrangements to bring about that event.

Shortly thereafter, about two days later, Jesus eats the household meal of the Passover day and proclaims that one of the Twelve will betray Him. Rather than take this as a prophecy to be fulfilled, the Twelve begin to present themselves to Jesus to try and determine whether that weak link in the chain is one of them, intent that such a thing never occur. Then the Last Supper, based upon the Passover household meal, is instituted, and the first Eucharist which is to be the root of each other Eucharistic feast re-enacted through all time is held. Jesus then bursts the bubble of their inquiries, stating that every single one of them will desert Him, so that the hidden prophecy would be fulfilled. Peter, seized by his hubris, tries to rebuff Jesus, and is firmly put into his place.

Jesus’s words are clear: His impending murder is going to happen. It is the will of God and the prophesied event of the Scriptures. He had been saying so for a while now. But now was finally the time. They depart from the house and go to the Gethsemane Garden.

Jesus gets it correct right down to the moment when He decides to stop praying in verse 42. When the mob comes with swords and with clubs in tow, one of the disciples, we are not told who, attempts to defend the innocent Jesus from the impending injustice of the illegally secret arrest. Judean law, still based upon the Torah, forbade what was being done. The disciple cuts off the ear of the high priest’s servant in full view of everyone.

Then Jesus goes on to rebuke His arresters, pointing out the illegality of their actions, and yet surrendering without a fight because He had predicted this and knew that His Father had given Him this cup to drink for the ransom of many. He is then led away, and the disciples, as foretold, all scatter.

And that’s it.

There is no rebuke of what the disciple did. The disciple isn’t even named. And apparently Jesus is not focused upon that action, nor does the author feel the need to condemn it. In fact, the deed that the disciple did, aside from obviously trying to stop divine prophecy, is held in a benign light. Interesting. If it was so central for Jesus to rebuke such an action as being uncharacteristic for His followers, the event would have surely been painted differently, as with all sins in the Gospel of Mark.

But it is not so.

The Gospel of Luke
The context in this account is more interestingly laid out than in Mark. The Gospel of Luke begins with a lot of the same situational setup in Luke 22 as Mark 14 did. This makes it economically easy to skip over some parts. At the Passover household meal marking the actual anniversary of the Exodus event on Nisan-14, Jesus proclaims that he had desired to eat the meal with them at this time, as His destined death was finally come. Jesus connects this with the promise of His kingdom coming. Jesus also predicts that one of the people sitting there will betray Him, causing the disciples to argue among themselves over who that weak link would be, presumably in order to pull it out from the chain.

The dispute then pivots in verse 24 to a self-justifying topic among them: which was the greatest disciple, and presumably least liable to betray their Master. Jesus quashes that in verses 25 to 30 by promising to give them, well, only those who stood by Him faithfully, a kingdom. And even as they recline at that one table at the first institution of the Eucharist, that table was also the table of His coming kingdom at which they will also be seated to judge the twelve tribes of their nation Israel. Jesus predicts that Peter will deny him, but also informs Peter that restoration will be given (which Peter rebuffs with the bravado characteristic to himself and the others).

Jesus then gives a series of warnings for what the disciples ought to do once He has gone from them. They are to no longer trust the people of the land, but are to prepare for the worst. They are to take money bags with them. They are to take a traveling bag with them for the roads. If they don’t have swords to defend themselves against violence, then they had better sell one of their cloaks to buy one. But this they were supposed to do after Jesus left them. Of course, they misunderstand and eagerly present to him the two swords Jesus knew they carried. Presumably exasperated (and understandably so), Jesus replies that the two swords are enough.

The rest of the scene progresses as it did in Mark, save that when the mob comes, the disciples are frantically eager, remembering what Jesus had just said about swords. Their misunderstanding and their desire to stop the prophesied death of their Master coalesce into a desperate plea to “strike [the mob] with their sword(s)” to protect Jesus. Jesus gives them no answer. One of them acts impulsively and strikes off the ear of the servant of the high priest.

At that, Jesus tells His disciples to “leave it at that,” and then heals the man’s ear. He then rebukes the mob for coming against Him as a criminal with swords and clubs. This they do illegally, but Jesus is quick to point out that this grave injustice must happen as it was previously prophesied in the Scriptures. This is the hour of darkness– their hour.

Notably, Jesus does not state that the disciple did wrong in striking off the servant’s ear. But He does put a limit to their violence by saying that the demonstration was enough. He tells them: “Leave it at this!” The CSB has adequately translated this as “No more of this!” The latter translation fits modern diction best.

