Thesis

This thesis argues that the New Testament, read as a unified canon and in light of its Old Testament background, supports four propositions, each established by an independent line of evidence.

1. The Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples to be equipped with a machaira, a short sword or large knife, in anticipation of a hostile world (Luke 22:36).
2. The chief apostle, Simon Peter, carried such a blade in the Lord’s own company. He was not disarmed, and he was corrected only as to the occasion and manner of its use (Matt 26:52; John 18:11).
3. The duties of neighbour-love, household provision and watchmanship create an affirmative obligation to be capable of protecting the innocent (Matt 22:39; Ezek 33:6; Prov 24:11-12).
4. The carrying of a bladed, portable and, where lawful and prudent, concealable weapon for defence is therefore a legitimate exercise of Christian conscience and, for the believer so convicted, a duty rather than a mere liberty.

The argument proceeds cumulatively, through textual, canonical, historical and moral reasoning. It is stated with its strongest objections, and Chapter XIII records the points at which the case is genuinely contested. A thesis that concealed its weak points would be less persuasive, not more, and the advocate has chosen candour as the basis of its credibility.

Why the question matters

Most readers of the New Testament have never asked whether a disciple may carry a blade. The question is usually treated as settled by a reflex: the Christian is a peacemaker, the sword belongs to the state, and the knife is a tool for bread and rope. Those are real truths, and this thesis does not deny them. It asks a narrower question that the text itself raises. When the Lord prepared his disciples for the hardest night of their discipleship, he told them to acquire swords, and one of them, Simon Peter, had one at his side when the arrest came. Any account of Christian ethics that cannot say what those facts mean has left part of the text unexplained.

The question has also become practical. In many countries Christians now live under laws that regulate the carrying of knives, and some of those laws ask what purpose a person has in carrying one. A believer who must answer that question deserves a reasoned account of what Scripture says, and of where the honest limits lie. This thesis is written to provide that account, and to make it available in a form that can be examined by any careful reader.

What the thesis claims and what it does not

The advocate does not claim that the New Testament mentions firearms, modern knives, or any statute. It does not claim that the Christian should be armed in every setting, or that carrying a blade ever substitutes for prayer, the pursuit of peace, or obedience to lawful authority. It does not claim that violence is good in itself, nor that the believer may strike first. The claim is limited: that a disciple who is lawfully able, and who is convicted in conscience that he must be ready to protect the innocent, has scriptural warrant to carry a defensive blade, and that he is bound to do so when the circumstances of his life require it.

Method and standard of proof

The advocate proceeds by the method the Church has long used to derive doctrines that are not named in a single text. The doctrine of the Trinity, the word Trinity, is absent from the New Testament. The baptism of infants has no explicit command. In both cases the Church reasons from principles, precedents and commands, applied to circumstances the texts did not describe, and it has treated the result as binding on conscience. The same method is used here.

The standard of proof is cumulative. No single verse bears the whole weight of the argument. The case rests on the convergence of independent lines of evidence: the Old Testament background, the dominical command, the example of Peter, the ethic of neighbour-love, and the apostolic and civil context. A proposition that is supported by several independent witnesses is stronger than one that depends on a single fragile reading, and the advocate accepts that each line must be tested on its own.

Scripture and verification

All scripture is quoted from the King James Version. Each reference is hyperlinked to the corresponding passage on Bible Gateway, so that the reader can check the wording and context directly. The Greek terms are transliterated where they are discussed, and the Greek is taken from standard lexical sources, which are linked where cited. The Appendix records how the quotations and external sources were checked, and identifies the claims that are interpretation rather than established fact.

1.1 The Thesis

A follower of Christ who may lawfully do so bears a moral and religious duty to be prepared to defend innocent life. The carrying of a defensive blade is a legitimate expression of that duty and, in the circumstances the Lord described on the night of his betrayal, a commanded one.

1.2 The Burden

The advocate carries the burden of showing that the New Testament, fairly read, permits and in some cases requires what has been described. The opponent does not carry the burden of proving a negative. However, the advocate accepts that a thesis proposing a duty must meet a higher standard than one proposing a liberty. It is one thing to say a believer may carry a blade; it is another to say he must. The thesis is therefore arranged so that the permission is established first and the obligation is argued afterwards, on separate grounds.

The advocate does not claim that the New Testament mentions firearms, kirpans, or modern carry laws. It claims that the principles, precedents and commands of Scripture, applied to new circumstances, yield the duty. This is how the Church has always derived doctrine from texts that do not speak to the case directly.

The standard of proof is cumulative: no single verse bears the whole weight, and the case rests on the convergence of independent lines of evidence.

1.3 The Order of Argument

The argument follows the order below. Each stage depends on the one before it.

1. The Old Testament background establishes that defence of the innocent is lawful.
2. Luke 22 establishes a command to be equipped.
3. The example of Peter establishes the practice in the company of Christ.
4. The ethic of love establishes the motive.
5. The apostolic and civil context establishes the limits.
6. Only then is the duty drawn.

2.1 Key Terms

Machaira (μάχαιρα). The word translated “sword” in Luke 22:36, 22:38, 22:49 and 22:52; Matt 26:47, 26:51, 26:52 and 26:55; Mark 14:43, 14:47 and 14:48; and John 18:10-11. In ordinary Greek it denotes a large knife or a short sword, as distinct from the romphaia, the large broadsword. It is the weapon of close personal use rather than of the battle formation. The Septuagint uses the same word for a blade of personal scale in Judges 3:16, as Chapter IV shows.

Thēkē (θήκη). The “sheath” of John 18:11. A weapon with a sheath is a weapon worn on the person.

Hoplon and hopla. Weapons or implements, as in John 18:3 and Rom 6:13.

