Why is breaking bread so important to me right now? Well, there appears to be significance in the meals that transpire in the scripture when Jesus is present. I may be reaching at times, but It is a faithful reach. It is a reach that I believe seeks to be obedient to the custom in which our Lord implemented the practices that bore out our modern day communion.

For example, take note of the following scriptural examples from Luke’s gospel, and as you reference them, ask yourself, what kind of meal is taking place, who is at the table/meal, what purpose does it serve, and what was the outcome of our Lord’s teaching/purpose?

Luke 5:27-32, Luke 7:36-50, Luke 9:10-17, Luke 10:38-42, Luke 11:34-54, Luke 14:1-24, Luke 19:1-10, Luke 22:7-38, Luke 24:13-35, and Luke 24:36-53. (note: if you do not read these texts with the question above in view, you will be wasting your time)

One must also consider the Exodus account of the Elders ratifying a covenant with the Lord, at table, in his presence in Exodus 24:1-12. The Lord’s final meal with his disciples and the meal between God and the Elders of Israel bear an uncanny similarity to one another.

Now that we see a pattern of bread breaking and fellowship at table in Luke, it logically makes sense to carry this context of what ‘breaking bread’ is into the account of Acts. Now compare  Luke 24:5-46 to Acts 20:7-12. Luke genuinely draws a striking paradigm between the two accounts, and they all entail coming together, breaking bread, eating together, the first day of the week, conversation, teaching of the word, and rising from the dead.

With the significance that is given to the contemporary practice of ‘communion’ this is not a subject that is often broached without raising a few eyebrows. Tradition, liturgy, and sacred rite are all things that can flare tempers and encroach upon individual preference. I am not sure the excuse of Christian Liberty finds itself wholly applicable to the disservice done to the body dynamic of God’s people when they come together to break bread. The scriptural evidence is quite clear. The breaking of bread is a meal with God’s people, gathered together, at table, in covenant with Christ, and remembering him. That meal was quite literal to our Lord, the disciples, and many other early Christians. Why has it become second place to us, and been relegated to oyster crackers and souffle cups of grape juice?

If the emblems have taken on more significance than the purpose of coming together in communion together and with the Lord, then why do it at all? The Church gathered is significant because the Church dispersed is the Church militant, diligently laboring in the fields for the harvest of our great King.

Special thanks to John Marks Hicks’ book, Come to the Table for the light it has shed on many of the scriptural nuances illustrated in this post.

____________________________________________________

This post is part of a series.

1. Neglecting the Assembling of The Saints: Intro
2. Neglecting the Assembling of The Saints: Breaking Bread
3. Neglecting the Assembling of The Saints: The Meeting
4. For more on the role of Apostolic Doctrine, see Peter the Pulpit Preacher

Falling somewhere in the middle of the two camps, I find myself always questioning what it is we do, why do we do it, are we doing it right, and does our Christian liberty give us the flexibility to be ‘right’ even when we are way off in left or right field?

I suppose I could elaborate a million miles in many directions about the impact that liberty has on our ‘Christian Practices.’ But, I have grown weary of justifying what liberty allows. Today, as a believer, disciple, and wretch, I am more concerned with what did the scripture really say about what we do.

It is really easy to look at events in scripture, compare them to our current church traditions, and then read back into the text why it is okay to do it as we do it, even though they do not align. Sprinkle a little liberty on top, and now we have justification for our behavior.

I am sorry if I fulfill my calling as a dissident, and resist this. But I am going to anyway. I cannot in good conscience continue to accept the Romish practices of yesteryear we call Protestantism (evangelicalism), and not protest that which at least is contradictory to scriptural revelation. And with that said, I am being pretty liberal here.

There is a great number of ‘traditions’ I have been looking at with great scrutiny as of late, and I am beginning to find that they are all inextricably linked together.

Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
(Heb 10:23-25)

If I have your attention, and you are interested in joining me in this discussion, or even plausibly visiting my electronic monastery of ecclesiastical reflection and vein monkish babbling, here is what I am looking at the most lately.

• The breaking of bread – Is it sacrament, oyster crackers and dainty plastic cups of grape juice, transubstantiation, consubstantiation? Can we justify this current practice by measuring it against the examples of the New Testament? 
• The meeting dynamic – What impact does the actual practice of breaking bread have on the meeting and the order we conduct our service? 
• The apostolic ordinances/traditions – What of Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians? What is our response to Paul’s instructions regarding the Lord’s table, breaking bread, the gifts, and the issue of women speaking/not speaking (not teaching, prophesying) in the meeting?

How are all these tied together you might ask? Well, for this post I will leave it stated as simply as I can with all the information I have been absorbing concerning all of these topics.

If the assembling of ourselves together, to stir one another on to good works, in an ‘official’ manifestation of the assembled church meeting is as the New Testament demonstrates (coming together to break bread), then what do the apostolic ordinances of Corinthians, the existence of gifts, and the role of men and women all look like in that meeting?