The Gospel of Matthew
Now we come to the gospel account that is the cause of the trope that I am debunking. It could be said that eleven men with two swords could not hope to stand a chance against a mob armed with clubs and swords. In that, you would be correct. It is a pity that no gospel author had picked up on that trope.

Matthew is the final one of the Synoptic Gospels we are reviewing. Jesus celebrates the Passover household meal at the beginning of Nisan-14, which in Jewish reckoning begins at night and continues into the day. And He institutes the Eucharist on the same feast that the first holiday recorded in the Bible, the anniversary of the actual Exodus, the Passover household feast, is celebrated. Skipping over some parts already covered in the Synoptics, Jesus and the disciples retire to the Garden of Gethsemane. The action flows in a very similar manner as the other accounts in Matthew 26. Throughout it all, the disciples are trying to dissuade Jesus from going through with whatever He is planning for His death. Jesus predicts that they all will fall away, and Peter gives his rebuke of bravado to the only One who has consistently shown him up throughout their time together– who happened to also be his authority figure and Rabbi. After the disciples prove to be unable even to keep watch while Jesus prayed, Jesus gets it correct down to the moment when Judas showed up with the mob who are all armed with swords and clubs.

When the mob lays hands on Jesus, a disciple, we are not told who, takes it upon himself to lash out and maim the high priest servant by cutting off his ear. Jesus sees this and rebukes the man, telling him that everyone who is taking up a sword will die by one. Jesus then goes on to rebuke the disciple further by saying that had He wanted protection at that moment, He would have called upon His many celestial warriors to defend Him. But if He did that, Scripture would not be fulfilled.

Jesus is faithful to His mission. He then rebukes all of those who came with swords and clubs in hand, stating that He used to teach in their Temple and was found with no wrongdoing, and now they are illegally seizing him secretly and without justification.

And yet, Jesus is clear to state that this is necessary so that the prophets of the past are vindicated in the word that they delivered concerning Himself.

The Gospel of John
Having covered the Synoptics, we come to the one account which stands out from them slightly, including in the reckoning of the time. John 13 frames the events as happening the day before the Passover Feast, and from the context of John 19 it is clear that the writer is referring to the Feast of Unleavened Bread which started with a ritual Sabbath on the first day of its festival and ended with a ritual Sabbath on its seventh day. As it was, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which even the Torah called “Passover” in Deuteronomy, began in Nisan-15, one day after the anniversary of the actual Exodus, as a longer celebration of the actual freedom that Ancient Israel received from leaving Egypt. It was on Nisan -15 that the Passover sacrifices actually took place in the Temple via the priests, and not in each household, and such priestly sacrifices continued until the seventh day. In modern Rabbinic Judaism, Nisan-14 has often been subsumed into the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Apparently, this trend was in development, at least by language, from ancient times.

In John 18 we are told that when Jesus had finished giving a remarkably long lesson along with several prayers, Judas arrived with a company of soldiers and several Temple police officials all bearing weapons. The author makes no qualms about Jesus knowing everything that was happening and about to happen, and remaining calm and serene, accepting His fate. In fact, His very words were weighty with the very power that His fists refused to bear.

But then Peter, the disciple is explicitly named, draws his sword (he was one of the ones whose sword was presented), and strikes off the ear of Malchus, the explicitly named servant of the high priest.

Jesus rebukes Peter, not for the essential matter of using violence to stop the impending injustice to be done to Him, but for resisting the will of the Father and the cup He has chosen for the Son to drink.

Jesus is resolute: what must happen will happen. Though it would be just to resist the mob, Jesus surrenders because for that very reason He was sent to this world. See here for a post diving more into that, and debunking yet another Christian myth related to the Scriptures.

The Crux of the Issue
You will note that some of the things I wrote are italicized. That is purposeful, as it points out the common trope that actually is from the Bible. We are never correct to select a singular gospel account, take a unique phrasing from it, and impose that phrase upon the other three without first realizing why that unique detail is in the selected gospel. In the Gospel of Luke, for example, the eleven disciples are all eager to strike the mob with the two swords that they have, unlike in the other three. This was because immediately before the arrest Jesus told them to get swords for their own defense in the world. That commandment is only in the Gospel of Luke, and it is the context to Jesus’s arrest. But they missed the point. Jesus expressly told them to do that after He was no longer with them. That they misunderstood and twisted that into their own desire to stop Jesus from being murdered and thereby saving them all is part of the tragedy written into the Lukan account.