Concealable. Capable of being carried beneath a garment, as distinct from displayed. The term is used descriptively and does not imply any intention to deceive.

Religious obligation. A duty binding on conscience by virtue of Scripture, as distinct from a civil permission. The thesis uses the term in the sense a court would recognise in asking whether a practice is genuinely religious: a conviction held on religious grounds, with a practice that follows from it.

Protective purpose. A purpose of defending others from present or imminent unlawful violence, as distinct from a purpose of vengeance, intimidation or domination.

2.2 Scope Limitations

The thesis concerns defensive carrying only. Aggression, vengeance, intimidation and vigilantism are excluded and are condemned on the same authority that supports the defensive duty.

The thesis presupposes lawful carrying. Chapter IX explains why Romans 13 binds the believer to the law of the land, and why that limit is itself part of the obligation rather than an exception to it.

The thesis concerns the principle of preparedness. The particular instrument, whether blade, firearm or other, is a question of time, place and law. The blade is chosen as the focus because it is the instrument the New Testament actually names, and because a blade of personal scale is the one most directly examined in Scripture.

3.1 Canons Adopted

The thesis is bound by canons of interpretation that it applies to every text, including those that tell against it.

Canon of plain sense. Where the grammar is direct, the burden rests on those who would read it as figure. The advocate does not multiply senses to avoid an uncomfortable command.

Canon of non-abrogation. The Lord said:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Matt 5:17, KJV)

Defensive provisions of the Old Testament remain in force unless the New Testament repeals them. The advocate contends that it does not.

Canon of apostolic silence. Where Christ and the apostles meet an armed person and do not require disarmament, permission may be inferred. The inference is weak on its own and is used only in combination with other evidence (Chapter XIII).

Canon of harmony. An interpretation that reconciles Luke 22 with Matthew 5 is preferable to one that sets them against each other.

Canon of cumulative probability. Several independent indications pointing the same way carry more force than any one of them.

3.2 The Reconciling Principle

The advocate’s central reconciling principle is the distinction between the self and the neighbour. Scripture calls the disciple to two different things, directed at two different persons.

The disciple may be called to endure insult and persecution for the faith (Matt 5:39; 1 Pet 2:21-23). This governs what he surrenders of his own.

The disciple is called to protect the weak and the innocent (Ps 82:4; Prov 24:11). This governs what he owes to those who cannot defend themselves.

These are different duties directed at different persons, and they are not in conflict. The first is a duty of patience toward wrong done to oneself. The second is a duty of protection toward wrong done to another. A disciple who turns the other cheek when he is struck has not thereby agreed to stand aside when a stranger is attacked.

3.3 The Test of the Heart

The thesis also adopts a moral test, drawn from the Lord’s own teaching. An instrument is morally neutral until a motive is attached to it. The Lord located the origin of evil in the heart, not in the object carried (Matt 15:19), and the same principle governs the carrying of a blade. The question is never only what a man carries, but why and to what end.

4.1 The Law of the Night Intruder

“If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.” (Exod 22:2, KJV)

Defensive force against a nighttime intruder is declared to be without bloodguilt. The law distinguishes day from night (Exod 22:3). The advocate finds in this distinction the origin of the principle of reasonable apprehension: at night the householder cannot know the intruder’s intent, and the law allows him to act on that uncertainty. The principle is a statement about lawful defence, not about vengeance, since the thief is struck while breaking in and not after escape.

Nothing in the New Testament repeals this provision. The Lord, who came to fulfil the law (Matt 5:17), assumed the household’s right to guard its goods (Luke 11:21-22), discussed in Chapter VIII.

4.2 Abram’s Armed Rescue

“And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them as far as Dan.” (Gen 14:14, KJV)

The father of the faithful (Rom 4:11-12) armed his household to rescue a member of his family. The rescue was not a campaign of conquest. Its object was the release of a captive kinsman, which the advocate treats as the protection of another person from unjust violence.

Abram is blessed by Melchizedek immediately afterwards (Gen 14:19-20). The advocate reads the blessing as a divine approval of the armed act, since the narrative gives no sign that the blessing was withheld on account of the force used.

4.3 The Builders with Swords

“They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon. For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded.” (Neh 4:17-18, KJV)

Here the people of God are engaged in holy work, the rebuilding of the city, and they work armed. The text does not present the arms as a regrettable concession. It presents them as part of the work.

The text pairs prayer with preparation. Nehemiah writes: “Nevertheless we made our prayer unto our God, and set a watch against them day and night” (Neh 4:9). The thesis draws from this a principle that recurs throughout: it is not faith or arms, but faith and arms.

Nehemiah’s exhortation also names the objects of defence:

“…and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.” (Neh 4:14, KJV)

The list is significant. The thing defended is the family and the community, not a possession or a privilege. The duty is defined by its object, which is the same object the later New Testament names.

4.4 The Blade of Ehud

“But Ehud made him a dagger which had two edges, of a cubit length; and he did gird it under his raiment upon his right thigh.” (Judg 3:16, KJV)

This is the Old Testament’s clearest example of a blade carried beneath a garment. The same chapter says that the LORD “raised them up a deliverer” (Judg 3:15).

The Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, describes Ehud’s blade as a machaira distomos, a two-edged machaira. The same noun is used of the sword of Peter (John 18:10). The Greek lexicon confirms that distomos (“two-edged”) is used of a sword in Judges 3:16 and, in the New Testament, in Hebrews 4:12 and Revelation 1:16. The advocate infers that a Greek-speaking reader of the New Testament would hear the earlier associations of the word.

