Why Christians Should Buy Swords

One of the problems some folks have with the notion that Christians shouldn't use violence is that they see a contrasting expectation or perhaps contradicting command from Jesus in one particular passage of scripture. The passage in which Jesus commands his disciples to buy swords can bring confusion if one does not understand the context in which it exists. Below is the often quoted Luke 22:36-38.

He [Jesus] 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. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“It is enough” he replied.

I believe there are three important elements of context worth examining when dealing with this passage. 1) The preceding verses, 2) The prophecy quoted by Jesus in the selected verses, and 3) The procedeing verses. It is my belief that this command rests snuggly in a much larger message and that the larger message dictates the purpose and meaning of this command. The surrounding verses of a passage (or 'context') is how we are able to determine the truest message of that passage.

The Preceding Verses

To open Luke 22 Judas agrees to betray Jesus (vv.1-6). Following that we begin the account of the Last Supper. There are many small and significant things that occur in this passage but the main focus is the pointing towards Jesus' coming death. Beginning with verse 15 it is clear that Jesus is predicting to his disciples his approaching death (vv. 15-20). Jesus guides his disciples through the Passover feast and uses the time to repeatedly make it clear he is about to suffer and die and he encourages them to drink of the cup and eat of the bread, his blood and body, so that they may remember him (v. 19) and share in his kingdom (v.29-30). Jesus speaks of one who will betray him and immediately, as they tend to do, the disciples get into a squabble about which of them is greatest (obviously missing the point of what Jesus is trying to communicate to them). Jesus teaches them not to seek power but to seek service just as he has done with them (vv. 24-30). This is key to the coming conflict. We should be careful to divorce these words about service from his death predictions for we know from other scriptures that the two motifs are intertwined. After this ,Simon Peter, whom we shall refer to as Peter, swears to Jesus "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death." Jesus informs Peter that Peter will end up denying him three times before morning comes.

Next, Jesus gives what may be seen as the introduction to the specific discussion concerning swords. Verse 35 states, "Then Jesus asked them, 'When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?' 'Nothing,' they answered." Why does Jesus say this? Is he simply trying to use a smooth segway to move from Peter's denial to the command for swords by saying "Remember that one time? Well, this is sort of the same..." or is he reminding the disciples of when he sent them out and they lacked nothing for reason other than to transfer topics of discussion? It seems to me that Jesus is reminding the disciples of the important truth that even when they have nothing they lack nothing thanks to God. They can trust God for all things. At the same time, I do believe Jesus is comparing the previous missions with this current mission. Whereas before the disciples were to leave purse, extra cloak, and all belongings, now Jesus demands they take purse, bag, and sword (the sword is so important that if one does not have a sword they ought to sell their cloak for one!). Many theologians have debated this teaching. Why would Jesus connect this reminder to the command to purchase swords? Most biblical scholars maintain that Jesus is warning his disciples about forthcoming trouble. We'll return to this shortly.

The Prophecy

When looking at the selected verses (36-38) there is a very interesting dynamic of the quoted prophecy. Jesus tells the disciples to each sell their cloak and buy a sword and then immediately quotes a prophecy about being numbered with transgressors and says that the prophecy must be fulfilled in him and that the prophecy is already in the process of being fulfilled. There is a connection there. But why would Jesus quote this prophecy? What does it have to do with the instruction for these disciples to buy swords? What does Jesus mean when he says to his followers "It is enough?" What could 2 swords be enough to do? Certainly 2 swords is not sufficient to protect 12 men. If the men coming against Jesus and the disciples have weapons then 2 swords certainly won't be enough to win that fight. When it comes to protection and fighting this is not enough to save anyone's skin. Therein may be the point. Jesus' skin needs to not be saved so that the souls of many might be saved! Jesus must go to the cross! He knows this. He just spent an entire meal talking about it! So how does Jesus get to the cross? What will it take for him to be given such an unjustified execution? Something must happen which allows the Jewish authorities to send Jesus to the Roman cross. What Jesus means by "It is enough" is answered already by the quoted prophecy.

Jesus quotes Isaiah 53:12 which states,

Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

This is incarnation language that Jesus has adopted. He is proclaiming that this scripture is speaking of him, the God who became man. He has come to be numbered among the transgressors to make an intercession for them. It is no hidden truth that man has transgressed against God (Psalm 65:3) or that Jesus Christ becomes the transgression/sin of mankind upon the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21). The language of life being poured out for others is also connected to this chapter of Luke through the Last Supper. Is there more to this transgressor talk though? How does this connect to the command to purchase swords? Jesus says that this prophecy is currently happening. The process of the fulfillment has begun. I believe there are a two strong conclusions we can draw about this prophecy being connected to the command to buy swords. 1) Jesus needs to be counted among transgressors not only in the sight of God but the sight of men and 2) Jesus is warning his disciples.

While this passage can speak of the Incarnation of Christ and his overall work I believe Jesus is using it in a more time specific manner. After he has risen we can look at the passage and make sense of it applying to his entire mission but Jesus is using the prophecy at a specific time in that mission and odds are that he's doing it for a reason. It would seem that he needs to be numbered among transgressors. That's the quoted line of this verse in Isaiah. Jesus' chief concern with this prophecy is being numbered among transgressors, so how does he achieve that? How is that to be fulfilled and how has it already started to be fulfilled? Some scholars argue that the command to buy swords is given so that the disciples will literally buy the swords, obeying Jesus' command, and appear to be transgressors, thus Jesus being numbered among transgressors when the chief priests arrive. Others argue that Jesus knew his disciples would misunderstand his command, buy the swords, and use them later and thus Jesus would still be numbered amongst transgressors. Both arguments end up in the same place and both see the command as a literal command. I agree. It seems that Jesus is telling his disciples to buy swords so that he can be numbered among transgressors. Another way to see this is to put the word '"Therefore" at the beginning of the sentence "It is written..." so as to trace the line of Jesus' thought. To recap: How is the prophecy fulfilled? By Jesus being with the disciples who look like or who actually become transgressors. How is it currently being fulfilled? The disciples are obtaining swords and misunderstanding Jesus; preparing the way for his being numbered as a transgressor when the time arrives. Jesus' primary focus is the prophecy. He needs to be caught with transgressors so he may go to the cross and fulfill his purpose. This is the main thrust of this passage. The swords are a gear in the greater machine, a drop in the creek. The command to buy swords is not the primary focus and thus must somehow serve the primary focus.

Yet, while Jesus is primarily concerned with his journey to the cross and the will of his Father (as we saw he agreed to follow according to his prayer only a few verses earlier in the garden) it seems he is also concerned with warning his disciples. Jesus' command seems to be both literal and figurative. If the the passage is figurative then what could Jesus be trying to communicate to his disciples?

The famous commentator Matthew Henry wrote of this passage, "Our Lord gave notice of a very great change of circumstances now approaching. The disciples must not expect that their friends would be kind to them as they had been. Therefore, he that has a purse, let him take it, for he may need it. They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves." Echoing this wisdom, the InterVarsity Press Commentary states, "The disciples take Jesus' remarks literally and incorrectly. They note that they have two swords, but Jesus cuts off the discussion. Something is not right, but it is too late to discuss it. As the arrest will show, they have misunderstood. They draw swords then, but Jesus stops their defense in its tracks. He is not telling them to buy swords to wield in physical battle. They will have to provide for themselves and fend for themselves, but not through the shedding of blood. They are being drawn into a great cosmic struggle, and they must fight with spiritual swords and resources. The purchase of swords serves only to picture this coming battle. This fight requires special weapons (Eph 6:10-18)."

