Suicide without a gun...

[handy]

This has been repeatedly addressed. As Jesus Himself explcitly states, the arming was done very specifically to make Himself appear to be one of a band of revolutionaries. Why people do not accept what Jesus says, and super-impose their own interpretation, shows that they should re-think their exegetical method.

Even though I disagree with you on a number of points, I do appreciate your answering my question.

Drew, could you provide the chapter/verse where Jesus explicitly states this? Not that I don't trust you, but you know me, gotta check things out for myself.

Certainly.

The following text, from Luke 22, is often used to support the right to bear arms:

And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
37"For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." 38They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

Obviously a “superficial†reading suggests that Jesus is advocating the “right†to carry a weapon. However, the fact that such a reading is deeply at odds with other things Jesus teaches should be a tip-off that things are not as they appear. And indeed, such is the case here. When this text is understood in broader context, we realize that Jesus is not making any kind of a case for the right to bear arms (swords or otherwise).

In order to arrive at the correct interpretation, we really need to step back and ask ourselves what Jesus’ larger purpose was in this dialogue. Note the connective “for†at the beginning of verse 37. It suggests that the material which follows is an explanation or amplification on the point just made – that the followers of Jesus are to sell their coats and buy a sword. So what is Jesus’ larger purpose?

It is that He been seen as a transgressor. Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him. Of course, appearing as part of an armed band would be precisely the ideal scenario to ensure Jesus’ arrest. Remember the “for†at the beginning of verse 37. If we are to be careful students of what Jesus is saying, we need to take seriously what Jesus says in verses 37 and 38 as qualifying and explaining his statement about buying a sword. We cannot simply gloss the text and conclude “Look, Jesus is making some kind of general statement about the right to self-defence with weaponsâ€.

In fact, this very specific focus on the intent to be seen as a transgressor is powerfully sustained by Jesus’ statement that there is prophecy that He (Jesus) must be seen as a transgressor.

Remember the incident in the temple with Jesus overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers. This is not, as many people think, merely a repudiation of the sin of materialism. It is also a shrewd provocation on the part of Jesus. By creating a ruckus in the temple, He is forcing the hand of the Jewish leaders – they cannot allow such behaviour, Jesus must be arrested soon.

This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says “It is enough.†Obviously, if Jesus ever intended for the disciples to use the swords, two swords would not be nearly enough in any kind of armed action. But it’s enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus appear to be participating in a violent revolutionary movement of some kind.

Unlike the “Jesus is supporting the right to bear arms†interpretation, note how the above interpretation makes sense of the entire account. If Jesus was really making some general statement about a “right to bear armsâ€, how exactly does that contribute to His being numbered with transgressors? And how does that make sense of the limit of two swords? Such a “right to bear arms†interpretation makes sense of neither. So it is almost certainly an incorrect interpretation of Jesus’ statement about buying a couple of swords.

Drew, sorry brother, but you and I must have different ideas as to what "explicitly" means. When I asked for the chapter/verse where Jesus explicitly said, "the arming was done very specifically to make Himself appear to be one of a band of revolutionaries" I was looking for some kind of verse in which Jesus said to His disciples, "Let's take swords so that they think that we are armed rebels and therefore have just cause to arrest Me." He didn't say anything of the sort to the disciples, at least not explicitly. That you interpret this into what Jesus said is clear, and perhaps you are correct, but I disagree that it's explicit.

Then again, perhaps you are not correct, because if your interpretation of what Jesus' words to His disciples means is true, then His plan really backfired as per Matthew 26:57-60:

And those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together...Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, in order that they may put Him to death; and they did not find it, even though many false witnesses came forward.

We see also in Mark 14:55-56: Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death; and they were finding none. For many were giving false testimony against Him, and yet their testimony was not consistent.

Obviously, Jesus didn't orchestrate plausible grounds after all, because they took a long time, seeking out false witnesses to trump up the charges against Him. Nowhere in the proceedings did the accusation arise that Jesus was leading an armed rebellion.

Also, if this was the Jesus' intent, why then didn't the priest bring up the whole "armed rebellion" accusation to Pilate when they dragged Him over there? When Pilate said, "I find no guilt in this man", they kept insisting that "He stirs up the people, teaching them", not "He stirs up the people and leads them in armed rebellion, look they had swords and one of them even cut off the ear of my servant."

Thus, if the whole point of Jesus telling the disciples to take money and a couple of swords with them was to create the impression of an armed rebellion for the sake of plausibility, He really wasted His time. Something He had, and knew He had, precious little left. Also, this interpretation makes what He said immediately prior to His reference to the prophecy meaningless: "When I sent you out without purse and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything did you?...But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one..."

I think a far more plausible explanation for the entire episode is that Jesus knew the time had come for Him to leave and for the disciples to be left on their own for awhile. His words are words of general preparedness. The "that which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'And He was classed among criminals' was fulfilled by the fact that He was arrested, convicted and executed.

Whoops, just saw the request that the thread be locked. If you want to discuss this with me on a different thread, Drew, feel free.

 

[follower of Christ]

I agree that this is "way too easy", but not in the same sense that you think it is. You see, I have scripture on my side in respect to the matter of Jesus' limited foreknowledge:

Then you certainly have something to support the assertion, friend

Jesus FOREKNEW that Peter would deny Him.
It is on YOU to PROVE that Jesus DID NOT KNOW that Peter would use the sword, Im afraid.
The evidence is against you.

No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father.

So there it is - clear proof that one cannot simply assume that Jesus knows all future eventualities.

That is ONE item, gent...hardly support that Jesus didnt know some point like Peter denying Him or hacking off an ear ;)

And therefore, there is no Biblical case to require us to believe that Jesus knew what Peter would do with the sword. Now I hope we can move on.

What a laugh....

Mat 26:34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

 

[Free]

If you want this thread locked, why do you keep posting?

 

[follower of Christ]

If you want this thread locked, why do you keep posting?

Why did you just lock it and then UNLOCK it free ?
I SAW the "locked' button friend.

;)

 

[follower of Christ]

Again...here is my FORMAL REQUEST that this thread be LOCKED
.

 

[Free]

That is ONE item, gent...hardly support that Jesus didnt know some point like Peter denying Him or hacking off an ear ;)

And yet, you use that same one statement that Jesus spoke of buying a sword to support your position. :gah

I unlocked it because while I was posting, two more posts were made. I really should just leave it open so that things can be hammered out.

 

[Drew]

Im really glad we explored this a bit...it was well worth finding all this out and showing the readers what you believe about our Omniscient Creator


.

And he is not alone here with this belief or unbelief, however you want to put it.

Ok, let's go down this line if you like:

In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover." 2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, 3 "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: 5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life.

Now, Solo, please explain how God can exhaustively know all the details of the future if He tells Hez that he will die in short order, implying a knowledge of a future in which Hez dies in short order, and yet Hez does not end up dying in short order.

Solo (and FoC), how do you reconcile this text with a belief that God exhaustively knew all of Hez's future from the foundation of time?