I do plan to elaborate more on my thoughts regarding these issues here at the blog, and definitely amongst the beloved brethren I share fellowship with, but now I pose the question to you. While we may not be forsaking the assembling of ourselves together even in the most liberal of ecclesiastical practices, are we neglecting it?

____________________________________________________

This post is part of a series.

1. Neglecting the Assembling of The Saints: Intro
2. Neglecting the Assembling of The Saints: Breaking Bread
3. Neglecting the Assembling of The Saints: The Meeting
4. For more on the role of Apostolic Doctrine, see Peter the Pulpit Preacher

In his post, he posed an essay question. It is extra credit, so I will do my best to raise my grade with this particular entry. His question was, “Did Jesus ever invite anyone to the Lord’s Supper? Or are we commanded to partake of the elements?” This is an excellent question, especially for personal bible study. This is also a perplexing inquiry when considering that many churches across the land have distinct “attendance” requirements for receiving the elements of the table.

The qualification of attendees to the meal is a centuries old debate that will outlive most of my present readers and their grandchildren. Those who remain to celebrate the earthly manifestation of this glorious event can hash it out until Kingdom Come. As for me, I will gladly await the conclusion of this conversation at the wedding supper of the Lamb.

I have poured hours and hours into the study of this sole topic, and quintessentially, could be accused of majoring on a minor. But for me, it is not a minor concern at all. If anything, the meal at the assembling of the saints has become a core dynamic in which I measure the health and direction of meetings we attend or desire to attend. With the countless essays, books, and blogs I have read providing a major store of information, I still find myself scratching my head from time to time.

The stark reality of what influences our table manners is the theology behind who can attend. A lot of my questions were answered when I considered the Lords interactions with others at the meals he attended. Even though considering invitations has its merit in the scripture, merely considering who was in attendance at meals with our Lord is even more revealing. What I have discovered is a significant change in who I feel is permitted to eat bread and drink the cup.

If we limit the view of the meal to just a sacrament, our perception is already skewed. If we remember that all references to the practice of ‘breaking bread’ in the New Testament involve an actual supper, our eyes and hearts can be opened.  The Gospel of Luke is very revealing. Let us focus there for the answer to this question.

Luke 5:27-32 – Jesus invites a publican to follow him, and the publican prepares a meal for Jesus. Is this significant? Was it an invitation? Ask yourself.

Luke 7:36-50 – Jesus is invited to sup with Simon the Pharisee. Essentially this may not be Jesus doing the inviting but he is dining with unfavorable company. Is this significant? Ask yourself.

Luke 9:10-17 – Jesus feeds the company of at least 5000 men. Although this is a miracle in its own right, not necessarily a direct invitation, but the Lord of Glory providing food to the multitude is an inviting situation is it not? They surely were not turned away, and in turn, dined with Christ. Is this significant? Ask yourself.

Luke 10:38-42 – Jesus entered into the household of Mary and Martha. The famous dilemma of Martha’s clamoring and obsession with serving implies supping no? Surely others were with the Lord and a meal took place. The emphasis here is the presence of the Lord, not the attention to the details of dining together as a group. Is this significant? Ask yourself.

Luke 11:34-54 – Jesus was dining with Pharisees again. Most likely an uncomfortable dining experience, as Jesus was laying into them about their hypocrisies. Nevertheless this was a dining experience with the Lord. Again, Jesus is the invited and he agrees to dine amongst questionable company. Is this significant? Ask yourself.

Luke 14:1-24 – Jesus again dines with one of the chief Pharisees. It is almost as if he has invited himself but is most likely the one bidden to dine. The dialog remains peaceful and the culmination is this instruction:

“But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”

Is this significant? Ask yourself.

Luke 19:1-10 – Jesus invites himself again, this time he is in the company of Zacchaeus, a grateful sinner who is zealous to see the Lord. Jesus invites himself to sup with this man. Is it significant? Ask yourself.

Luke 22:7-38 – Jesus now provides explicit instructions regarding the feast of Unleavened Bread. The Lord proclaims himself as the one who serves (v27) and shows us that those present, the Disciples, were those who have stayed with him in his trials. Jesus again appears to be the initiator of the feast, but also the primary servant. Is this significant? Ask yourself.

Luke 24:13-35 – Jesus has been crucified. He has risen. And we read this example of someone clearly showing up unexpected for dinner. But the two men on the road invite Jesus to dine with them and to stay awhile (v29-30). It is noteworthy, and a bit humorous, to note that Jesus played into the invitation, as if he didn’t know they would invite him along (v28). Is this significant? Ask yourself.

Luke 24:36-53 – Jesus clearly invites himself to dinner and asks the disciples for food! Yes, a point was being made in all this; the Lord reminded them of his state through a familiar reference in their personal schema. He made himself known in fellowship and dining together. Is this significant? Ask yourself.

In conclusion, I would wager that the Lord Jesus does not make a distinct open invitation to potential diners in the scriptural references to the final supper. Jesus does invite others to dine with him. Jesus also invites himself to dine with us.  Jesus is also not arbitrary with the invitations that he does make. With the idea of bread breaking in view, and as noted above, we see Jesus has had a habit of inviting himself to dine with adversaries and disciples alike. Dining with Jesus often entailed a bit of mystery and surprise. It also entailed exposure of the truth, and generally in the relations of those who were present.