Some scholars such as David Stern* have commented that Jesus is not saying the disciples have an adequate amount of swords but rather that they have misunderstood him. He writes, "Yeshua [Jesus] is not inventorying his disciples' arsenal but saying, 'You have taken me too literally. I'm not talking about swords. End the conversation! Enough already!" I believe that Jesus is saying that the two swords are sufficient for his purposes but I also believe he is simultaneously saying what Stern argues. The disciples have misunderstood Jesus once again in thinking that the swords are for anything but fulfilling the prophecy he connected to the command. I'm not sure I'm willing to accept that Jesus is saying "It it enough" in a way that sounds more like "Enough of this foolishness!" even if that would have made just as much sense for him to say. I don't see scripture indicating that message until later.

The Proceeding Verses

Follow Jesus' statement that the two swords are enough he goes up the Mount of Olives with his disciples so that they may pray. Jesus is preparing for his arrest and crucifixion at this point. He has held the Last Supper, trying to prepare his disciples for the troubling times ahead, and now he seeks to prepare himself and to pray for his disciples (God knows they need it). The exhausted students fall asleep and in verse 46 Jesus says to them, "Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation." What kind of temptation is Jesus concerned about? Any temptation? All temptation? Specific temptation? Jesus knows what is about to come and thus he knows what dangers and temptations lie ahead of his disciples this night and in the days and age to come. This means there are specific temptations Jesus wants his disciples to be guarded against. If the temptation is unclear now it will soon be seen.

Immediately Judas shows up and betrays Jesus. As this happens we see confusion from the disciples. They do not know how to handle the situation at hand. They should have prayed. The disciples are confused as to whether or not they should use their swords; if they should violently attack their enemy. They ask "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" clearly not knowing what the swords are for and not knowing their role in the fulfillment of the prophecy which is bearing fruit before their eyes. This, I believe is the temptation; They are tempted to not follow in the way of Christ in a time of difficulty and to get in the way of the fulfillment of the prophecy. If the disciples would follow Jesus' teachings then they would not get in the way, as it is, they are tempted to do the opposite. Instead of loving enemies and trusting in God as in the times when they had nothing they have the option to trust in the sword and strike. Without waiting for an answer from the Lord there is action (incredibly similar to the disobedient violence of Israel in the OT).**

Perhaps due to a lack of prayer one of the disciples, (the account in John tells us it is Peter) gives into temptation and strikes, cutting off the ear of one of the men seizing Jesus. Against this action Jesus calls out, "No more of this!" Jesus rebukes Peter. No more of this striking with swords, no more of this misunderstanding, no more not trusting in God as you've learned to do previously. No more of this way. How do we know that Jesus is specifically rebuking the use of the sword? He acts against it and heals the ear of his enemy who has been wounded by the sword. Jesus undoes the damage done by the sword. There is a wounding and then there is a healing. The power of the sword and the power of Christ's love. The action of a man who did not pray and the action of the one who prayed so hard his sweat was like blood. There is a stark contrast between Jesus and Peter in this moment and we are right to side with Jesus. This contrast illuminates Jesus' rebuke against the use of the sword. It seems that the buying of the swords, even just 2, was indeed enough. Using the swords is too much. In the Greek the words "It is enough" literally translate as "until this enough." Until this action, it was enough. Peter has gone too far.

Following this rebuke and healing Jesus turns to those seizing him and says something interesting. He says, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns" (vv.52b-53). Jesus asks why these men felt the need to approach him with weapons, as if he posed some sort of violent threat. He is not leading a rebellion, he is not a zealot (like Simon who was part of the zealot party which desperately desired to overthrow the Romans with their swords if needed). This question makes it clear that Jesus and his followers (who have been with him at all times including the previous days in the temple) do not pose a threat. There is no need for these men to seize Jesus with weapons. It's unnecessary. Jesus points out that there is no reason to lay a hand on him and in this seizing (which consists of weapons) the chief priests show their allegiance to darkness. The weapons aren't the problem but rather their opposition to Jesus. Darkness reigns in their apprehension of him. However, the weapons increase the obviousness of this rebellion against Jesus' kingdom and their allegiance to the rein of darkness because the weapons are in no way needed. And make no mistake, Jesus is not saying this because he had wished that they had come empty handed so that his disciples would have the upper hand in a knife fight. Again, that would go against Jesus' entire purpose.

This should make it absolutely clear that Jesus never intended for his disciples to use these swords against anyone. As Pastor Gregory Boyd points out in his short evaluation of this passage, "Given how Jesus responds to Peter’s use of the sword (he rebukes him), and given everything Jesus says about loving enemies, doing good to them, turning the other cheek, and so on, it’s clear that, whatever Jesus was up to in telling his followers to buy swords, he clearly didn’t intend for them to use them." The notion that Jesus is commanding his followers to buy swords for the purpose of using them in times of danger or attack goes against what we see happening in the full passage. If that were Jesus' intention then why the rebuke and why the statement to the chief priests? Why the healing? Why the contrast? While it is true that Jesus is mostly upset with Peter for getting in the way of the prophecy being fulfilled it wouldn't make sense to claim that Jesus is solely concerned with the prophecy. He is concerned for his disciples as well. He wants them to follow his Way! We can not read this passage of scripture and say that Jesus meant for his disciples to buy swords so that they could protect themselves after he left (which some want to argue). This would make his healing of the servant and his statement to the chief priests out of place. If he meant for his disciples to carry swords for protection then 2 swords for 12 men certainly wouldn't be enough, especially if the authorities were coming against the disciples with more weapons! In an arms race the disciples lose. Therefore Jesus could not possibly have meant for the swords to be used against enemies. Their purpose must be directly connected to the prophecy and to Jesus' notification that times were about to become difficult.

Church Father Tertullian once wrote, "The Lord, in disarming Peter, subsequently unbelted every soldier." While I don't believe that Jesus' specific aim here was to preach a message of nonviolence I agree with Tertullian that in this teaching Jesus does disarm every one of us who would draw a weapon against an enemy by reminding us that God has provided for us in the past and can continue to do so. Luke's message here is not one of nonviolence or pacifism and yet the message to love enemies and trust God in all circumstances (especially if they be hazardous to our health) is unmistakeable. Self-preservation seems antithetical to Jesus' focus in this passage which is self-sacrifice. It doesn't make sense for Jesus to promote self-sacrificing love for enemies by teaching it during his ministry and exampling it here while simultaneously teaching his disciples that they no longer need pick up their cross but a sword. Is Jesus contradicting himself are we reading it wrong? If we say that Jesus has changed his mind from commanding his disciples to pick up their cross to now pick up a sword then say Jesus is inconsistent. If we say we've misread the passage and that Jesus is still calling us to love enemies and do the will of God as he did by picking up our cross as self-sacrificing servants then we have a consistent Christ. The question becomes "Do we want our Christ or the Christ?" Only one saves because only one is truly willing to go to the cross.

Conclusion

So why should Christians buy swords? According to scripture they should buy swords so that Christ can be counted with transgressors and sent to the cross so that he may fulfill his purpose to die for all sinners. If a Christian has a sword outside of this context then they can still be biblical by beating that sword into a plowshare just as the Old Testament prophecies declare ought to be done by God's people (Isaiah 2:4, Joel 3:10, Micah 4:3). If we are going to invest in a sword let it be the sword of the Spirit (aka the Word of God) which is far more effective at doing the work of God since it can penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart (Ephesians 6:17, Hebrews 4:12).

The context of the passage, narrative flow of scripture, and the tradition of the church all lead the reader to conclude that Jesus is not promoting violent self-defense, violent defense of other, the American value of a right to bear arms, or even a literal command for his disciples (let alone future believers) to invest in weapons for the use of those weapons against enemies. If Jesus is giving any teaching on how to oppose attacks from enemies it is to trust in God, fighting as members of his kingdom ought to, without weapons (John 18:36, 2 Corinthians 10:4). If someone believes that Jesus intends for his followers to arm themselves with weapons so that they may fight against enemies then they are obligated to explain their position according to the context of the passage.

