Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun...
- Thread starter Pard
- Start date
Drew
Member
I need not provide such evidence precisely because carrying a sword does not to be illegal for it to be seen as threatening.
I may have been less than precise in earlier posts and given the impression that Jesus was setting Himself (and his followers) to be seen as law-breakers. That was a mistake if I did so.
The important point is that carrying swords makes Jesus (and his followers) appear to be trouble-makers, or threats, even if no law is being broken. And to appear as such, of course, makes it more likely that Jesus will get arrested, even if for other reasons.
Is it illegal for a bunch of teens to hang out in dark alleys, wear leather jackets, dark sunglasses, and to scowl menacingly at passerbys? No, it is not.
But it certainly is threatening and the police are likely to pay close attention to them and perhaps charge them with something else.
That is the point - Jesus tells us why he asks for the swords - it fulfills a prophecy about being seen as some kind of trouble-maker.
Again, at the end of the say, the text says what it says!!
For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘<SUP class=xref value='(AL)'>(AL)</SUP>AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for <SUP class=xref value='(AM)'>(AM)</SUP>that which refers to Me has its <SUP class=footnote value='[h]'>[h]</SUP>fulfillment
And I have not even got to the "two swords is enough" bit. I suggest this extra qualification very strongly supports the interpretation I am giving. Why?
Precisely because while it is plausible that two swords will be enough to create the impression of being trouble-makers, two swords are not really enough to function as items of self-defence as these people later go out into the world (which is how you seem to interpret the instruction to get the swords).
But we can discuss that.
handy
Member
OK, I'm going to have to be careful here.
First of all, Free, yes, I'll try my best. I truly didn't think of "hogwash" as a particularly offensive term, hence my using of it...but, I have withdrawn the term as others do look at it as offensive.
However, I have to stand by nonsensical...because in truth I do find the scenario being discussed as such. Just for the record, I'm not saying that Drew himself is "worthless" or "nonsensical"...my remarks are aimed solely at this particular idea that Jesus is purposely putting forth the impression that He and the disciples are a bunch of trouble makers because He would need to have charges brought against Him. This is what I find nonsensical.
Drew...there is no need to keep repeating over and over, as if no one has answered it, that the text states what it states. We all know what it states. What is at dispute is why Jesus brought up that particular prophecy at that particular time. You say it was to trump up charges against Him...make Him and the disciples appears as if they were troublemakers just so He would get arrested. I disagree and find it far more probable that He is bringing this prophecy of His death up, because He is preparing His disciples for life without Him.
Now, onto the issue regarding the swords:
First of all...if your interpretation here is correct...then why is Jesus even bringing up money and knapsacks? What purpose would they have in giving the impression that they're a bunch of ruffians that the soldiers need to keep an eye on?
On the other hand, if Jesus is preparing them for the fact that they were going to have to go out into the world on their own, money, knapsacks and swords are common sense provisions to bring along.
Secondly... the two swords were already there in the room. Since they were already there, what need would Jesus have to even bring up money, knapsacks, and for any there who did not have a sword to go and sell their cloak to buy one?
"It is enough." Granted, a hard statement to decipher. I've heard everything from the idea that two armed men in a group is sufficient protection to the idea that when Jesus said, "It is enough" what He was saying was that the conversation time was over and that it was time to go.
As for two swords being "enough" as they went out into the world...depends. For a group of 11 people, two people armed with swords could very well be enough for body guard purposes. It wasn't uncommon during medieval times to send along armed escorts and generally one or two body guards were considered "enough".
Frankly, the more I look at the passage the more I find that "It is enough" stands for Jesus' termination of the conversation and the subsequent leaving of the upper room to fit in with the rest. If Jesus felt the disciples need no more than two swords, He wouldn't have said, "whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one."
It helps to look at Matthew, Mark and John as well. None of them refer to the swords, but Matthew and Mark tell us that Jesus said, "“You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK SHALL BE SCATTERED.’ But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.†(Matthew 26:31-32; Mark 14) And John is filled with loving encouragement to the disciples as Jesus is about to leave them.