We also see that the occasional unwanted guest showed up. That unwanted guest usually left with salvation and a glimpse of the Kingdom that was to come.

To address the second part of the question, are we commanded to partake of the elements, requires definition of what the elements are. That is another essay for another time. The short and most efficient answer at this juncture would be, no. But, the command to remember Jesus when we break bread is implicit. We are instructed to do this when we come together to proclaim his death until he comes again. (Luke 22:19-20)

May we all look forward to the time when we all sit at table and break bread together as the holy and spotless bride Christ has gathered to himself.

I remember the clips that reeled off the projector as it cast the black and white images, news clips, and scratchy sound bites that gave us a glimpse of what the American culture was experiencing at that time on the silver screen in front of the class. I also remember the feeling of genuine sadness that I am not sure I have experienced in any other form as I did during those lessons. I sat with a curiosity and disbelief that not even hindsight could provide an explanation for. Now, just over four decades removed from the day that Martin Luther King Jr. was shot I can ask and answer the question as to why the assassin pulled that trigger.

The sign on the drinking fountain has moved

As a Caucasian male, it is unlikely I will ever be able to fully identify with the plight of those who struggled for equality during those tumultuous times. Even today, I will never be able to fully empathize with someone who has been pulled over for driving while black. Today, various injustices still plague people of “minority” status and the signs on drinking fountains have been replaced with red-lining, profiling, and workplace prejudice come promotion time.

Racial tension still exists in many settings. Even though the community I grew up in had a significant black population, the high school lunch room was still segregated. Although it was the 90’s white kids still hung with white kids and black kids hung with black kids. Unless you were on one of the sports teams, the two groups seldom integrated. Heaven forbid if you dared to involve yourself in a mixed relationship and your boyfriend or girlfriend was of other ethnic heritage.

Jungle Fever as modern day prophecy

With the many battles won during the Civil Rights Movement there are many new fronts left to fight. The iconic film by Spike Lee, Jungle Fever, served as a latent reminder that although prejudice has been politically abrogated, it still exists. The movie also infers that the battlefield has been leveled and weapons more evenly distributed. Blacks hate whites, whites hate blacks, and we all will never just get along.

It is not a fair shake to assume that racial relations have not enjoyed peace in many other avenues. After all, many neighborhoods are integrated. My once mostly white neighborhood is now mostly individuals of ‘other’ ethnicity. Workplaces enjoy multinational and mixed-ethnicity in the population of its staff. Population polls and studies reveal that the status of dominance once enjoyed by those who are of the pale skin type is waning and white-folks are quickly becoming the minority.

The war that was not

Martin Luther King Jr. was a charismatic man. If you have ever heard the speeches, lectures, or sermons delivered by this master of oratory, something might incline you to believe him to be a prophet. It is not without perplexity that one must ask themselves the question that begs. If Martin Luther King Jr. instructed his followers to pick up bricks, bottles, and throw Molotov cocktails, would their cause still find resolution? It is also another question that follows, would the results achieved by Mr. King’s marches have been of such great impact on the future of our country if he did resort to conventional violent persuasions?

Today, and in history past, charismatic leaders have called upon the means of violence as a podium to promote their causes. Men like the Ayatollah Khomeini, Muammar Gaddafi, Kim Jong-Il, and even Barack Obama promote “peace” for their people through death and further their causes with the violent means available to them. But their “peace” is only enjoyed by those who agree with them and go on being waged by the justification of protecting their interests and the people they serve.

What happens when peace for all is promoted without the aid of an M-17, suicide bomb, drone-strike or a nuclear arsenal? Google Egypt, Libya, and even Tahrir Square and the results will provide ample reminders that violence begets violence. No message promoted through death is ever loud enough for its reverberation to last over forty plus years. It does not matter which side you stand for.

Martin Luther King Jr. used weapons

The means by which King accomplished resolution certainly involved resistance. Although the resistance achieved was not by violence, it was accomplished with immeasurable resolve. King’s followers and supporters advocated for change through protest. Economic and financial impact were the Gatling guns of the Civil Rights Movement. The sound of marching feet and the sight of hand-painted signs did not invoke fear of death but came in cadence with the sounds of African-Americans, Caucasians, and Brothers and Sisters singing We Shall Overcome.

“In spite of the fact that the law of revenge solves no social problems, men continue to follow its disastrous leading…Jesus eloquently affirmed from the cross a higher law. He knew that the old eye-for-an-eye philosophy would leave everyone blind. He did not seek to overcome evil with evil. He overcame evil with good. Although crucified with hate, he responded with aggressive love…the lesson of Calvary will be a nagging reminder that only goodness can drive out evil and love can conquer hate.”

-from King’s Strength to Love

If the ultimate trophy for the Civil Rights Movement was equal economic rights, integration, and social reform then the view of the promised land is closer on the horizon than it was in the days of King. Many of these reforms have provided the fair shake at resources that Kings people were not afforded when they became inspired to march, protest, and petition for change.