*David Stern is the author of the Jewish New Testament Commentary and Jewish Old Testament Commentary.

**Israel was instructed to always follow God into war and when she went ahead of God it went poorly for her. God keeps his promises to those who wait to receive them. God hands Israel's enemies over to her when He goes before them. This motif is studied and explained by Millard Lind in his book Yahweh is a Warrior; The Theology of Warfare in Ancient Israel.

The Incarnation & Our Christmas

I am part of a micro-community called Theology Pub through my congregation. We get together and talk theology, doubts, books, etc. in an open and honest atmosphere. We are a group of faithful followers and skeptics. Our aim is to be honest and to understand the reality of the gospel message and how it is to affect us in our daily life. Right now we are going through a small themed series we call Advent Conspiracy. We're talking Christmas for 4 weeks. This week is my week to facilitate the discussion and I was given the topic of the Incarnation. Here is what I wrote.

The Incarnation in Scripture

One of the main tenants of the Christian faith is the doctrine of the Incarnation. Before the death of Christ on the cross and his resurrection there was the Incarnation. It's a critical piece to the Christian faith not only doctrinally but in application as well. That is, it's not important that we merely believe it once happened but we must ensure with our own daily lives that it continues to happen. It once happened in Christ and it now happens in us. In it's most simple form we say that the Incarnation is when God became man. Scripture speaks of the incarnation several times. Perhaps the largest look at the Incarnation is in John 1:1-18.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") And from his fullness we have all received,grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

Key features of this passage are that The Word (Jesus) existed from the beginning with and as God (this tells us of the Trinity). He created the world and is the reason life exists on earth he is the light/likeness in mankind. John makes it unmistakeable that the Word is Jesus Christ but also God himself! The Word is God become flesh, dwelling with us so that we can witness him with our very eyes. In other words, this is very real. In Philippians 2:5-8 it is written,

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

1 John 4:2 reads, "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God..." The Advent accounts perhaps are the most helpful in getting a clear picture of what the Incarnation truly consists of since they are the telling of the Incarnation. Below are key exerts from the account in Matthew.

This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. ...an angel of the Lord appeared to him [Joseph] in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

Throughout Matthew's opening chapter Jesus is addressed with a few names; Jesus, Immanuel, and Messiah (sometimes translated Christ). The three combine to make a sentence which says, "The LORD our God, the anointed one, who is able to save, is with us." The revealing of Jesus for Matthew is a declaration of the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh, coming to save the world in physical form and be with his people. This is the fulfillment of ancient prophecies. In John 14:5-11 we see Jesus speaking of his identity as the Incarnate God.

Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.

In the Nicene Creed we declare, "For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man." Eugene Peterson writes of the Incarnation in The Message by saying, "The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood." This is exactly what Incarnational love looks like. It's moving into new spaces, working in new ways, becoming something different. DC Talk may characterize it by saying "God is doin' a nu thang."* Being incarnational really does mean doing a new thing or perhaps becoming a new thing. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, incarnation means "The embodiment of a deity or spirit in some earthly form." Often, the Church refers to Jesus as the God-Man because he is fully God and fully man. He is God become man.

Living the Incarnation; Being An Incarnational People

Singer and songwriter Derek Webb sings a song entitled Take to the World in which he looks at the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, observes how God has used this miracle to show his deep love for the world in a very tangible way, and then challenges the listener to live into that same self-sacrificing and transformative style of incarnational love that is seen in the Triune God. Webb sings, "And take to the world this love, hope and faith. Take to the world this rare, relentless grace. And like the three in one, know you must become what you want to save ‘cause that’s still the way He takes to the world." There is a specific purpose in the Incarnation and that purpose is to save us by reconciling us with God (1 John 4:10; 4:14; 3:5), to help us to know God's love (John 3:16), to make us "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), and to be our model of holiness (Matthew 11:29, Johnn 14:6, Mark 9:7; Deuteronomy 6:4-5, John 15:12, Mark 8:34). While we may not be able to make people partaker of the divine nature we still have the ministry of reconciliation, ability to help others know God's love, and imitate the Jesus model of human life. This is our aim.

Incarnational love is the kind of love that requires a person change elements of their life for the sake of others without compromising their nature. Marriage is an excellent example of what incarnation can look like for those of us who aren't God and able to become human. A person adopts a new atmosphere or environment as they dwell with another person relationally. Being a married person is entirely different from being a single person. Fully individual and fully unified to the spouse. It may not be as impressive as God become man but man become selfless is always worthy of praise. Paul teaches us what it looks like to be incarnational for others when he writes,

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings" (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

Paul's "strategy", if you will, is an excellent model of incarnational ministry. He is one thing but for the sake of others he becomes another, entering into their world and meeting them exactly where they are at in life and culture. Paul proves, as Derek Webb sings, "you must become what you want to save 'cause that's still the way he takes to the world." Paul does not forsake God at any point, using an any-means-necessary approach but an incarnational approach which never compromises his nature as a child of God, born through Christ. God has transformed us into the likeness of his Son and that must never be abandoned. Rather, that is exactly what enables us to be a people who live out the Incarnation here and now.

So how do we become incarnational people? This is the crux of this week's discussion. Here are some questions to get our gears spinning. Feel free to come ready to answer these specific questions or to tell us where your thoughts took you. Perhaps new questions popped up for you as you delved into the thought process.

• What traditions do we currently practice as individuals and communities which reflect the incarnation? What traditions do we practice that do not reflect the incarnation?
• What are incarnational ways we can approach the Advent season, which declares the Incarnation, that would make the world better understand what we are celebrating?
• What do incarnational gifts look like? What gifts did we receive from the Incarnation of Christ?
• Can we be incarnational without being uncomfortable? What does a proactive incarnational lifestyle look like, especially in our specific communities and during Advent?

Extra Resources

Below are some additional resources if you're interested in thinking more on the subject of the Incarnation and how we move beyond believing it into living it.

1. A classic piece of Christian literature is by Saint Athanasius and it is entitled On the Incarnation (or De Incarnatione Verbi Dei). The forward is by C.S. Lewis and he calls the work "a masterpiece." It is both simple and beautiful theology. You can read this wonderful yet short book online for free @http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm. The first three chapters would be more than sufficient for our discussion.
2. Reading a passage several times over in different translations can often help us get a better grasp of what is being communicated by a biblical author. For a few different takes on John 1:1-27 check out your favorite translation, The Message (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=NIV), andThe Voice (http://www.hearthevoice.com/). You can download the book of John on the Voice website. If you can get your hands on it, N.T. Wright has just released a translation of the New Testament entitled The Kingdom New Testament. I assume it's fantastic.
3. For further readings in what it looks like for the Church to be an incarnational people pick up the book A Community Called Atonement: Living Theology by Scot McKnight.
4. It may sound corny but the best resource we have to teach us on this subject is the Holy Spirit of the Incarnate Jesus Christ so let's pray about our questions. Let us spend time each day asking God to reveal more to us concerning the great mystery known as the Incarnation and to show us how to live it out daily. Let's keep God in our conversation as we discuss this together.

*DC Talk song entitled Nu Thang. There is a funny video on YouTube of a kid singing this song in the '90s. Check it out:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ppisOulgG0

When We're Mistreated; Never Abandoning An Attitude of Love

I've had to take breaks from Facebook recently because I see so many heartbreaking messages that overwhelm my spirit with pain and aggravation. Often I see these sorts of things as a response to a recent interaction in which someone upset the person posting it. Repeatedly I see posts containing catchy little sayings, graphics, or notes that convey an attitude of pride, contempt, and bitterness. Sadly, some of these posts are by Christian brothers and sisters. The message usually something similar to "If someone doesn't think you're worthwhile then they're not worth your time." This is not an attitude for Christians to adopt though.*

People who don't value me will always be valuable for they are made in the image of God who also created me in his image. Those who don't appreciate me should still be appreciated because they are as much a sinner and mess as myself and are appreciated by our Father in heaven. Those who don't love me still need to be loved so they may learn how to love. We are to "...Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves" (Romans 12:9-10). Abandoning the commitment to honor others won't do the good that is needed in this world. Selfishness, bitterness, and revenge are not good medicines for healing broken relationships. In fact, those very things are antithetical to the way of Jesus' love which keeps no record of wrongs, does not keep anger, forgives, blesses, and reconciles. If I am a Christian and I'm posting messages on Facebook (or my daily actions and attitudes) that communicate an if-you-don't-treat-me-well-I-won't-treat-you-well mentality then I'm missing the uniqueness of Christ's love.