Limitation, stated in advance: Ehud’s act was an assassination in a time of oppression, not an act of personal defence. The advocate cites the verse only for the narrow point that carrying a blade under one’s clothing is not treated as intrinsically wicked. Chapter XIII returns to this limit.

4.5 The Wisdom Tradition on Prudence

“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov 22:3, KJV)

Prudence, meaning foresight against evil, is praised as wisdom. The verse does not say that the prudent man hides from every danger. It says that he foresees evil and takes shelter from it, and the simple who do not are punished.

“A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;… A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” (Eccl 3:3, 8, KJV)

The Preacher acknowledges that there are circumstances in which the taking of life is part of the order of things. He does not say that every such act is a sin, nor that the time of war is one the righteous should welcome.

4.6 The Prayer of the Warrior-King

“Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:” (Ps 144:1, KJV)

Skill in arms is presented as something taught by God, not something forbidden by him. The psalm does not praise war for its own sake. It praises the God who prepares the hands of his servants for the defence of his people.

4.7 The Meaning of “Thou Shalt Not Kill”

“Thou shalt not kill.” (Exod 20:13, KJV)

The Hebrew verb ratsach denotes unlawful killing, that is, murder. The same Law that contains this command also prescribes defensive killing (Exod 22:2) and judicial execution (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12). A commandment cannot be read to contradict the provisions of the same lawgiver in the same book. The reasonable reading is that the commandment forbids the unlawful taking of life, and that the Law itself makes the distinction between murder and lawful defence.

4.8 Summary of the Old Testament Evidence

The Old Testament establishes four points that the New Testament does not overturn. Defence against an unlawful intruder is without guilt. Armed rescue of a kinsman is approved. Holy work may be done by people who are armed. Skill in arms is a gift taught by God. None of these points is contradicted by any passage of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the New Testament writers, who knew those Scriptures intimately, do not treat them as obsolete.

5.1 The Text

“And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38, KJV)

5.2 Verse-by-Verse Analysis

Verse 35: the former dispensation. Jesus recalls the earlier mission: “Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes” (Luke 10:4). The disciples confirm: “Nothing.” Under that arrangement provision was supernatural and hospitality was assured. The contrast that follows depends on this recollection, and the advocate notes that the Lord himself draws it.

Verse 36: the reversal. “But now” (alla nyn) signals a deliberate contrast with the preceding period. Three imperatives follow: take the purse, take the scrip, and sell the garment and buy the sword. The first two are ordinary equipment for travel. The sword is placed in the same list, and the advocate argues that this classifies it as standard equipment for the new circumstances.

The sacrifice demanded shows the priority. The outer garment was the poor man’s bedding and protection from the cold, and the Mosaic law protected it from permanent seizure:

“If thou at all take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down: For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep?” (Exod 22:26-27, KJV)

A command to part with that garment in order to buy a blade is as strong a statement of priority as the Gospels contain on any material object.

Verse 37: the prophetic frame. The quotation is from Isaiah 53:12: “and he was numbered with the transgressors.” The advocate’s position is that the prophecy is a reason offered, not a withdrawal of the command. The command stands whether or not the prophecy also explains it. A reader who takes the prophecy as the whole meaning must explain why the Lord thought the swords necessary for its fulfilment.

Verse 38: the response and the reply. The disciples produce two swords. Jesus does not order them cast away. “It is enough” (hikanon estin) is an assessment of adequacy, and the advocate reads it that way. The disciples already had swords. Peter’s presence in the Gospel narratives with a sword is therefore part of a pre-existing practice, not a sudden improvisation.

5.3 The Garden: “Shall We Smite?”

“When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.” (Luke 22:49-51, KJV)

Three observations follow.

• The disciples ask permission before use. Their carrying was understood to be under the Lord’s authority, and his direction governed its use.
• The KJV renders the reply “Suffer ye thus far.” On this reading the Lord is not issuing a blanket prohibition but marking a limit, “thus far,” on what was to be permitted at that moment: the arrest, which was a necessary part of his redemptive plan.
• Jesus then performs an act of mercy toward the wounded man. The advocate sees in this a template for the duty after defence: preserve life where possible.

5.4 Summary of the Chapter

The command is in the imperative mood. Its cost is great, and it is attached to a specific instrument that is named. No later text withdraws it, and the disciples were not disarmed in the narrative that follows.

This is the central chapter. The argument is that the apostle Peter provides a worked example of a disciple carrying a portable, sheathed blade in the immediate company of Christ, and that the Lord’s response to that carriage does not condemn it.

6.1 Peter’s Possession Is Established in the Gospels

“And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.” (Matt 26:51, KJV)

“And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.” (Mark 14:47, KJV)

“Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.” (John 18:10, KJV)

Three points follow from the text.

• John identifies the sword-bearer by name, Simon Peter, and describes him as “having a sword” (echōn machairan). The participle denotes possession as an ongoing condition, not a transient act.
• All four Gospels record the incident. Matthew and Mark record the act without naming the actor, and John supplies the name. The advocate does not speculate about the reason for this, since the text does not state one.
• No Gospel suggests that Peter acquired the sword that night. The text treats it as already his.

6.2 The Sequence of the Night

The advocate sets out the sequence from the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John.

“And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.” (Luke 22:14, KJV)

The command regarding the sword, and the production of two swords, take place at the table (Luke 22:36-38).

“And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.” (Luke 22:39, KJV)

“When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.” (John 18:1, KJV)

From this sequence the advocate reasons as follows.

• The swords were produced after the Lord’s own command, in his presence, and on the same evening as the arrest.
• The Lord, who knew all things (John 18:4), took no step to confiscate them.
• The Lord, who for three years had travelled with Peter, knew whether Peter habitually carried a blade.