The commonality across the board was that the mob that came to arrest Jesus unjustly had weapons so that they could enforce their will. They were no longer to be swayed by the rebukes that Jesus handed to them from the Torah, pointing out the illegality of their actions and the unjustified nature of their souls. No, these men, like the betrayer disciple who led them, were all reprobate to the core. They came for blood, and they were intent on getting it– and Jesus was intent on giving it to them. But that was because the Father had written such a fate for Jesus from the heavens. Jesus was the dutiful Son and faithful Warrior-King about to triumph over Death by rope-a-doping it and rupturing it from the inside for all who believe in His Name. Those who bore the swords to enforce their evil will were the adversaries unwittingly bringing about the actual mission of Jesus and the justification of their eventual doom by the sword, which came within the span of a single generation in 70 AD.

And so, in the Gospel of Matthew the trope is maintained to the point that Jesus even shields one of His disciples, who we are informed in the Gospel of John was Peter himself, from that wrath to come. All who were bearing the weapons of war in that instance were to have their just due poured out upon them when Jesus’s wrath was turned against them. This wrath was not meant for Peter, nor for Jesus’s faithful ones. Jesus gave His life for His sheep, and He lost not one.

In short: Christians using this solitary verse to give rise to what is not actually in the Bible (“He who lives by the sword will die by the sword”) are wrong. Yes, they are incorrect. Jesus knew that His death was inevitable, He had His mission, and no one and nothing would dissuade Him from it. In that vein, had He wanted any defense, His command of the angelic forces (which He retained by divine right of nature) was at His beck and call. But no, He needed to fulfill His mission as the Son of Man (by his human nature as a son of Adam), and so do what Adam should have done for his wife Eve. This the Christ did for His bride and wife to be, the Church.

So What Now? And Why Write This?
There is much to be said on the topic of pacifism. For one, I wager that most who proclaim themselves to be pacifists actually are not so. People who forbid themselves to use violence, to coerce with combat, usually in clashes between good and evil, who then hire out the services of others to do the same violate the core tenet of essential pacifism by hiring out for violence. This comes in the way of people who choose not to bear arms but who call the police, the hired service of the civilian world that does bear arms, to handle their problems. It also comes in the way of people who hire mercenaries or bounty hunters to do their bidding. Those are not actually pacifists, though they may be motivated in part by what can be called essential pacifism.

I have been long disturbed by the Christian arguments for the allowance of any and all evil things to occur, particularly in regard to Christians suffering for their faith. Now, mind you, I am not arguing that pacifism is not a viable Christian option, nor that any of its inspired lesser positions (such as the ones described above) are not viable, righteous Christian options. Church history is full of Christians who decided to do just as Jesus did in Gethsemane, and the witness of the Church is strengthened by them. However, Church history is full of Christians who also decided to do as David did when his family was kidnapped by the Amalekites, or what Abraham did when Lot’s family was kidnapped, or what Charles Martel did when Christian Europe almost fell to the Muslim sword after the Christian North Africa, Egypt, Northern Arabia, and Levant had already fallen. And as we can see from the people descended from those nations so defended, the witness of the Church is also strengthened by them.

Christian intellectuality is also replete with Christians who go back and forth on this issue. But my argument is that pacifism is not the Christian option. It simply is one option of many. I am supported in my position by other minds of worth. One such mind was C.S. Lewis, who made an eloquent defense of Christian martial prowess in an essay that was given as an address to the Oxford Pacifist Society in 1940 while the United Kingdom enlisted millions of young men to combat the encroaching Nazism of Europe (and Germany specifically). I embed the first part here below for you at your leisure. Part 2 is available on the same website should it interest you. Use this link if you cannot view the video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2xY2k26HFo

To return to my own experience, my dad was thorough in letting me know what sort of a man he wanted me to become in the way of self-defense. It was not enough that I knew right from wrong and when to defend myself, and how. Ecclesiastes 3 was on the mind from an early age, and it was drilled into me that it is not prudent to use fists to fight words, nor is it always worthy to fight fists with words. Even with the kinds of words used, one needed to be careful. And when the fight came to fists, one needed to be always willing to do what was necessary to end the fight adequately and to come back home. That was the goal. But my dad was also clear, at least in the vein of my defense of my sisters should the need arise: in the way of men and boys, the boy lays down his life for the girl and the man lays down his life for the woman. Jesus Himself did this, as shown up above. And my dad was emphatic to rely upon King David’s good examples as well.