Jesus tells us "If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:46-48). Christians are to love neighbors even when they may be like enemies. We are called to not only love those who love us or treat well those who treat us well. Rather we love everyone and treat all people well. Jesus has instructed us "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12), and similarly, "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31). In this second passage he also says "...do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you" (v. 27). With similar words to the Matthew passage he states, "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:32-36).

Too often we want to write off people who have wronged us instead of addressing the conflict. It's easier to count someone an enemy and believe we owe them no loving action or attitude but this is not the narrow way of Christ. Whether we count them as enemy or not we owe the person love. Jesus commands us to love our enemies repeatedly. When he describes what this type of love looks like he says it is a love that blesses, prays for, and nurtures the other. At one point Jesus says to his listeners, "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift" (Matthew 5:23-24). Repairing relationships is important. Jesus finds this to be so important that he teaches us that our worship is unwanted by God if we're not reconciling with others. If we're letting broken relationships exist and not trying to make things right then we aren't right with God. After all, "Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister" (1John 4:20-21). Sometimes a relationship will not be mended but the task to mend what is broken and to reconcile with love is always upon the Christian. To do this we must abandon our selfish, bitter, and revengeful attitudes which force us to devalue those who devalue us.

We can not allow ourselves to devalue others with our words. We can not present such curses, especially with idleness or flippancy. "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water" (James 3:9-12). We must endure the hate and curses of others. We must persevere through the bad attitudes that surround us and sling arrows. Our love must be unique, like Christ's love.

The uniqueness of Christ's love is found in the resilience of his love! While being killed he prays forgiveness for his murderers (Luke 23:34). We are to be a people who forgive without end (Matthew 18:21-35). We imitate Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:1). Whether or not someone loves us or treats us well is to have no bearing on whether or not we love them or treat them well. That is what sacrificial love looks like. That is the love that took Jesus to the cross and that is the love we can't live without. It is the love we all need. It is a love we have seen. It is a love we must sincerely give precisely because we have experienced it . . . even when we're online.

*Sure, when it comes to spreading the gospel there are times when you shake the dust off and continue on your way but I'm focusing on the type of attitude that demands a devaluing of fellow human beings. It's one thing to walk away from someone who has closed ears and it is quite another to think poorly of that person. Jesus let people like the rich man walk away but he loved them even then. We're called to that same way of operating.

A Few Did You Know's About The Bible; Christmas Edition

There are a few assumptions about the story of Christ's birth held by many Western Christians. They are 1) Jesus was born in a wooden trough in a barn, and 2) The inn Mary and Joseph couldn't find room at was a motel like dwelling. Our nativity scenes and church productions have often mistakingly presented untruths to us about this story. Not being Middle-Eastern, many of us have no way of knowing the more probable truths. With these traditional assumptions in mind I ask:

Did you know . . .

• That Jesus probably was not born in a barn but in a common house and the manager was most likely not a wooden trough? Rich folks may have head separate facilities for their animals (or storehouses for grains) but not the common Palestinian. The average Palestinian home had 2 rooms. 1 for guests, which was either attached to the back of the house or on the roof, and the main "family" room where sleeping, eating, visiting, and all home life took place. The end of the room next to the door, was either a few feet lower than the rest of the floor or blocked off with heavy timbers. At night the family's animals would reside there, keeping the home warm and the animals safe. The first morning activity was to open the door and let the animals out so they could be tied and given water. This type of home can be traced from the time of David up to the 20th century. Below are two diagrams of the average home.

From the side (A) and from above (B).

A.

B.

The circles in Figure B are dug out portions of the living quarters and act as feeding mangers for the large animals like cows in case they get hungry in the night. There was also typically a small wooden one on the floor of the entrance for the smaller animals such as sheep. This type of 1 room is assumed in the stories found in 1Samuel 28 and Judges 11:29-40. It also makes sense for when Jesus speaks of lighting a lamp so it gives light to all in the house. That's only possible in 1 room homes. This house structure and these practices of keeping the animals inside at night (and thus having the carved out mangers) was absolutely common in Middle-Eastern villages like Bethlehem. For more than 100 years scholars resident in the Middle East have understood Luke 2:7 as referring to a family room such as this.

• The phrasing "...there was no room in the inn" in Luke 2:7 doesn't actually mean there were no available rooms in the motel? The word often translated as "room" is the Greek word topos (τοπος) which means space, as in there is no space on my desk for a computer. That means the "inn" was so filled you couldn't fill another speck of space! The word often translated as "inn" in the Greek is katalyma (καταλυμα) which does not mean a commercial inn like as in the story of the Good Samaritan. The word in the parable is pandochein (πανδοχειον) which means "to receive all" and it transferred over into Armenian, Coptic, Arabic and Turkish with the same meaning of commercial inn. Katalyma literally means "a place to stay" and can refer to various types of shelters. The three possible shelters for this word in this story are inn (English traditional translation), house (Arabic biblical tradition of more than 1,000 years), or guest room (Luke's choice). The other time Luke uses this word in his gospel is 22:10-12. Why would Luke not be consistent with his use of the word? If he wanted to communicate a commercial inn why wouldn't he use the commonly used term instead of a term he uses later to mention a guest room? We know now that this is defined as an "upper-room" which means it is a guest room. Luke tells us that Jesus was placed in a manger (in the family room) because the guest room in that home was already full. Since many simply homes in traditional villages began in caves and were then expanded this understanding can fit within the Middle Eastern tradition that Jesus was born in a cave. If that's not persuasive then The account in Matthew 2 seals the deal by saying "And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him" (v.11).

• If Mary and Joseph had been rejected from an inn or housing the city would have been dishonored, that Joseph was a bit of a hero, that the way Jesus was wrapped after birth is a sign of poverty, or that shepherds were unclean people and it was strange that God would send them to the child? I'd expand on these things normally but I'm going to plug my source instead.

The above information was mostly taken from an excellent book entitled Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes; Cultural Studies in the Gospels by Kenneth E. Bailey from InterVarsity Press (with permission). This book is one of the best books I've ever encountered when it comes to understanding the cultural context of gospels and Bailey covers far more than the Nativity. This is only part of the first part of the first chapter. I recommend it to every westerner interested in the gospels because Bailey gives refreshing examination of many scriptures from a Middle-Eastern perspective that is hard to find in the common Western church.. He has a follow up book out now entitledPaul Through Mediterranean Eyes which I am excited to read at some point.

Be Fruitful & Don't Multiply

As I listened to a sermon discussing the biblical purposes for marriage took notes on Twitter. My friend responded by asking about an absent purpose which was "to be fruitful and multiply." He was asking if bearing children was a universal command for all Christians who marry. I said no and my explanation turned into the following examination of that command.

There are many wonderful Christians who believe that the command to "be fruitful and multiply" is a command for all believers, or all married believers, or all married believers who are able to bear their own children. It's easy to see how this can get tricky right off the bat. I believe that this is a command for all Christians as well but not in the way these siblings do (and we'll get back to how I see things playing out for child-bearing at the end). In fact, I think their interpretation and application of this command demands that they miss a key element of the context of the command in scripture.