Lo, even peace can cause death

The sadness of my youth surrounding the question of why anyone would kill a peaceful man like King has lingered well into my adulthood. While there are many theological and political differences between Martin Luther King Jr. and the Messiah, Jesus Christ – they were similar in many ways. The implications of their existence and refusal to fight the way the world was accustomed made the target on their heads more pronounced. We may never know the real answer for the reason King was assassinated, but we can be certain that it was his ability to accomplish more with non-violence than without that provoked it.

The dual-realization of Martin Luther King Jr.’s promised land in his final speech given the eve of his assassination should be inspiring. During his “Mountaintop” speech in Memphis, he indicated that he has seen the promised land. The enactment of the Civil Rights Bill and the first steps toward economic and social equality were beginning to effect the lives of many who were accustom to constant oppression. Hopes were being realized and the reality of being treated as a human being despite skin-color was permeating the atmosphere. Did King also have another version of the promised land in sight?

During the mountaintop speech King stated that the Lord has allowed him to go up to the mountain. In the face of threats and the foreboding imminence of his death, he was still able to pronounce with some trepidation,

“I’m happy tonight; I’m not worried about anything; I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

It is my hope that the glory of the coming of the Lord was the finality and absolution of the sins of all humanity. Through Christ, the totality of the Kingdom of God, neither Greek nor Jew, black nor white, male nor female, and the wiping of every tear from every eye was his ultimate desire. The temporal changes that gave a version of peace to many then and its grander standard now gives only a glimpse of true peace and may actually be misleading.

King, Civil Rights, and even Barack Obama are images of the Promised Land

Jesus Christ told Pontius Pilate that His Kingdom was not of this world, if it were, his followers would fight (Jn 18:36). His non-violence toward Rome and the religious leaders of Israel was a true show of force that no earthly army will ever be able to rival. If Christ indeed had a legion of angels he could beckon to his defense is it a greater show of force to resist retaliation and revenge? Jesus Christ came from the mountaintop. His eyes had also seen the glory of the coming of the Lord, a battle won, a Kingdom established, and wolves laying with lambs (Isa 11:6). Did the Father give King this same hope? I think so.

The final moments of the mountaintop speech have caused many like me to believe King knew he would die soon – but his marching orders came from the Father, and he would carry them out despite adversity and opposition. Ultimately, King stated his desire was to do the will of the Lord.

Jesus Christ knew his day was coming – it also, like King, caused him to weigh earthly longevity against the eternal reward of obedience to that higher law of the cross (Luke 22:42). I believe that the promised land that motivated King is the one we can look forward to in Christ. Although the political climates were vastly different it is a safe comparison to state that both King and Christ gave their lives for their people – and ultimately for those who would benefit from the results of their sacrifices.

Hope and loving one’s neighbor as himself finds manifestation in shared drinking fountains, integrated public areas, a mixed-ethnicity American President, and leaders who accomplish equality through peace. These are reflections of a time when there shall be unanimous agreement on the laws of the land. Only the laws of the land will no longer require a ballot box to accomplish peace on earth. The higher law of the cross will be realized and accomplished through those who have decided to be obedient to Christ and strive for the promised land.

King was killed for one of the same reasons that Christ was killed. Although King is not the Messiah he spoke as Christ and the disciples when he resisted silence. He was a man who could not but help speak of the things he had seen and heard (Acts 4:20). I believe I can now successfully answer the question that plagued my youthful experience with the woes of the Civil Rights Movement and the death of King. I now know that he was killed because he was faithful and obedient to the purpose he was sent to accomplish.

The Romans and Jews killed Christ for the same reason. Their causes were not wholly the same, but they were reflective of similar resolve. The ultimate motivation in these men accomplished the greatest result. King put it best in his statement during the mountaintop speech:

Non-violence is what killed Christ and subsequently killed King.

In the promised land, all God’s children can sit at the same dinner table, enjoy the celebration of the wedding feast of the Lamb, break bread, and share the same cup of blessing. In the promised land, the lunch-counter will not be big enough for the whole lot of us.

____________________________________________________

Some helpful resources:

Martin Luther King Jr.’s full Mountaintop speech via YouTube.

Thabiti Anyawabile addresses the ultimate problem with confusing race and ethnicity in his Together for the Gospel message: “Identity, the work of Christ, and the Church“

Was Jesus a Practitioner of Nonviolence? by Ched Myers

Philip, means lover of horses. If that is of any eternal value to you, God bless it! Philip was also the name of an apostle, and one who was known as one of the seven. The one I endeavor to discuss here is the latter. This Philip, plausibly one of the first deacons and later referred to as an evangelist. Was he one or the other? Was he both? We know enough about Philip from the book of Acts to confirm a few things.