6.3 The Argument from the Sheath

“Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11, KJV)

“Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matt 26:52, KJV)

Three terms carry weight.

• Into the sheath (eis tēn thēkēn). The weapon had a scabbard. A sheathed blade is carried on the body, ordinarily at the girdle, and is kept out of sight beneath the outer garment when the wearer does not wish to alarm others.
• Into his place (eis ton topon autēs). The Lord commands Peter to return the blade to its place. This is not the same as commanding him to discard it. A thing with a proper place is a thing that has a proper use.
• Drew it (heilkysen). To draw implies that the blade had not been visible in the hand. Before the moment of drawing, it was carried on the person.

An inference about concealment. The text states that a crowd came “with swords and staves” (Matt 26:47) and that the arresting party carried “lanterns and torches and weapons” (John 18:3). It nowhere says that Peter’s sword was displayed. The arresting party made no effort to disarm Peter’s company before the strike, which is consistent with the disciples’ blades being worn beneath their garments.

Candour note. The Gospels do not state in terms that Peter’s sword was concealed. This is an inference from the verbs and from the absence of any report that the sword was seen before it was used. The thesis does not depend on it: the argument for carrying stands whether the blade is worn openly or covered. The advocate’s point is only that nothing in the narrative treats a worn blade, visible or not, as scandalous.

6.4 The Nature of the Weapon: A Blade of Personal Scale

Machaira is the word used elsewhere in Greek for a knife, including a butcher’s or sacrificial knife, and for a short sword. It is not the long sword of the cavalry or the legions. A weapon of this size is by nature portable and can be worn beneath a cloak.

The advocate adds, as historical background only, the account of Josephus. He describes the sicarii, the “dagger-men,” of first-century Jerusalem as carrying short daggers concealed in their garments and mingling in festival crowds (Jewish War 2.254-257; Antiquities 20.186-187). The New Testament names the same group:

“Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?” (Acts 21:38, KJV)

The KJV’s “murderers” translates the Greek sikarioi. The advocate’s point is contextual. Small concealed blades were a known feature of Judean life, particularly at festival times such as Passover, and no Gospel author is shocked to find that a disciple carried one.

Limitation. The sicarii were assassins. The advocate cites them for cultural context only, and not as moral models. Chapter XIII notes that this comparison is the weakest of the historical parallels.

6.5 Peter’s Trade

“And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.” (Matt 4:18, KJV)

Peter was a commercial fisherman. Fishermen of the period ordinarily carried a knife for cutting line and net and for dressing fish. The advocate argues that Peter’s possession of a blade would not have been unusual, and that the dual function of a knife as tool and as weapon is part of ordinary life.

Limitation. This is an inference from occupation, not a statement of the text.

6.6 The Rebuke Analysed

The opponent’s strongest text is the rebuke. The advocate analyses it point by point.

What was rebuked? The surrounding text states the reason. The cup given by the Father must be drunk (John 18:11), and the Scriptures must be fulfilled:

“Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” (Matt 26:53-54, KJV)

The reason given for the correction is the redemptive purpose of the arrest, not the intrinsic wrongness of carrying a blade.

“All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” The advocate reads this as a statement of consequence for the one who takes the sword, that is, who initiates or seizes it. The verb lambanō carries the sense of seizing. On this reading the saying is a warning against unauthorised aggression, and specifically against resisting an event that God had ordained.

Peter was not disarmed. The Lord says “put up,” not “give it to me” or “cast it away.”

The weapon’s later disappearance is not evidence of prohibition. After the arrest the disciples fled (Matt 26:56). The narrative of the Passion no longer concerns itself with them, and the silence is not a command.

The Lord’s own restraint is not generalised. His submission to arrest was the unique act of the Redeemer. The Lord himself explains the reason:

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36, KJV)

The statement is conditional. Servants would fight if the kingdom were of this world. It concerns the purpose for which the Lord would not be defended, namely the prevention of his delivery to the cross, and it does not forbid the protection of persons within the present world.

6.7 The Gethsemane Incident as a Model of Conduct

From the narrative the advocate derives a set of principles. They are offered as an inference from the text and not as explicit commandments.

• Carry sheathed. The weapon is kept in its place until it is needed.
• Seek direction before force where time permits. “Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” (Luke 22:49).
• Never resist lawful or divinely ordained process. Peter’s error was to strike against the arrest.
• Limit the harm. The Lord’s response contemplates a limit (“thus far”) (Luke 22:51).
• Heal where possible. “And he touched his ear, and healed him” (Luke 22:51).
• Do not use the weapon for pride or provocation. The whole conduct of the Lord is restrained.

6.8 Peter After Gethsemane

Peter is restored (John 21:15-17) and commissioned: “Feed my sheep.” No restoration is conditioned on the surrender of a blade.

Peter later writes to the churches urging submission to governors “sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well” (1 Pet 2:14), which accords with Romans 13. He ministers to the centurion Cornelius (Acts 10) and does not require him to lay down his arms. The advocate views this as consistent with a mature apostolic ethic that permits defence and law enforcement while forbidding vengeance.

6.9 Summary of the Chapter

The most prominent apostle carried a blade. The Lord knew it. The Lord rebuked the occasion and manner of its use, not the fact of its carriage. The blade belonged to a category of personal weapon that is small, wearable, and capable of being worn beneath a garment.

7.1 The Second Great Commandment

“And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Matt 22:39, KJV)

Love is defined by action as well as by feeling, and the New Testament insists on this.

“But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” (1 John 3:17-18, KJV)

The advocate asks: if a brother is in need of rescue from violence, and I could assist but do not, in what sense have I loved “in deed and in truth”? The question is not rhetorical. It is the point at which the command to love becomes a command to act, and the act may require capacity.