While the words "be fruitful and multiply" show up several times in scripture it is not always as a command. Often times the phrase is a promise from God or a blessing from a person towards a specific recipient. Some great examples of this are Genesis 17:20, 28:3, 48:4, Leviticus 26:9, Jeremiah 23:3, and Ezekiel 36:11. The words "be fruitful and multiply" show up as a command in three different situations in scripture. Let's take a quick look at these individual cases and then we can draw a conclusion from their similarities on how we are to understand this command and it's application for believers today.

Passage 1

• So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day . . .

  So God created man in his own image,
  in the image of God he created him;
  male and female he created them.

  And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Genesis 1:21-23, 27-28).

This passage is a piece of the Creation story. God creates the creatures of earth and tells them to fill the earth. God then creates mankind and commands them to be fruitful and multiply as well. In doing this mankind shall have dominion over all the other creatures. This passage has the notion that mankind will be where creatures will be. The planet is meant to house the creatures and mankind, so use the rooms of the house. That's the point of the command in this passage; to continue the beginning of creations by producing goodness and reproducing what God has produced so that the earth may be filled.

Passage 2

• Then God said to Noah, "Go out from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh—birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth—that they may swarm on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth" . . .

  And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered . . .

  And you, be fruitful and multiply, teem on the earth and multiply in it" (Genesis 8:15-17, 9:1-2, 7).

Though some verses have been omitted to highlight the specifics being discussed it is clear to see the striking similarities between the commands of God towards the creatures and humans in Creation and the commands for Noah in the Flood. Both passages first consist of a command for the creatures to be fruitful and fill the planet and then consist of God commanding the humans to fill the planet. So far we've seen God create the world and command those in it to be fruitful (producing good things) and multiply (fill the earth). Then God saw the wickedness of the inhabitants, sent the Flood, kept a remnant, and commanded the remnant to do what the original creations did. This is almost a second creation. Both accounts consist of an empty world needing to be filled with the good God has created which can reproduce themselves. The world is empty and thus should be filled. The world must be used, occupied.

Passage 3

• God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed him. And God said to him, "Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name." So he called his name Israel. And God said to him, "I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body. The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your offspring after you" (Genesis 35:9).

This passage is a bit different from the previous two in that the earth is no longer empty of inhabitants. However, the earth does seem to be empty of people whom God has found favor in. The righteous are few. In other words, while there has been multiplication there has not been much fruitfulness. God came to a fruitful/righteous man named Abraham and made a covenant with him and his descendants. Jacob is the second generation of these descendants and Jacob, though troubling for a time, has come to God, wrestled with him, and found a new identity in doing so. He is now Israel and this renaming is part of a greater blessing. The blessing is that the Abrahamic covenant lives on through him, under the name Israel (this shall be the name of God's people). At this point in the story God is still looking for mankind to fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply and his catalyst is now the lineage of Abraham, because of Abraham's faith and fruit. Not surprisingly, God made Abraham and his wife bear children (multiply) after his covenant was made. This was quite the miracle since the couple was previously unable to bear children. It was imperative that this particularcouple bear children now that the covenant had been made.

We see here that God is fulfilling his covenant through Jacob, now Israel, and fulfilling his desire for a world filled with his created beings that produce good fruit. Through Israel that fruit shall now come just as multiplication has now come. God informs Jacob that a nation, and a company of nations, and kings shall come from his line. This is why it is so important that Jacob be fruitful and multiply. Jacob will certainly multiply. God has clearly promised that. God is commanding that Jacob live into that and to be fruitful in doing so. In short, God is building his fruitful people so that the world which has seen multiplication may now also see fruitfullness! After all, the desire of God with Israel has always been to bless all people and bring them back to him through Israel (Genesis 18:18, 22:18, 26:4) and we see this being fulfilled in the New Testament (Romans 11).

Conclusion

In this article I have pointed to all the passages in which the phrase "be fruitful and multiply" appear. All of the passages exist within the Old Testament alone. Only three of them are actual commands from God. In all three scenarios it is easy to observe that God is starting something new. This command is not a common command. This is a special, unique, holy command. The command is given at three specific times and to three specific groups of people in order that three specific purposes may be fulfilled.The differences between the context in which these commands appear and the world in which we now live is that in the first two the world was empty of both good fruit and inhabitants whereas in the third the world was full of inhabitants but not fruitfulness and thus God promised inhabitants to come out of fruitful men and commanded that the coming inhabitants be fruitful as they multiply. God was starting creation, restarting creation, and restarting his people. After this endeavor the command never shows up again. We can conclude from this evaluation that the command to be fruitful and multiply is not directed at all people, all married people, or even all married people who have the ability to bear children. Thus, it is not wrong or disobedient to be married and to not bear children according to scripture.* However, there are the later passages in which God speaks his promise to make his people fruitful and to multiply. At the same time, that is God's doing and it is in the context of his workings with his unique people on the earth.

So where does this lead us in terms of childbearing? We've already concluded that this is not a command to all married people. We can also conclude that the earth needed to be filled when it was empty and since the world is no longer empty the command no longer applies to us today. Must the earth remain filled? Yes. It is good to have children. However, from the third passage we see that the inhabiting the world is not the most important part of the command. Fruitfulness must exist as well. It's interesting that the command is not to multiply and be fruitful but instead to first be fruitful and then to multiply. This is exactly why God takes the route he does with Israel. Fruitfulness was lacking. As a result God went to where fruit existed and commanded the fruitful ones to multiply and they obeyed. This raises the question "If Christians are fruitful and this world is still filled with unfruitful inhabitants then is not the command to Jacob still the command to the Church?" It's a fantastic question but I don't think we can simply answer "yes" to it.

While the Church is still Israel she is different from the Israel of the Old Testament. Christ has come and he brought the kingdom of God with him, for he paradoxically is also the kingdom of God. Christ is the definitive answer to the rebellion and lack of fruit in the world. Israel was to bless the world but could never do it fully so Christ came to save everyone and to directly call all back to the God not only of Israel but all Creation, all of mankind which is in his image. Was Christ a quick fix for current unfruitfulness? No. He promised to return, judging all creation according to the fruit it has produced, and to renew the earth. In that renewed time God will be our all in all. There will only be fruitfulness in that time for all the fruitless inhabitants will be cast out for they proved that they were not God's people but not obeying him in being fruitful as they multiplied. Not only that but they multiplied without being fruitful and thus expanded the unfruitful creation. They rebelled and they grew the rebellion against God. Until that time comes Christ has established on this earth his body in the form of the Church, which is led by his Spirit whom he has sent to us. God is working out his promise to make his people fruitful (through Christ and the Spirit) and to multiply them (through bringing people to him). Where multiplication once meant mere childbirth it now means second birth into the family of God (John 3:1-15, Acts 2:47, 5:14). Conversion and salvation are the multiplication of God's people. Unfruitful creations becoming fruitful is multiplication. This means it is now possible for God's people, Israel, the Church to be fruitful and multiply without physical childbearing, though it is by no means outlawed or frowned upon. Multiplication through childbirth is still good and still a blessing. If called to childbearing, a couple is obedient to obey and thus worships well. However, we can now say confidently that adoption of children is a way to multiplication since it would consist of fruitful people multiplying fruitful people.

The spreading of the gospel into the hearts of people is now the form of multiplication God seeks. As Christians and nonChristians produce it is the duty of the Christian to continue loving and bringing all people to God, reconciling them (2 Corinthians 5:11-21). In this, God adds to our numbers, multiplying us, multiplying his people, multiplying his fruitful people and thus fulfilling his own command which we were never truly able to fulfill ourselves. It is through the Triune God that this work is fulfilled. So bear children (a lot of people need to), adopt children (a lot of people need to), be without children, or be single (if you can accept that calling). Whether you reproduce or not, be fruitful. Make disciples of Jesus Christ, reconciling men to God, raising the youth to know Him, and in that way know that you are being fruitful and multiplying. Peace be upon you.