Philip was:

• selected as a deacon (therefore not one of the twelve) (Acts 6:1-5)
• a servant of tables and widows (Acts 6:2)
• full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom (Acts 6:3)
• a preacher of the gospel in Samaria (Acts 8:5)
• a performer of signs and miracles (Acts 8:6,13)
• a messenger of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12)
• spoken to by Angels of the Lord (Acts 8:26)
• directed by and submitted to the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:26,29,39)
• sensitive to opportunities to preach Christ (Acts 8:30-37)
• qualified to baptize (Acts 8:38-39)
• found at Azotus, preaching in all the towns en route to Caesarea (Acts 8:40)
• in Caesarea at least 25 years amongst the Gentiles when Paul came to enter his house (Acts 21:8)
• the father of four unmarried prophetesses (Acts 21:9)

Well, that is quite a list. If the bio of this man were en-scripted on a conference brochure, it surely would bring registrants! Honestly, doing careful evaluation of the activities mentioned in the scripture give us cause to think there was much more that Philip did that was not recorded for us. But then again, Philip was found in Caesarea where his journeying ended in Acts 8 some 25 years later. One could infer that he took retirement. But one could also infer that he remained there and did the work of an evangelist. Luke, the author of Acts, ascribed Philip as an evangelist should we?

Philip was a disciple living worthily of the calling with which he was called…

So following well accepted conjecture that the appointment of the seven in Acts 6 is evidence of the first deacons in the church, we look to the question, was Philip a deacon?

Deacons are:

• dignified (1Ti 3:8)
• reputable (1Ti 3:8)
• proven blameless (1Ti 3:10)

Philip was:

• dignified (Acts 6:3)
• reputable (Acts 6:3)
• full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom (Acts 6:3)

With minimal references to that which an evangelist actually does (Acts 21:8, Eph 4:11-12, 2 Tim 4:5), one must consider what information is actually available. Since it is obvious that Philip served in the capacity of deacon, we return to the question, was he an evangelist?

If Paul wrote to Timothy, and exhorted him to do the work of an evangelist, we could learn some characteristics of an evangelists calling from what he was instructed.

Timothy was to:

• correct false doctrine (1 Tim 1:3)
• encourage and be an example (1 Tim 2:1, 1 Tim 2:8; 1 Tim 3:1-13, 1 Tim 4:12)
• teach and instruct on matters of modesty (1 Tim 2:9-12)
• preach, teach, and read scripture publicly (1 Tim 4:13)
• teach honor amongst the elders (1 Tim 5:17)
• be selective of those he appointed and remain pure (1 Tim 5:22)
• command the rich (1 Tim 6:17)
• testify of the truth of Christ (2 Tim 1:8)
• teach teachers (2 Tim 2:2)

an Evangelist is to:

• preach the gospel from the scriptures
• correct errors in the church
• prepare leadership for the church
• and spread the gospel from place to place

In conclusion, a candid look at the capacity of Philip from the book of Acts tells two stories. One, he was worthy of their calling, and served the church as a deacons. Two, he served well in preaching the good news.

Philip, served as both a deacon (Acts 6:1-5) and an evangelist (Acts 21:8).

Both narratives of the function of Philip in the book of Acts illustrate the principle of service that a disciple is to emulate (John 13:10-14) in the church of Jesus Christ. As a deacon, Philip may have served tables, but it is unlikely that the requirements of his calling were restricted to delivering soup and sandwiches (more on this in another post later). Philip’s role as a deacon epitomizes the function of his role as an evangelist. As a disciple of Jesus Christ, he served his brethren through a posture of service and the function of a gift given to the church for its building and perfecting (Eph 4:11). The evangelist is not just a preacher of the gospel to the lost he is an essential component to the equipping of the saints. Philip was not just A deacon or just AN evangelist!

Philip was a disciple living worthily of the calling with which he was called (Eph 4:1). It just happened that he was fulfilling his calling, exercising the gifts he’d been given, and building up others in the church. His gifts and abilities were not requisite of ecclesiastical offices; they were requisite of service to the church of Christ! (Eph 4:11-16)

What do you think of this perspective? Do you think it is easy to get caught up in the ‘professional’ perspective of believers and the usage of their gifts? Have you ever experienced a desire to exercise your spiritual gifts but were unable to due to non-recognition as a ‘vocational office’?

The deity, authority, and omnipotence of Christ is consistently challenged. Whether it be a cult, individual, or scoffer, they all take their shot at diminishing the power of Christ. For example, the preceding verse depicts Jesus challenging the Pharisees and their allegations that He was casting out demons by the power of demons. This is typical of those who wish to dismiss or even worse deny what is truly the work of the Spirit.

The strong man’s house is plain to see as the house of the enemy himself, Satan. Many take this verse and misconstrue it into a prescription for binding Satan and binding his evil spirits/works upon them. But that is not what this passage “plainly” states. If we look at Scripture, we can see how easily the strong man’s house can be understood as being the enemies’ in this context (2 Cor 4:4, Phi 3:19, Eph 2:2)

Jesus’ powerfully proclaims His deity in the statement, “…kingdom of God has come upon you” and promptly places the Pharisees and their accusations in their rightful positions, which just so happens to be error. The Gospel of Luke echoes this very same statement (11:20). Jesus makes His point apparent, at least in a plain reading. Jesus asks them (Mt. 12:27) to account for who among them casts out demons and by what name do they do so? So Jesus states a powerful tangible here, “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God…” then they are in a world of trouble, for the Kingdom of God has come upon them!