So when I saw this scene years ago from a Hollywood movie, itself inspired by an actual person, I found myself experiencing a weird déjà vu moment. This was because this scene was nigh identical to the exact speech my dad gave me in one of those watershed moments that will remain with me forever. You will note the focus upon the Holy Bible at the beginning, not an accident from the likes of directors such as Clint Eastwood.

My dad made it very clear that he was not raising a predator in his house. I know. I tested him a couple of times in my earlier years. He was not playing around.

That stated, what do I do with this post’s argument? Do I say that Christians should all train for war as soon as necessary?

Well, given the recent alarmism that has inundated our airwaves, let me clarify yet again that this post and its ideas could have been written last year. In fact, I believe this post should have been written last year, but for my want in time to write it. But the ideas of my resistance to the trope of pacifism have been with me since before I could write long English sentences like I do now. The ideas were instilled into me from childhood, and, like the scene above portrays, they were founded upon that very book of Holy Writ.

So I am not writing to state that Christians, seeing the tarring and feathering of their community, begin to rise to emulate the blasphemous image the Mainstream Media and political establishment is attempting to place upon them. That is stupid, and this is the place where reasoning is done humbly before God. Stupidity has no place here.

What I am saying is that Christians have options.

One may say: But Kerwin, King David lived in Ancient Israel, and even Jesus lived in Ancient Judea, and those were nations. The Church is not a nation.

And to that, I concede. Such a person is correct. The Church is not a nation. The Church isn’t even a New Israel or the True Israel (though the True Israel is found within her alike the True Assyria and the True Egypt— and even more nations). It is clear that the Church is an international body of a multiethnic characteristic. This is clear from Jesus’s own words that at the table of His kingdom, the same table that He identified with the Eucharistic feast’s table, and in the kingdom which He has given to us, many come who do not share the genetic pedigree of the Israelite. A body made up of many nations is not simply one nation. Paul wrote an entire letter to the Galatians to make that argument. Communities that are not sovereign nations should not engage with the Bible as if they were.

The Church is not a nation. But Nigeria is.

When Christians of European background (remember Charles Martel or the faithful Germanic and Eastern European warriors who kept the Islamic advance at bay in the 16th century), and especially Christians from the United States, spread their missionary wings over to nations like Nigeria and instruct impressionable young Christian fathers that it is necessary to the point of being Christlike to allow terrorists and militants to execute them, violate their wives, and butcher their children or sell them into slavery, I have a problem with them based upon Holy Writ.

And now, so should you.

Yes, it is clear from Church history and from examples within the Bible that martyrdom is achieved by testifying about Christ no matter the circumstance and no matter the threat against our lives. We are even told to die daily, and to seek first that we serve God and so fulfill righteousness and in doing so receive our needs and even desires. But we are also told to be like Abraham, and Abraham defended his family. We are also not forbidden to defend our families, and even told that if we cease to provide for them we have done worse than denying the faith– we would have done worse than not being a faithful martyr. This leaves room for many righteous options to the Christian, and all of these options have been taken by Christians.

For each righteous option there is at least one righteous story of the triumph of the Church over evil.

Some may retort: only pacifist martyrs receive the martyr’s crown.

To that I say: Prove it. There is no such qualification even in the context of the martyrs described in Revelation’s passage. They are only identified by their faithfulness unto death. Are you then saying that Christian soldiers who died opposing the unjust tyranny of idolatrous regimes throughout history and who gave their lives in order to freely live their confession of Christ (and so that each of us can today) lost that “martyr” description and their crown? Let us not blaspheme.

Another may respond: But if you lift up arms against evil and die, of what worth will that be?

To that I confidently retort: Such a rebuttal is curious because it is made in support of the inevitable alternative: that one dies at the hands of evil. If the results be the same all around, then let me also ask you, of what worth will that be, whether dying passively or dying defiantly? At the least, if it is in our power to do good, and doing good is the resistance of evil, and if even one soul may go free to live on this plane to proclaim the truth of God’s word as the rest of us pass away, then give me a sword, and let every Christian Nigerian father who seeks to protect his family as he is able also learn the martial arts.

There is no shame in going down swinging, or dying upon one’s feet. In fact, with the testimony of Christ upon our lips even if we pass in peace, such a fate is the destiny for us all should the Lord preserve us. That is our final battle.