*Some might argue based on the passages in 1 Timothy 3 and Ephesians 6 that because there is a command from Paul to treat children well it is assumed that all the Christian couples have children. It is also argued by some that since the list of credentials demanded for church leaders includes how one manages their children that only christians who have children are worthy of leadership and thus all should strive to be such leaders. Both of these assumptions are not safe to make. In the same letter (even chapter) that Paul instructs fathers how to treat their children he instructs slave owners how to treat slaves. Where there are commands for husbands ad wives in general there is never any command which implies they are to be procreating. When the single people in scripture are spoken of it's never said of them that they ought to get married so that they may have children. Children are great blessings but not great commands. This doesn't mean we should assume all Christians ought to have slaves or even employees. As for the lists of proving a good church leader, the list is about fruitfulness or character. The test is not what the person has done (multiplied) but who they are and how it is seen in their lives (fruitfulness). Besides, we know for a fact that those tests also speak only of married men and there were unmarried and childless men and women who were leaders in the Church (Paul included).

Dear Atheists

Dear Atheists,

I'm Travis. I am a Christian. It's safe to say that I believe you're wrong about the existence of the Creator God found in the Bible and about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I say that the existence of God (specifically YHWH) and the Lordship of Jesus are facts; 100% truth. Right? Why wouldn't I as a Christian? Obviously we disagree. We both (hopefully) have strong feelings connected to our beliefs. That's good. We're going to vocalize our disagreement and it's going to cause a lot of division. That's fine. I'm absolutely okay with that dynamic of reality. You can expect me to disagree with you, tell you that you're wrong, call you to repent and invite you to come under the reign of Christ Jesus.

You can also count on me to never do those things in a way that attempts to insult or humiliate you. I refuse to call you names that demean you. I may think you foolish but I recognize I am foolish as well. I accept our similarities and I want to invest in what we share because I believe love does that. I believe love is bold and stands up for what is true but I also think love can be bold while being kind and gentle. It may sound paradoxical but that's what I see in Jesus, whom I model my life after. I will always be more strict and raw in my communication with fellow Christians than with you. My aim with you (and really all nonChristians) is merely to love you and tell you the reason I love you is because of Jesus' love.

I won't post blogs, videos, or pictures that sarcastically deliver a backhanded virtual slap to you because I know there is a human being, a sibling by creation, behind that screen and that person is worthy of my love and I am in need of having a right relationship with that person. I may find you to be in wrong standing but I don't find you to be unworthy of love. I will not speak hate to you and I will apologize for those who do. I will not devote my time to trying to break apart your opinions unless you invite me to do so in healthy dialogue. I'll blog about Christian positions but I won't blog about how stupid atheists are (because even if I thought that was loving and morally acceptable most of the atheists I know are intelligent).

I know you may not all share the same commitment. Some of you may post things online that are attacking Christians and our beliefs. You may ridicule and demean us. You may try relentlessly to show us how wrong you think we are and you may do it without gentleness or kindness. It doesn't matter. I love you. I will keep aiming to love you. If I fall short, have moments of weakness, or prove myself still a hypocrite and sinner then I apologize. Other Christians may treat you poorly and I'm sorry for that as well. We may never end up understanding each other well but I hope you'll never think I don't love you. I don't want you to think it's more important to me that you like me than you repenting though. I want you to know that the most important thing in this world is to love God with your whole being and to love others as yourself. I'll never try to get you to do this in an unloving way. So yes, I think you're wrong and yes I ask you to repent and come under the love and reign of Jesus Christ but I also ask that you hear that as coming from a voice of love, gentleness, and kindness as opposed to a yelling and mocking voice of hate coming from a virtual megaphone.

You are created by God and loved by him. I love you too. Keep thinking. Keep debating. Keep fighting with us (please do it justly). That's how we learn. Peace be with you.

Mark Driscoll & MMA; An Open Critique

Mark Driscoll is the pastor of Mars Hill Church based in Seattle, WA. He's an author of several books as well. He's been at the receiving end of a lot of press over the last several years. There is a lot I admire about Driscoll as a pastor but we have a lot of theological disagreements. This week he released an essay on MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) entitled A Christian Evaluation of Mixed Martial Arts. You can find it here.

I was excited to read this article because I had a good inkling that I'd disagree with Driscoll on the position he brought forward and I was eager to see how he presented it and I was hoping it would challenge me. Like Driscoll is now, I used to be an avid MMA fan. I watched every UFC bout possibly and even kept up with Pride and several other brands (even the Japanese based ones). I knew the ins and outs of the sport. I loved the original concept of the UFC. I loved the TV shows it created and I've enjoyed meeting some fighters through the years (Mr. Pulver being a real treat since he introduced me to Vibrum shoes). I lay this on the table because it'd be easy for readers who are familiar with my articles to think of me as a completely anti-MMA Christian when that isn't the case. It's true that I've stopped watching MMA (UFC100 was my last event) but I'm far more reasonable than Driscoll would assume. With that said, I was severely disappointed in Driscoll's essay. I expected a theological evaluation of the sport. I thought he was going to present opposing theological and scriptural arguments against watching or participating in MMA but he left me with little. It is because Driscoll's presentation was so disappointing that I've chosen to evaluate his essay here and not because I disagree with him. However, I will address his presentation as well as his stance.

The essay begins with a short preface and then a section on how MMA originated and morphed into what we now see today. That's good. We have to know what we're talking about. The next section is entitled The Redemption of MMA. Driscoll states, "My belief is that MMA can be redeemed as a sport for a Christian." This is why I wanted to read the essay: the thesis (at least it certainly seems to be a thesis). He goes on to state that there are two types of Christians who oppose MMA. He writes, "Some Christians will vocally declare that we must reject MMA. Sometimes it’s because they simply do not understand the nature of the sport and misperceive it, and other times it’s becausethey are pacifists theologically who don’t condone violence in any form" [emphasis mine]. Driscoll sees two camps that stand against Christians supporting MMA. The ignorant (in the kindest sense of the word) and the nonviolent or "pacifist." He first directs his attention to the nonviolent pacifists.

Not spending much time on this camp of MMA rejectors Driscoll says of the nonviolent Christians, "Their picture of Jesus is basically a guy in a dress with fabulous long hair, drinking decaf and in touch with his feelings, who would never hurt anyone." This is his main critique of the group. He attacks what he believes is the common pacifist view of Jesus Christ. Either that or he is being snarky and not really interested in acknowledging the notion that violence is wrong or that this camp of Christians have anything to bring to the discussion. Without volunteering, the pacifists are now in the octagon with Pastor Driscoll and he's keeping it a stand up game, swinging for the fences like Chris Leben. To correct what he believes is the pacifist view of Christ he argues Jesus' hair was most likely short (fabulous or not), his body physically impressive due to his hard labor job and traveling, and that when he returns it will not be in humility but in glory. So far none of this has to do with the nonviolent position against MMA. In fact, no argument has been presented on the pacifist behalf other than that Jesus drank decaf coffee and is in touch with his feelings.* However, he continues on the notion of Jesus returning not in humility but in glory by quoting Revelation 19:11-18 (which mentions neither humility nor glory). To summarize the message of the Revelation passage Driscoll writes, "Simply, on his first trip to the earth Jesus took a beating to atone for sin; on his next trip he will hand them out to unrepentant sinners instead." All of this is reminiscent of the time in 2007 when he said in Relevant Magazine "...I cannot worship a guy I can beat up."