The strong man’s house is plain to see as the house of the enemy himself, Satan. Many take this verse and misconstrue it into a prescription for binding Satan and binding his evil spirits/works upon them.

So here’s the thrust of this passage. We have assurance in the power of Christ. No doubt He has asserted not only His authority (Spirit of God), and His strength (Mt. 12:30), but His grace for those who follow and attribute to Him all glory and honor! Jesus has bound the strong man, plundered his house and taken what was his (victory over death). Anyone else who would say otherwise and blatantly deny what Christ says is obvious and ignore the forgiveness of sins by the Son of God stands and stays condemned (Mt. 12:32).

Let us consider the whole of John 15:1-14, and the words of the Lord himself as the vine and the Father as the vine dresser. In John 15:1-6 we see that unless the branch is in the vine and is tended by the Father, it cannot receive nurturing from the root that goes down deep.

As we see in John 15:7, Jesus gives us more characteristics of branches in the vine. The branches are those that dwell in Christ. Because there is a relationship, one that is a matter of life or death for the branch, it would make sense for us to attribute nourishment to the Words of Christ, which are essential to the branch. You and I, fellow disciples, depend upon the truth of the Lord. If the Word is in you, then the desire for the Father’s will is in you, and that which you ask of him is given you, because you do his will.

The Father is glorified through the fruit bearing branch, a distinction of disciples who dwell in the vine. Jesus Christ provides the foundation of the Father’s nourishment, and it is a trickling down of grace, feeding the fruit of righteousness that bears out glory for the Father. The Father is glorified in the Son, the Son is glorified in the disciple. Therefore, God is glorified in Man. We should be characterized as products of God glorifying behavior (John 15:8)

The Father loves Christ, the vine. The Christ loves us, the branches, and we shall go on in this love, which bears fruit.

The Father loves Christ, the vine. The Christ loves us, the branches, and we shall go on in this love, which bears fruit. Jesus again shows us a relationship occurring here, keeping his commandments, is abiding in his love. Jesus personifies this with obedience to the Father’s commandments, which abide in the Father’s love. And the Father and the Son are one. Abiding in Christ is abiding in the Father (John 15:9-10).

The clearest command is that the Lord’s joy might remain in the disciples and that their joy might be full. John the Baptist experienced joy that was full. Examples in the fourth gospel, the epistles of John, Philippians, and in 63 other New Testament uses all convey a literal ‘fulfillment’ and experiential ‘joy.’  Keeping the commandment of God gave Jesus joy. Obedience to God is fulfillment of the commandments, and the love, spilling over from that which welled up within him, love for the disciples, fulfills the commandments as well. (John 15:11-12)

He gives us yet another command, “…love one another, as he loved you.” The love for his own, of which no man can have any greater portion of, is to lay down his life for his friends. If you are a friend of God, you do whatsoever he commands you. (John 15:13-14).

We abide in Christ by keeping his commandments, and therefore we abide in the Father. The product of this flow of affection is an outpouring of mercy, grace, and a proclamation of truth. This as James states, results in us being doers of the word, not just hearers (James 1:22).

We cannot just hear it, and respond to it. We must speak it. John the Baptist did it, the disciples did it, Paul did it, and most importantly, the Lord did it. We must abide in the Father.

When you visit someone, do you greet them or bless them?

What unworthiness would necessitate the withdrawal of a blessing? The immediate context appears to be hospitality or households refusing to take in the disciples (Mat 10:9-10), provide sustenance for them, and give tribute worthy of their meat (Mat 10:11). But what ministry from these messengers cause them to be worthy of the gift of meat? The Greek translation for the word peace is eirene, a unique peace that is more properly associated with justice and goods.

Note, the phrase peace to you in the scripture as a greeting, comes from the Lord after he has been resurrected (Luke 24:36, John 20:19-21, and John 20:26). Peace to you occurs only once in the Old Testament from the mouth of a servant to Joseph’s household, “Peace be to you, fear not…” (Gen 43:23). Without promoting a false understanding of prosperity, health, and riches, and the subsequent security that comes from financial provision, one can see plainly the provision God has given to the children of Jacob through the hand of Joseph, by means of Egypt, which is an interesting provision for Hebrews through justice and goods.

The Lord gives instruction for those who will not receive or hear the disciples’ words (Matthew 10:14) “shake off the dust of your feet”. Are their words simply a blessing or greeting given when one comes or goes in a household? As the Lord continues, where there is rejection, they are to shake the dust from their feet. When Jews would travel from Gentile lands back into the holy land, they would shake their dust from their feet because of its unworthiness to enter the land. But, it is the lost sheep of Israel that the Lord is sending the disciples to (Matthew 10:6).

Note, the phrase peace to you in the scripture as a greeting, come from the Lord after he has been resurrected…

The Lord then pronounces condemnation on the rejection they will inevitably receive on this mission. He says it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city (Matthew 10:15). Ultimately, they have rejected the Christ true justice and provision of goods in the Kingdom!