I leave you with this, something remarkable, and I use Nigeria now as a paradigm because the Christians in that nation have suffered so cruelly over these years. They are not the only ones. Christians in many nations I cannot name at once face incredible hostility and death even from within the family, as promised by our Messiah. But there is not one of them who has not also received more than what they have lost in family as they are receiving the kingdom, and the government, and the family, and the Church that is to outlast all things. But for the remarkable event:

There was an incident last year when Islamist terrorists were intent to murder yet another village of Christian Nigerians. To be fair to reality, whether everyone in this village was a believer or not is to be left to God’s providence, but it was targeted because these villagers were known to worship and to serve the reigning Messiah. Some men caught wind of the plot and, most not having weapons, used their bodies to defend and distract the would-be-murderers of the entire village. By their efforts the villagers were spared, though three of the men lost their lives. It is illegal for Nigerians to bear arms, something that is an evil law when the government allows for terrorists with arms and with religious and tribal hostilities to roam free of justice and free from military reprisal. What the Church could and should preach on this injustice is clear, and the Christlike model is shown by the men who put their lives on the line for their village, with at least one of them being armed. Yes, Romans 13, that fated chapter in that illegal letter that supported a religio illicita and which was penned by a man executed by the Roman state for repeatedly breaking her tyrannically idolatrous laws, prescribes that government is here on earth to promote the good and to punish the evil. But as Pastor Dr. James R. White of Apologia Church in Arizona soberly pointed out this week on the Lord’s Day: who decides what is “good” and “evil” save God alone, who is to make the nations of the earth know this save the teachers of God’s Law, and who is God’s earthly messenger to the nations for His teaching save His earthly Church?

Now, did the one Nigerian who was armed have less Christlike ability and less Christian charity than the others? Who would dare to make such an accusation? Would any Christian whose faith is owed by the legacy of men who defended Christians with martial prowess (which by the way, includes every Christian alive today, such is the nature of the present age until Christ comes) speak a condemning word against the one who was armed to defend his community against terrorism? Did not Christ defeat death and is not Christ’s robe dyed in the blood of His enemies? Did not the Son rain down fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah from the Father in heaven? But on the other side, will any who advocates the bearing of arms critique those who chose to abide by the unjust laws of the Nigerian state to do self-sacrifice for the good of their people? Did not Christ also do that? Did Christ not give His life as a ransom for the many? Is He not the good and true Shepherd?

Let us not blaspheme.

Conclusion: The War That We Are All In
I close with this, that even if we are not all facing particularly hazardous physical realities, there still is a lesson to learn in warfare, and that is this: we Christians are all at war. Yes, all of us. The Church at the present moment is the Church Militant, and we are at war against the forces of darkness that seek to rule over and subjugate man in rebellion against the Son who defeated them with the empty tomb. The Son now currently reigns as both God and man– as the Right Ruler of all domains. His enemies among the celestials and terrestrials cannot stand Him nor His servants.

But we fight not against flesh and blood, and our weapons are esteemed for the tearing down of lofty opinions that rise against the Christ. This is not to say that our enemies are not of the flesh, else we should rend the Bible in two. Rather, we realize that our battle has an essential component that is always prioritized and ever-present, even in peacetime, while this age remains and the Lord delays His return to end it. We battle with wisdom and with tact, using the Word of God with reason and with deft aptitude to lay siege to evil ideologies such as atheism (or as I call it athelism), Marxism, Critical Theory, and every ideology that denies Christ and His Gospel down even to counterfeit Christianities and other religions. Our warfare is a constant ideological, spiritual, psychic, cultural, and intellectual one. It is all of those synonymously, all of them being the same thing but their identification being dependent upon our cultural context and the ideological epoch in which we find ourselves within history. (Currently we live in the decidedly Post-Modern world.)

And watch and see: many of the very same ones who would lead you to disagree with the reasoning found here and hold to the “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword” trope would also have you not engage culture effectively. I have already written on such leaders in the post previous to this one, but suffice it to say that these moral cowards and malakoi would rather you quit social media while they continue to pump their misguided ideas across it in lackadaisical fashion. They would rather you not engage in wordsmithing while they attempt to awe you with their faux-sophistication. They would rather shame you before their peers rather than you shame them before God above. They would rather you bleat like a lamb to the slaughter than rise as the lions of God.

Beware of this, my Christian siblings. Beware of cowardice in whichever righteous option you so choose to live as Christlike disciples. But also beware of yourselves.
We are not predators, but guardians.
We are not anarchists, but followers of the Divine Order.
We are not unruly rioters, but peacekeepers and peacemakers.
We are not wayward vagabonds, but disciples of The Way.

Remember your calling. Remember your Christ.

And pick up your sword.