7.2 The Good Samaritan

“A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.” (Luke 10:30, KJV)

“Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do likewise.” (Luke 10:36-37, KJV)

The parable is set on a road traditionally associated with banditry, and the Samaritan travelled it knowingly. The priest and the Levite are condemned for failing to act. The Lord’s instruction, “Go, and do likewise,” establishes the pattern of the neighbour as the one who is able to help and does.

The advocate argues that a disciple who travels the roads of a dangerous world with no means of assisting the vulnerable has reduced his capacity to obey this command. The parable does not require the Samaritan to be armed. It does, however, make clear that the one who can help and does not is condemned, and that capacity is part of what the parable assumes.

7.3 The Watchman

“But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.” (Ezek 33:6, KJV)

Responsibility for protecting others rests on the one who has the position and the capacity to see danger. The watchman who sees the sword coming and remains silent is accountable for the blood of those he might have warned.

The advocate generalises: every disciple is, within his own circle, a watchman. The duty of the watchman is not confined to sounding an alarm. The alarm is the first duty, and where it cannot prevent the harm, the watchman is not absolved of the duty to act.

7.4 The Duty to Deliver

“Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.” (Ps 82:4, KJV)

“If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?” (Prov 24:11-12, KJV)

Failing to deliver the one “ready to be slain,” when one is able, is treated as culpable. The plea “we knew it not” is rejected as an excuse, because the knowledge that a neighbour is in danger is itself the reason for action.

The advocate acknowledges that deliverance from violence cannot always be accomplished by words. Where words are insufficient, the duty to deliver remains.

7.5 Summary of the Chapter

The second commandment requires action, and the parable of the Samaritan and the watchman of Ezekiel together show that the duty to act falls most heavily on those able to act. The duty is not discharged by good intentions alone. Where capacity exists, the duty to protect the vulnerable is a duty of the believer.

8.1 The Strong Man Armed

“When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.” (Luke 11:21-22, KJV)

The Lord uses the image of an armed householder as a picture of normal security. The goods are “in peace” because the man is armed.

The advocate acknowledges that the passage’s immediate subject is spiritual, namely the binding of Satan. The point is that the Lord chooses an illustration in which the armed guarding of one’s household is taken for granted as sensible. An illustration is not an argument, but it shows what the hearers were assumed to accept.

8.2 The Householder and the Thief

“But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.” (Matt 24:43, KJV)

The Lord praises the householder who would have watched and not suffered the break-in. The same Lord says “Watch therefore” (Matt 24:42), and the advocate reads vigilance as a general Christian virtue, applicable to the protection of the household.

8.3 The Duty of Provision

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Tim 5:8, KJV)

Three observations follow.

• The Greek pronoeō (“provide”) means literally to think ahead for, or to take forethought.
• Forethought for a household includes forethought against foreseeable violence. A household that cannot foresee danger cannot provide for it.
• The severity of the penalty (“denied the faith … worse than an infidel”) shows that the duty is regarded as grave.

8.4 Wisdom with Innocence

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” (Matt 10:16, KJV)

Innocence of intent is joined to wisdom of preparation. The advocate reads “wise as serpents” as a command to exercise prudent foresight in a dangerous environment. The sheep are sent among wolves, and the Lord does not tell them that the wolves will be absent.

8.5 The King Who Counts the Cost

“Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?” (Luke 14:31, KJV)

Even in a parable about discipleship, the Lord uses the prudent assessment of one’s means of resisting an adversary as an example of good sense. The parable does not commend war. It commends the honest reckoning of one’s capacity before a conflict, which is the same reckoning the disciple must make when deciding whether he is able to protect another.

9.1 The Sword of the Magistrate

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” (Rom 13:1, KJV)

“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Rom 13:4, KJV)

Three points follow.

• The machaira is here assigned to the civil magistrate by divine appointment.
• The advocate argues that the state’s authority to bear the sword is derived from the natural right of defence, which the state exercises on behalf of its people.
• Where the state is not present at the moment of danger, a person acting to protect life exercises a small share of that same protective function. The state’s sword does not abolish the citizen’s duty of protection. It presupposes that the citizen will not stand idle.

Counter-reading acknowledged. Many interpreters hold that Romans 13:4 limits the sword to the state alone. The advocate’s reply is that the verse describes the function of government and does not forbid a citizen to protect a neighbour where government is absent. The question is left open for the reader, but the thesis does not depend on settling it.

9.2 Submission to Law

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” (1 Pet 2:13-14, KJV)

This establishes the limit on the thesis. The believer carries only where and as the law permits. The advocate accepts this limit fully. Where carrying a blade is unlawful, the duty of obedience to authority prevails, and the duty of protection is met by other lawful means. A thesis that overrode the civil law would contradict the very passages on which it relies.

9.3 The Soldiers

“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14, KJV)

“When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” (Luke 7:9, KJV)

Neither John the Baptist nor the Lord tells the soldiers to leave the army. The Lord holds up an armed centurion as a model of faith. The advocate reads “do violence to no man” as a prohibition of unlawful violence, namely the extortion by force that soldiers practised, as the parallel clause “neither accuse any falsely” shows.

9.4 Cornelius and the Jailer

“There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house.” (Acts 10:1-2, KJV)

“And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.” (Acts 16:27, KJV)

Both men are converted without any record that they were ordered to give up their profession or their arms. The advocate uses these as further instances of apostolic silence, and notes that the silence is not proof, since the texts do not discuss the question.

9.5 Paul and the Armed Escort

“And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night;” (Acts 23:23, KJV)

The apostle Paul’s life was protected by an armed escort of about four hundred and seventy men (two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen). Paul does not refuse it. If the armed defence of an apostle’s life is morally licit when provided by others, the advocate argues that it cannot be intrinsically sinful.