The peace being brought into these homes is the peace that Christ brought to the disciples when they were locked away in fear and trembling because of the Jews. This peace is the news that the Father has sent the Lord Jesus, as he sends us. This peace is the same that greeted the doubting Thomas who was convinced from witnessing the risen Lord.

The punishment Sodom and Gomorrah received was not due to their lack of hospitality, as some may have claimed. We know that they received punishment because of their wickedness, and received death the first time, and eternal punishment slated for the next. They however did not receive the peace of the gospel, the glorious news of a resurrected savior from the mouths of those who are witnesses thereof!

Looking at Mark 6:12 or Luke 9:5-6, we see the message the disciples brought, the peace given unto others in their homes and towns, was the message that men should repent. Whoever rejected this message, rejected the Messiah, the one who issued the command and who came with authority from on high. This rejection of the Christ is a testimony against them.

We preach Christ and him crucified. We rejoice in the power of him resurrected. And, we bring peace to those who receive it, believe it, and are brought into his body.

Situational ethics make for great conversations and debates but they seldom answer the personal question of whether we are being obedient to what Jesus has taught. Early in prototypical evangelical churches we are taught to believe the ideology of Augustine, Eusebius, and other ‘Just War’ advocates to be sufficient rationale for resisting an evil man. After all, I have an obligation to kill and defend myself against would be attackers; as long as they do not attack me while I am preaching the gospel. Then it becomes a matter of applying the teachings of Jesus and not the Second Amendment.

Luke 22:36-38 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

One of the Biblical passages that find themselves central to the discussion is Luke 22:36-38. Upon meditating on this particular passage something became clearer to me than my previous understanding was. Of course, being careful to not try and discover something novel that really is not there, it seemed way too obvious to not explore. Suddenly, the statement of Jesus to those without a sword was to “sell his cloak and buy one” suggested more than many of the previous commentators cared to elaborate on.

If we find ourselves trying to be obedient to Christ, would it be better to permit the taking of our cloak from an aggressor or litigant because we thwarted them with a sword? Or better to obey Christ and give them more of our possessions than they originally intended to take. Literally, it is the disciple’s obligation to give someone the shirt off their back.

The first century outer garment referred to as a cloak/coat provided valuable warmth and security. The cloak/coat held such significant value that to hold it as collateral for a loan beyond nightfall was against Jewish law (Ex 22:26-27). To sell something of such significance to purchase a sword causes need for re-evaluation of such a statement.

Without diving too far into other explanations of the text, I wanted to explore the idea of selling your cloak for a sword. Most commentators on this passage remain consistently on one side or the other. Of those I have surveyed, none evaluate the importance of selling your cloak to make such an untimely and uncouth purchase.

What some commentators are saying: 

• The suggestion that they go and buy two swords presents a dilemma if they are to be purchased for immediate use as Jesus would be arrested much sooner than they could complete such a task.
• The weapons would be for future defense in a growing hostile environment.
• The two swords eventually produced by two of the disciples were to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12 and provide legal-political cause for Rome to crucify Christ.
• The suggestion for using swords is figurative and to be taken as an instruction for self-sufficiency and/or readiness.

I was not able to discover a commentator that eagerly encouraged Christian self-defense based solely on Jesus’ suggestion or the presentation of the two swords from the two disciples. Sadly, this lack of evidence does not stop many Christians from using this text as a reason to fight or resist would be attackers and support military action.

As I kept coming back to the role of selling your cloak I placed myself in the Garden of Gethsemane. Personally, I may seek personal comfort all too much; but if the Lord was telling me to sell my cloak for a sword, I would probably ask why? Not having your cloak in first century Palestine might result in some very cold nights. You see, the cloak was a valuable garment used to protect oneself from the elements and also used for sleeping.

Mantle: The typical Hebrew slept on the floor with his mantle (cloak) used as a covering to keep him warm. This was especially true for travelers, shepherds, or poor people, so a person’s mantle was not to be kept as collateral for a loan (Ex. 22:27). (Illustrated Dictionary Of The Bible, Thomas Nelson, 1986, Pg. 312)

The cloak, mantle, or robe: was a large, loose-fitting garment, which for warmth and appearance was worn over all other articles of clothing as a completion of male attire. It was distinguished by its greater size and by the absence of the girdle. (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Zondervan, 2011, Pg. 374)

I am aware that the suggestion of the intrinsic value of this cloak suggests it to be appropriate that selling it would provide enough money to purchase a weapon of some sort. The value of the outer garment even finds itself in play on Calvary. There we read of the Roman soldiers casting lots to possess the outer garment (cloak?) originally belonging to Jesus (Jn. 19:23-24). The mere reference to it being without seam implies it to be of significant worth and not to be torn in two (another prophetic fulfillment as well, Ps. 22:18).

Now, even though having a sword for future defense suggests that it would provide some sort of security, I am not convinced that it would be wholly profitable to use the sword itself for protection from the weather and sleeping. It would not be very comfortable snuggling up to cold steel. It was probably hard enough camping out on the floor. I do not believe air mattresses were readily available to first century mankind.