It's true that this portion of Revelation paints a pretty violent looking picture of the coming judgment and Christ's return. It's true that Christ said he would return in glory. That can't and shouldn't be argued against. What can be argued against is Driscoll's approach to the passage. Does he see this as a passage to be interpretted literally? Is a sword protruding from the mouth of Jesus, who came to serve, truly going to slay all sinners? Did Jesus come and die on the cross for all people so that they might be saved so that he could later come back and violently lay waste to those who did not repent? I'm not exactly sure what Driscoll's approach to this passage looks like. I'm not sure how his reformed theology forces him to read it but regardless of how he approaches the passage he concludes that Jesus is the type of person/God who kills the unrepentant. It's not mere imagery for Driscoll. It's literal character analysis and perhaps literal foretelling. For Driscoll, Jesus is coming back like Terminator, to seek and destroy.

Something that has to be kept in mind when approaching the book of Revelation is that it was written by the apostle John. This is the same man who was Jesus' "beloved" disciple, who wrote one of the four gospels (an evangelical favorite it seems), and who also wrote 1, 2, and 3 John. Whatever picture of Jesus is drawn in those books precedes Revelation and is a basis for how to understand Revelation. Also, John is writing about a vision (much like prophets of the Old Testament). Also, Jesus doesn't do a lot of killing in the passage. Birds do a lot of eating of human flesh, and the Beast teams up with the nations of the world to fight Jesus and his army only to be captured and thrown into the fire. The remaining rebels are killed by the sword coming from Jesus' mouth. But is this really to be read a foretelling of Jesus' righteous killing rampage? Most note-worthy commentators suggest that this isn't literal. Jesus isn't slaying the unrepentant in the way men slay men. The sword coming from Jesus' mouth is truth, the Word of God (for companion scriptures about judgment, swords, and the word of God see Hebrews 4:12-13 and Ephesians 17). It'd be more accurate to say Jesus speaks the truth and people's slaying is more rightly their condemning which they brought upon themselves (Titus 3:11). After all, God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world through him (John 3:17). While Driscoll believes that "Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down his leg, a sword in his hand and the commitment to make someone bleed" (source) John has previously told us that Jesus came and bled for us (John 6:53-59). It's almost as if Driscoll see's a violent imagery of Jesus' second coming and thinks "Well if it looks like he kicks some ass in the judgement then it must be okay for us to kick some neighbor's ass for money and entertainment" and that's a perspective I can't support. Though, I would hope his approach isn't so simplistic and foolish. He's smarter than that.

For a while this is all Driscoll says on the issue of the pacifist rejection of MMA. He states that pacifists reject violence in all forms but he doesn't give a single word to that stance other than Jesus appears to be violent in a few verses of Revelation. He doesn't present or engage any reasoning pacifist Christians may have for rejecting MMA or what scriptures or biblical themes they would base their conclusions on. If the crux of the pacifist rejection of MMA is that they renounce violence in all forms then he ought to unpack that and his stance against it. He doesn't. Worse, he states that MMA can be redeemed and doesn't explain how. If this is significant for any camp of Christians isn't it the pacifists he's brushing away? Aren't these some of the people he should be most concerned for in talking about how MMA can be a redeemed sport for Christians? Yet he doesn't enter into that argument. Driscoll does a disservice to his pacifist siblings by brushing them off in such a snarky fashion and by not reasoning with them as to why they should be convinced of his thesis. He doesn't show any concern for properly presenting the pacifist position, perhaps because he doesn't truly know it, and proves he doesn't care much about honest discussion/debate, and perhaps even the pacifists themselves. Nothing in Driscoll's presentation makes me think he values his pacifist siblings as anything beyond a punching bag.

From here Driscoll moves forward into arguments about MMA and nonChristian philosophies that coincide with the various martial art forms used in MMA. He gives some great advice on rejecting any practices that are directly or clearly connected to idolatrous practices of beliefs. I agree with Driscoll that there are forms of strength training, martial arts, and stretching that are near identical to what we see in the lives of most MMA competitors and that these practices are perfectly acceptable for Christians should they be untainted by idolatrous influences.

As one could predict, Driscoll does what many reformed theologians would when there is a moral dilemma and points to the individual conscience as the answer for determining what is best (no offense intended to my reformed siblings). He writes, "Not everyone should participate in MMA, watch it, or even enjoy it. The Bible doesn’t command us to, and God’s people are free to operate according to conscience on this matter... As Christians, the question is, where is the line to be drawn and why? I would argue the line should be drawn wherever one’s conscience permits." Different strokes for different folks in other words. When it comes to MMA it's all about your own conviction and not about a biblical standard of how we entertain ourselves, physically interact with our neighbors or how we engage the culture surrounding us. I'm not saying it's a sin to participate in or enjoy watching MMA. Please don't receive that message. I'm simply saying that Driscoll's answer is too lazy. To lean on the argument that it's up to the individual is to dismiss the scriptural problems that MMA rejectors in the church would point to. The problem with Driscoll's leaning on the conscience is that there is no explanation of how one does this according to scripture. How do we know when we can and can't trust our conscience? How do we guard our conscience from being swayed by cultural seductions? Again, this is where it would have been helpful to give a proper examination of the pacifist rejection for Driscoll. It seems Driscoll would dismiss anyone claiming MMA is wrong to watch or participate in by saying they are trying "to bind everyone with your conscience" and that the Bible forbids that. He goes on to make a wise statement, "All of God’s people are to obey all of God’s Word, and beyond that we are to operate according to conscience."** However, it doesn't seem like he is interested in how his opponents read scripture. He chalks it up to their conscience. He's not hearing the other side out. Listening to one's conscience is great advice but outside of safety and participating in idolatrous practices Driscoll doesn't point out any other ethical issues one's conscience must wrestle with.

To support his position that it is a matter of conscience whether or not one engages MMA, Driscoll spends 8 paragraphs discussing fighters who claim to be Christians, pray, read scripture on TV, and have tattoos of scripture passages. However, this doesn't prove anything other than the fact that some fighters claim to be Christians. Politicians and tyrannical dictators do a lot of the same things. Even demons can acknowledge Jesus Christ in the public square with impressive theology. So what? A stripper can say she's a Christian and read scripture while swinging on a pole but does that mean her stripping is a matter of conscience or that it's appropriate for Christians? Of course not. It's nice that Tim Tebow (NFL quarterback) is vocal about his faith in Jesus Christ but that doesn't mean football is a good activity for Christians (I'm not saying it isn't either). I'm not attacking MMA with this challenge but simply trying to say I have a hard time understanding Driscoll's logic here. He spends a significant amount of time talking more about UFC fighters being professed Christians and MMA affiliated companies being Christian based than addressing the issue of violence for the sake of entertainment and profit. That's problematic for what is meant to be a Christian evaluation of mixed martial arts. When it comes to the moral and scriptural issues concerned with this issue Driscoll seems to throw a few one liners out on table about pacifists having a poor view of Christ and it all being a matter of conscience but when it comes to talking about the fighters, safety requirements, history of the sport, and other non-christian-specific issues he writes with indulgence. It's hard to tell if Driscoll wants to give a Christian evaluation of MMA or a Christian's promotion of MMA.

The next section in the essay deals with the safety of the combat sport and how it's injury statistics are far less in number than high school cheerleading and football. Driscoll believes this is a reason many Christians oppose the sport. Safety is a bigger issue for Christians than the morality of violence for pay and entertainment according to the time Driscoll devotes to the issue (and the difference in weight class between the two is clear as day). Driscoll gives a good 10 paragraphs to this issue and in so doing shows his priorities for the arguments against his favor for Christians involving themselves with MMA. What's strange is that a sport being safe is not a uniquely Christian issue, and if it is then Driscoll certainly didn't give us reason to believe it is by proposing any substantial arguments or scriptural backings. How this section received the amount of attention it did in a Christian evaluation is a mystery to me.