9.6 Paul and the Use of Legal Rights

“For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.” (Acts 25:11, KJV)

Paul uses every lawful means to preserve his life while declaring his readiness to die if guilty. The advocate treats this as a model of the proper balance: prepared to suffer unjustly, yet unwilling to surrender life or innocent persons to unlawful violence without lawful resistance.

The New Testament’s military vocabulary is often cited as evidence that its writers regarded all weapons as incompatible with the faith. The advocate argues the reverse: the writers were comfortable enough with the soldier’s equipment to use it as an image of the Christian’s readiness.

10.1 The Whole Armour

“Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” (Eph 6:13, KJV)

“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:” (Eph 6:17, KJV)

The machaira, the same word as Peter’s sword, is chosen by Paul as the image of the Spirit’s word. A teacher does not build his sacred imagery out of the furniture of something he regards as inherently unholy. The soldier’s equipment is a fitting figure of spiritual readiness, and the advocate treats the image as evidence of how the apostolic mind regarded such equipment.

10.2 The Word as a Two-Edged Blade

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit…” (Heb 4:12, KJV)

The Greek of Hebrews 4:12 uses the adjective distomos, “two-edged,” which the Septuagint also applies to Ehud’s blade in Judges 3:16 (see Chapter IV). The writer’s image is therefore drawn from the same stock of associations. The advocate suggests a spiritual and literal pairing: the believer is to be equipped in both spheres, and the one does not cancel the other.

10.3 The Weapons of Righteousness

“(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)” (2 Cor 10:4, KJV)

This is also the opponent’s text, and Chapter XII addresses it in full. For present purposes the advocate notes that Paul does not deny that carnal weapons exist or have legitimate uses. He says that this particular warfare, the contest against spiritual strongholds, is not fought with them.

10.4 Readiness as a Christian Posture

“Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning;” (Luke 12:35, KJV)

Girded loins are the language of readiness. A girded man is one ready to act, and the girdle is also where a blade is worn. The advocate argues that the Christian life is a life of preparedness in all spheres, spiritual, moral and practical, and that the image of the girded disciple expresses this.

10.5 The Temple and the Scourge

“And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;” (John 2:15, KJV)

The Lord himself applies physical force, with an improvised instrument, in defence of what is holy. The advocate does not claim that this is a case of self-defence. The point is that righteous force is not foreign to the Lord’s own conduct, and that the Gospels do not present it as a violation of his character.

This is the step an opponent will most strongly contest. The permission to carry is supported by most of the evidence. The obligation requires a further argument, and the advocate offers the following structure.

11.1 The Formal Syllogism

Major premise. The disciple is bound to obey the Lord’s commands and to love his neighbour in deed (Luke 22:36; Matt 22:39; 1 John 3:18).

Minor premise. In a world where violent harm to the innocent is a foreseeable danger, genuine capacity to prevent it is a necessary part of loving in deed. The Lord expressly commanded his disciples to acquire a machaira in anticipation of hostility.

Conclusion. The disciple who is lawfully able, and whose circumstances reasonably warrant it, is obliged to be equipped for defence.

11.2 Why “Required” and Not Merely “Allowed”

Four reasons support the claim that the duty is required rather than merely permitted.

• The grammar of Luke 22:36 is imperative. “Let him sell his garment, and buy one” is a command, not a concession.
• The structure of the duty to the vulnerable is affirmative. Love requires acts that are within one’s power, and the Samaritan and the watchman are condemned for inaction.
• The principle of means and ends. One who is obliged to an end is obliged to the necessary means. If the rescue of the innocent is required, the means of rescue are required where no lawful alternative is available.
• The role of conscience. Paul teaches that whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23). A believer who is convicted, on scriptural grounds, that preparedness is his duty sins by neglecting it.

11.3 The Limits on the Obligation

A thesis that stated its obligation without its limits would not be credible. The advocate accepts the following limits.

• The obligation is conditional on lawfulness (Rom 13:1).
• It is conditional on capacity and training. A person who cannot safely carry or use a blade is not bound to do so, and may meet the duty in other ways.
• It is conditional on circumstances. A person living in a context of low risk may reasonably discharge the duty differently.
• It is a duty of conscience. It binds the person who has been persuaded of it, and it is not a universal rule enforceable on others.
• It does not extend to pre-emptive aggression, vengeance, or the use of force beyond what is necessary.

Each objection is stated in the form in which an informed opponent would press it, and each is answered on the grounds the thesis has already established.

Objection 1: “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matt 26:52)

Reply. The saying is a statement about those who take the sword, that is, who initiate or seize it, and its context is Peter’s attempt to resist the divinely ordained arrest. If read as a universal prohibition, it would condemn the magistrate who bears the sword under Romans 13:4, the centurion whom the Lord praised, and Cornelius, none of whom is condemned. The Lord did not take the sword from Peter. He instructed that it be returned to its place.

Objection 2: “Resist not evil” (Matt 5:39)

“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matt 5:39, KJV)

Reply. The blow described is a backhanded slap, which is an insult to honour and not a lethal assault, and the passage concerns injured honour and retaliation. The passage governs what the disciple surrenders of his own: cheek, cloak and mile. It does not address the defence of another, and it is not possible to turn another person’s cheek. The same Lord who spoke it also commanded the purchase of a sword, and the two sayings are harmonised by the distinction between the self and the neighbour (Chapter III).

Objection 3: “Do violence to no man” (Luke 3:14)

Reply. The context is the soldiers’ habit of extortion, and the sentence continues “neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” The command concerns the abuse of power. The Baptist did not tell them to leave the service, and the Lord later praised a centurion.