The biblical evidence makes some salient points concerning the value of the cloak: 

• The cloak could be used for collateral on a loan, but only temporarily, and to be returned by nightfall so that its owner would have it for warmth and bedding. Does Jesus suggest his follower’s place more emphasis on arming themselves for a physical battle instead of remaining protected in their travels?
• The cloak was a target of thievery and litigation as well as subject of Jesus when he taught one who is sued for his outer-garment should give to them also his inner-garment. Selling one’s cloak for a sword contradicts the very teaching of Christ to go a mile further instead of retaliating. (Mt 5:40-41)

Jesus also makes it clear that his life and words rebuke the use of violence toward others, regardless of the circumstance: 

• Peter is commanded to put his sword back and reminded that living by the sword results in death by the sword. (Mt. 26:52)
• Jesus heals the man assaulted by the zealousness of his sword bearing “protector” and undoes the damage caused by this wrongful reaction. (Luke 22:51)
• The sword is not to interfere with the present obligation of Christ to fulfill his duty and drink the cup the Father has given him. (Jn. 18:11)
• The life of Christ and the actions of the disciples had a reputation that did not warrant the intrusion of the temple guard and the Roman soldiers as they came forth and treated Jesus as if he were a robber who would resist their arrest. (Mk. 14:48-50)

Whether the command was to provide weaponry for the disciples to defend against Jesus arrestors or to equip them for future defense of their persons in a dangerous and perilous period in human history, Jesus stated “it is enough.” I cannot believe he contradicts himself, but in turn ends a lesson gone wrong and resulting in the disciples misunderstanding. This we could all agree on is something the disciples were well-known for doing.

Conclusively, the evidence drives my understanding in a completely different direction than that of those would imply the purchase of swords as a defense of using violence against another person. Without considering all of Jesus’ teachings regarding physical violence, the references reviewed here provide ample information for us to learn that Jesus could not have been instructing his followers to react violently. It is even more interesting to evaluate the scriptures in light of Jesus suggesting you give up one security (cloak) for another (sword).

If we find ourselves trying to be obedient to Christ, would it be better to permit the taking of our cloak from an aggressor or litigant because we thwarted them with a sword? Or better to obey Christ and give them more of our possessions than they originally intended to take. Literally, it is the disciple’s obligation to give someone the shirt off their back.

Would you sell your house to buy groceries? It would be rather awkward storing and preparing them without a place to provide you protection to cook and eat no?

If the usage of the swords were for future occurrences, why did the disciples not find warrant for their use in the face of later persecutions? (Acts 4:25-31, 8:1-3, 9:1-2, 12:1-5 (Darrel Bock))

Even better, how does one heap hot coals on the head of an enemy if you have already killed him and prevented him from experiencing the joy of your not returning evil for evil? (Pr. 25:22, Rom. 12:20)

Placing emphasis on a decision through the means of a man denies the saving power of the full gospel. While man’s neglect does not hinder the Power of God unto Salvation, it does reinforce the already hard heart of a false convert and increases their self-righteousness.

But this is not the gospel or evangelism. The original intent of preaching repentance remains intact, but the understanding of the power of regeneration and where it comes from is neglected. Placing emphasis on a decision through the means of a man denies the saving power of the full gospel. While man’s neglect does not hinder the Power of God unto Salvation, it does reinforce the already hard heart of a false convert and increases their self-righteousness. This is not a proper approach, and I won’t critique it as so. I am stating the neglect in the matter of preaching the resurrection as well as the cross. Pick up most gospel tracts available and investigate the claim that the resurrection message is lacking.

Without the resurrection:

• there is still a crucified body buried in a rich man’s tomb.
• there is no conquered death and promise of eternal rest for the believer.
• the entire purpose of preaching Christ crucified is futile.

The dilemma stems from doubt and true allegiance given to the feat that was accomplished at Calvary. Christ made mention of His own resurrection. Even in His mention were the twelve and other listeners often perplexed by its meaning. (Mat 17:22-23, Mat 20:18-19, Luk 9:22, Luk 18:32-33, Luk 24:46-47) But the Lord repeatedly reminded them that what He was doing on earth had a terrible end, that He would die. For all that they heard was just that, He was going to leave. When he arose on the third day in glorified form it was difficult for His own followers to immediately recognize Him. But when they did, they were overcome so much so that they risked their lives to go into the world and proclaim the gospel. Never falling short of emphasizing the resurrection.

Opponents of the resurrection often place physical, earthly restrictions upon its possibility. They forget that if there were a resurrection, it would be of supernatural means, and the origin of these means in fact would be God Himself. Who above all would be capable of resurrecting a body in any form?

So in thought there is only one logical conclusion to the approach of evangelism. Jesus Saves. That’s it, no dogmatic methods, no utilitarian approaches, and no need for bringing people to your Pastor for him to evangelize. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and if we indeed heed the truth of Scripture, we would do well to remember the resurrection, for it is evidence of the power of God in its purest form.