This brings us near the end of the essay. At this point Mark Driscoll appeals to a scriptural argument that he feels people use to say that Christians shouldn't engage MMA. He writes, "Jesus said both to turn the other cheek and to bring a sword to defend oneself. So let’s not simply quote one thing he said as if it were the only thing he said." The irony of this statement is that Driscoll is pleading for a full look at the message of Christ and encouraging his opponents to consider context but to make his point he uses two scriptures that are not opposed to one another and uses one of them out of context. It requires a poor reading of the gospels to believe Jesus commanded his disciples to bring swords for the purpose of defending themselves when the text clearly shows that is not the purpose. The rebuke following the use of said swords for defense should make that abundantly clear. Even if he was doing such a thing that doesn't make violence for the sake of entertainment of profit a permissible engagement for Christians. MMA bouts are not self defense and Driscoll knows this fact as he illustrates later in the essay (we'll get to it). If we're going to quote Jesus let's actually quote Jesus. He did say "turn... the other cheek" but he never said "bring a sword to defend..." Even if Driscoll's Jesus comes to slay sinners in the eschaton he never gives permission for his followers to perform similar action (otherwise Peter might have gotten his zealot way a little more than the New Testament witness shows). He does however deliver a number of teachings (as do his disciples) on suffering, self-sacrifice, picking up one's own cross, serving, being last, accepting persecution, being wronged, and similar seemingly weak ways of living in the world. I say weak because that's how the world views those sorts of activities. Nietzsche reasons this view in The Antichrist. With some of his published quotes I worry that Driscoll would sometimes agree with Nietzsche on the issue. He comes dangerously close to making it seem so with the persona he has created. That's not good and I don't want that for him or those connected to him.

Next Driscoll states, "Furthermore, quoting Bible verses against assault or persecution is not appropriate in regards to MMA, because such verses do not refer to a regulated sporting competition governed by rules where two athletes of similar size and skill agree to a competition. It would be akin to telling a Christian hockey player they could never check anyone into the boards, or a soldier at war or police officer in a crisis to turn the other cheek. Good verse, wrong application." He's right that Jesus' sermon on the mount morality is not aimed at sporting events or athletes specifically. However, it's dangerous to say that Jesus' words for how to live on this earth as his people, the salt and light of the world, don't apply to all realms of life. Recreation, employment, family, etc.; these all fall under the reign of God and we must be the same faithful disciples to Christ's teachings in every role we play be it a doctor, hockey player, father, governor, or small group leader. Jesus doesn't preach to turn the other cheek unless one's job says they must do otherwise. The gospel isn't an exception gospel. Jesus also doesn't say that one only turns the other cheek in a specific instance. It's a life principle. This is why Jesus demonstrates the principle with three scenarios. It's about communicating love and power like Christ did on the cross. This "way" enters all spheres of life. Do we also say we shouldn't give to those in need if we're a cop, soldier, hockey player, or UFC fighter? While Driscoll is right that we have to differentiate between being attacked against our will and fighting for entertainment and money that doesn't mean we can ever dismiss Jesus' teachings as irrelevant. Either you live the life Christ called you to or you don't. Either you're walking the narrow path or the wide. You're loving your neighbor or you're not. You're embracing the way of God or you aren't.

This should be a simple motif for such a bold and extreme pastor to embrace. After all, he goes to the extreme by saying "If MMA were a sin, we would need to bring up for church discipline every wrestler, American­- and Australian-rules football player, rugby player, and hockey player, along with everyone who is involved in combat sports. And if we were going to also discipline those who were endangering their bodies for athletic competition, we would need to include the cheerleaders as well. While we’re at it, we should also rebuke God for wrestling all night with Jacob, and tell Paul to stop using wrestling metaphors to teach us spiritual principles throughout the Bible because he’s setting a bad example." Come on Mark, nobody is saying this about God wrestling Jacob or Paul using metaphors. I'm not even sure most MMA rejectors would call it sin. They might call it foolishness, and that's worth engaging, especially for a man so concerned with conscience. It'd be far better for Driscoll to approach this with a reasonableness that demands he doesn't make arguments like the one above. He was on a good track in trying to make a distinction between the violence of sports and the violence of assault but he left it an empty topic. By showing that there is a difference between violent sports and other forms of violence Driscoll also shoots himself in the foot because once he does this he also must admit the great difference between cheerleading's aim and MMA's aim. Comparing the two in this last quote is unfair and he ought to see that by his own reasoning. A Christian evaluation must simultaneously be a reasonable and honest evaluation. In this previous quote Driscoll strays from both. Bringing up an issue isn't arguing an issue. Driscoll proves he can state what some of the issues might be for this type of discussion but he doesn't seem willing, or perhaps able, to actually engage those issues.

The final 1/3 of the essay is dedicated to explaining more about the sport of MMA. In his earlier quoted interview with Relevant magazine Pastor Driscoll mentions his worry that the Christians who see Jesus as having fabulous long hair are being consumed by the culture and yet historical record shows that the early church seems to have been almost uniformly nonviolent, refusing to be entertained by violence, and Driscoll mentions that MMA is taking this culture and the world by storm. Why is it that the pacifist types, who are staying in line with several loud early church leaders, are the ones being said to be swayed by the culture when Driscoll is the one slanting them for essentially being wusses for not liking a combat sport that he loves and is becoming the most popular sport in the world? How does he handle this conundrum? Does he need to? I think he at least needs to protect himself from this sort of questioning by giving a fair treatment to the people who have actual arguments against his own instead of catering to the easily handled disputes, especially the ones that aren't uniquely Christian such as safety issues. The fact that MMA in it's mainstream form is recreational violence against neighbor for the sake of income and entertainment hardly enters the discussion except for a few moments in which Driscoll ridicules pacifists he doesn't seem to understand. I'm disappointed that in reading A Christian Evaluation of Mixed Martial Arts I hardly saw a Christian evaluation. Driscoll missed what I believe is the biggest Christian concern with MMA in this essay and it's a shame because he had the potential to produce an amazing essay. If I misunderstood his intent then that's on me but I certainly think Pastor Driscoll severely missed the mark in this project.

The questions I still have for Driscoll are: What is the good? What is the benefit for the Christian to participate in MMA or be entertained by it? How does it edify? Must it be edifying in order for Christians to engage in it? Does MMA posses more potential to edify or bring down a believer or community of believers? How do we reconcile the fact that mainstream MMA is recreational violence for the sake of entertainment and income? Is that appropriate for Christians? Does being an MMA fighter send a mixed message about one's commitment to enemy love and Paul's words, 'Love does no harm to a neighbor'? How does the early church witness play a role in all this? How do you read Revelation? And finally, who on earth will ever dethrone Anderson Silva?

*For the record, as a nonviolent Christian I don't want a Saviour who is out of touch with his feelings. Nobody should. That's an unhealthy and out of tune person. Jesus isn't unhealthy or out of tune. He knows this creation and he knows himself. He has to be in touch with his feelings. We know Christ is a compassionate person who doesn't mask, avoid, repress, or have ignorance of his feelings because the gospels repeatedly show him crying for others, being sensitive to children, even sweating blood over difficult situations. Not only that but he speaks boldly, is angered, and overthrows tables in righteousness. This is a man not acting out of unjustifiable or unexplainable rage but a man who understands and is in touch with his inner workings, his feelings. Driscoll can have a disconnected saviour all he wants but he won't have Jesus. Also for the record, I believe Mark is a true believer and my brother in Christ Jesus.

**Perhaps it is a bit postmodern of me to say this but I believe we must look to the Church body for wisdom on how to live righteously before we look to our own conscience. The two ought to work together but there needs be authority in our lives and being a member of Christ's body means submitting to the rest of the body. It'd be individualistic to think we all have to obey the Bible but if the scriptures don't touch on a specific issue then I'm free to make up my own mind on how to live concerning that issue without first consulting the rest of the Church body. To be clear though, I'm not at all convinced Driscoll is attempting to convey that the conscience is to be held above the community. I think he'd very much disagree with that. I do worry that when we focus too much on the individual's conscience we tend to become so individualistic that we disregard the wisdom of the saints around (and before) us.