Objection 4: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36)

Reply. The sentence explains why the Lord’s servants did not fight to prevent his delivery to the cross. It does not forbid the protection of persons within the present world.

Objection 5: “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (2 Cor 10:4)

Reply. Paul is describing the spiritual contest, which is not won with carnal weapons. He does not state that the believer may never use a lawful instrument to protect an innocent person from physical assault.

Objection 6: “Avenge not yourselves” (Rom 12:18-19)

“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Rom 12:18-19, KJV)

Reply. Defence and vengeance are different acts. The first aims at preventing present harm; the second aims at repaying past harm. The qualifier “if it be possible, as much as lieth in you” acknowledges that peace is sometimes not possible, and that the believer’s responsibility is limited to what lies within him.

Objection 7: “It is enough” was a rebuke (Luke 22:38)

Reply. If the disciples had misunderstood a figure of speech, the Lord’s habit elsewhere is to correct them explicitly (Matt 16:6-12). He does not do so here. He lets the two swords stand, and the thesis reads his words as an assessment of adequacy (Chapter V).

Objection 8: The swords were only to fulfil Isaiah 53:12

Reply. A prophecy fulfilled by the possession of swords does not make the command to acquire them a nullity. Even on this reading, the Lord regarded the sword as a lawful thing to own, and the prophecy explains why the disciples were told to acquire it rather than why it was lawful.

Objection 9: “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matt 5:9)

Reply. A peacemaker is one who works to preserve peace. A person prepared to prevent violence is more likely to preserve peace than one who is helpless before it, and the Lord does not say that the peacemaker is the one who is unarmed.

Objection 10: The early Church was pacifist

Reply. The record is mixed. Early Christian objections to military service were often tied to idolatrous oaths and to emperor worship, not to the defence of the innocent as such. The Fathers are not canon, and the Reformed, Catholic and many other traditions have since accepted defensive force while condemning vengeance.

A thesis of this kind is only honest if it states the points at which an informed opponent will press hardest. A reader who finds these points stated clearly, and sees the advocate’s answer to each, has better grounds for trusting the rest of the argument than a reader who finds them concealed.

The step from “allowed” to “required” is the weakest. Most texts support permission. Only Luke 22:36 reads as a command, and critics hold that it was addressed to the Twelve on one night, not to all Christians for all time. The advocate accepts that this is a serious objection, and answers it through the four reasons given in Chapter XI, which do not rest on Luke 22:36 alone.

The “concealed” element is inference, not text. No Gospel says that Peter’s blade was hidden. The arguments from the verbs “drew” and “sheath,” and from the nature of a garment, are plausible but not conclusive. The Ehud and sicarii parallels are weak as moral models, since both involve killing, and the advocate cites them only for background.

The rebuke carries real weight. Jesus’ words to Peter are most naturally heard as a correction of the use of the sword, and many readers, including pacifist traditions, see no basis for distinguishing use from carriage. The advocate’s reply is that the rebuke concerns occasion and manner, and that the Lord left the weapon in the disciple’s hand. That reply is respectable but it is not the only possible reading.

“It is enough” may mean “enough of this.” The phrase hikanon estin can be read as closing a conversation the disciples had misunderstood. Two swords cannot plausibly defend twelve men and their Lord, a company of thirteen, and some commentators read the exchange in that light. The advocate’s reading, that the Lord assessed the adequacy of what was at hand, is the one the thesis adopts, but the alternative is serious.

The fulfilment reading is respectable. If the swords were meant to make the company look like transgressors, then Luke 22 says nothing about personal defence. The advocate concedes that the text permits this reading.

Silence is a weak argument. The soldiers’ stories do not show that the Lord approved of every aspect of their profession, and the apostolic silences in Chapter IX prove very little on their own.

Many traditions disagree. The Mennonite, Quaker and Anabaptist traditions, and some early Fathers, read the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 26:52 as excluding lethal force altogether. Even traditions that accept defence do not generally call carrying a weapon a religious duty. The thesis is therefore a minority position within Christian ethics, and it should be presented as such.

Protection does not require a blade. The duties of neighbour-love and watchmanship can be fulfilled by alerting others, calling for help, intervening without a weapon, or building community safety. The thesis does not deny these. It holds that where those means are insufficient, the duty may extend further, and that the believer who has the means should not be unprepared.

The law is a real limit. In many jurisdictions, carrying a bladed article in a public place without a lawful reason is an offence, and concealment may worsen the position. Romans 13 therefore constrains the thesis in practice, and where the law forbids carriage the advocate’s own position is that the believer complies.

Pre-emptive action is the least supported idea. Nothing in the New Testament endorses striking first. The Lord’s response in Gethsemane cuts the other way, and the just-defence tradition requires imminence and proportionality. A disciple who carries a blade to pick a fight has not been described by any part of this thesis.

On the cumulative case set out above, the advocate submits the following findings. Each is supported by the chapter cited.

1. The Lord Jesus, in Luke 22:36, commanded his disciples to acquire a machaira, a bladed weapon of personal scale, in anticipation of a hostile world (Chapters V and XI).
2. The apostle Simon Peter bore such a blade, sheathed and worn on his person, in the Lord’s presence, and the Lord did not disarm him but redirected its use (Chapter VI).
3. The Lord’s rebuke addressed the occasion and manner of the blade’s use, namely resistance to the divinely ordained arrest, and not the fact of its carriage (Chapter VI).
4. The Old Testament background affirms defensive force, armed rescue, and the carrying of a blade beneath the garment as lawful (Chapter IV).
5. The duties of neighbour-love, the watchman, the Samaritan and household provision impose an affirmative obligation to be capable of protecting the innocent (Chapters VII and VIII).
6. The apostolic record treats armed professions and armed protection without condemnation (Chapter IX).
7. The carrying of a defensive blade, within the law and with right motive, is therefore a legitimate expression of Christian conscience and, for the believer so convicted, a duty (Chapter XI).
8. This duty is bounded by lawfulness, proportionality, the imminence of threat, and the overriding command to love. It forbids vengeance, aggression and intimidation (Chapters II, XI and XIII).

The advocate adds that the test is the one the Lord himself supplied:

“For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:” (Matt 15:19, KJV)

An instrument is morally neutral until a motive is attached to it. The believer who carries to protect, who is trained to restrain himself, who acts only in true necessity, and who then heals where he can, has followed the pattern the Gospels give. The believer who carries to menace or avenge has not.

The advocate submits that a Christian who holds this conviction, and who lives it with the discipline described here, is not a danger to the peace of the community. He is a believer who has taken seriously a command that most of the Church has read and set aside. The thesis asks only that the command be read in full, and that the believer who obeys it be judged by the standard the Lord himself applied: by the heart and by the fruit.

Respectfully submitted.

This statement records what has been checked, how it was checked, and what remains for the reader or reviewer to confirm. It distinguishes verified facts from interpretation, since the thesis is an argument and most of its claims are interpretive.

Verified against retrieved sources.

• The Septuagint wording of Judges 3:16 (machaira distomos) and the New Testament use of distomos in Hebrews 4:12 and Revelation 1:16 were checked against the Blue Letter Bible lexicon entry for G1366 and against published Judges 3:16 and Hebrews 4:12 passages.
• The description of the sicarii and of their daggers concealed under their garments at festivals was checked against Whiston’s translation of Josephus, Jewish War 2.254-257, and against the Encyclopaedia Judaica entry, which cites Antiquities 20.186-187.
• The chronology of the Gospel accounts of the arrest and the sequence of the night was checked against the KJV text of Luke 22 and John 18 as cited in the chapters above.

Checked for wording, but to be confirmed against the link. The remaining scripture quotations are given in the King James Version. Each is linked to the corresponding passage on Bible Gateway, and the reader should confirm the wording there before publication. A full line-by-line comparison of every quotation against the KJV was not completed in this revision.

Interpretation, not verifiable as fact. The following are the advocate’s readings, and they are presented as such: the force of the imperative in Luke 22:36; the inference from the verbs in John 18:11 and Matthew 26:52 to the concealment of Peter’s blade; the reading of “It is enough” as an assessment of adequacy; the reading of Romans 13:4; and the four reasons for obligation in Chapter XI. Chapter XIII sets out the strongest opposing readings.

General historical statements. The statements about the positions of Mennonite, Quaker and Anabaptist traditions, about the attitudes of the early Fathers, and about the practice of Judean fishermen are general statements. They have not been checked against primary monographs in this revision, and a scholarly reviewer should confirm them before the thesis is relied on in an academic setting.

Not addressed in this revision. The thesis does not deal with the civil law of any particular jurisdiction. Chapter IX states the limit that Romans 13 places on the believer, but any reader who needs to know the law of a particular place must consult that law directly.

Texts and translations.

• The King James Version of the Bible, on Bible Gateway: https://www.biblegateway.com/
• Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews (trans. William Whiston), Book II, sections 253-270: https://lexundria.com/j_bj/2.253-270/wst
• Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, sections 186-187, cited through the Encyclopaedia Judaica entry below.

Lexical and reference works.

• Blue Letter Bible, Strong’s G1366, distomos, with the Septuagint occurrence in Judges 3:16: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1366/lxx
• Biblehub, Judges 3:16, with cross-references to Hebrews 4:12 and Revelation 1:16: https://biblehub.com/judges/3-16.htm
• Jewish Virtual Library, entry on the Sicarii (from the Encyclopaedia Judaica): https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/sicarii
• Encyclopedia.com, entry on the Sicarii (Samuel G. F. Brandon): https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/sicarii

Scripture index. The index below is generated from the references in this thesis. Each reference is hyperlinked to the King James Version on Bible Gateway. Where a comma-separated list gives further verses in the same chapter, the first verse is linked.

Index of scripture

Each reference below links to the King James Version on Bible Gateway. Where a comma-separated list gives further verses, the first verse is linked.

Genesis: 9:6; 14:14; 14:19-20

Exodus: 20:13; 21:12; 22:2; 22:3; 22:26-27

Judges: 3:15; 3:16

Nehemiah: 4:9; 4:14; 4:17-18

Psalms: 82:4; 144:1

Proverbs: 22:3; 24:11-12

Ecclesiastes: 3:3

Isaiah: 53:12

Ezekiel: 33:6

Matthew: 4:18; 5:9; 5:17; 5:39; 10:16; 15:19; 16:6-12; 22:39; 24:42; 24:43; 26:47; 26:51; 26:52; 26:53-54; 26:56

Mark: 14:43; 14:47

Luke: 3:14; 7:9; 10:4; 10:30; 10:36-37; 11:21-22; 12:35; 14:31; 22:14; 22:35-38; 22:39; 22:49-51

John: 2:15; 18:1; 18:3; 18:4; 18:10-11; 18:36; 21:15-17

Acts: 10:1-2; 16:27; 21:38; 23:23; 25:11

Romans: 4:11-12; 6:13; 12:18-19; 13:1; 13:4; 14:23

2 Corinthians: 10:4

Ephesians: 6:13; 6:17

Hebrews: 4:12

Revelation: 1:16

1 John: 3:17-18

1 Peter: 2:13-14; 2:21-23

1 Timothy: 5:8