No where in any of the Gospels is the idea that Jesus is telling the disciples, "Let's go out and look like a bunch of troublemakers so that they'll arrest Me."
That simply doesn't make sense, especially, as I have mentioned a number of times now...Judas was already on his way to betray Christ. Jesus knew already that they were coming for Him. He knew that there was no need for any further action on His part...hence He went to the Garden to pray.
First of all, Free, yes, I'll try my best. I truly didn't think of "hogwash" as a particularly offensive term, hence my using of it...but, I have withdrawn the term as others do look at it as offensive.
However, I have to stand by nonsensical...because in truth I do find the scenario being discussed as such. Just for the record, I'm not saying that Drew himself is "worthless" or "nonsensical"...my remarks are aimed solely at this particular idea that Jesus is purposely putting forth the impression that He and the disciples are a bunch of trouble makers because He would need to have charges brought against Him. This is what I find nonsensical.
Drew...there is no need to keep repeating over and over, as if no one has answered it, that the text states what it states. We all know what it states. What is at dispute is why Jesus brought up that particular prophecy at that particular time. You say it was to trump up charges against Him...make Him and the disciples appears as if they were troublemakers just so He would get arrested. I disagree and find it far more probable that He is bringing this prophecy of His death up, because He is preparing His disciples for life without Him.
Now, onto the issue regarding the swords:
First of all...if your interpretation here is correct...then why is Jesus even bringing up money and knapsacks? What purpose would they have in giving the impression that they're a bunch of ruffians that the soldiers need to keep an eye on?
On the other hand, if Jesus is preparing them for the fact that they were going to have to go out into the world on their own, money, knapsacks and swords are common sense provisions to bring along.
Secondly... the two swords were already there in the room. Since they were already there, what need would Jesus have to even bring up money, knapsacks, and for any there who did not have a sword to go and sell their cloak to buy one?
"It is enough." Granted, a hard statement to decipher. I've heard everything from the idea that two armed men in a group is sufficient protection to the idea that when Jesus said, "It is enough" what He was saying was that the conversation time was over and that it was time to go.
As for two swords being "enough" as they went out into the world...depends. For a group of 11 people, two people armed with swords could very well be enough for body guard purposes. It wasn't uncommon during medieval times to send along armed escorts and generally one or two body guards were considered "enough".
Frankly, the more I look at the passage the more I find that "It is enough" stands for Jesus' termination of the conversation and the subsequent leaving of the upper room to fit in with the rest. If Jesus felt the disciples need no more than two swords, He wouldn't have said, "whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one."
It helps to look at Matthew, Mark and John as well. None of them refer to the swords, but Matthew and Mark tell us that Jesus said, "“You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK SHALL BE SCATTERED.’ But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.†(Matthew 26:31-32; Mark 14) And John is filled with loving encouragement to the disciples as Jesus is about to leave them.
No where in any of the Gospels is the idea that Jesus is telling the disciples, "Let's go out and look like a bunch of troublemakers so that they'll arrest Me."
That simply doesn't make sense, especially, as I have mentioned a number of times now...Judas was already on his way to betray Christ. Jesus knew already that they were coming for Him. He knew that there was no need for any further action on His part...hence He went to the Garden to pray.
Drew
Member
Here is the text again:
But now, <SUP class=footnote value='[e]'>[e]</SUP>whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and <SUP class=footnote value='[f]'>[f]</SUP>whoever has no sword is to sell his <SUP class=footnote value='[g]'>[g]</SUP>coat and buy one. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-25902>37</SUP> For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘<SUP class=xref value='(AL)'>(AL)</SUP>AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’;
"For I tell you....."
"For I tell you...."
Clearly what Jesus says in verse 37 is the explanation of what He said in verse 36.
Does He say: "For I tell you, you will need to be provisioned for life without me"?
No. Here is what He says
For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘<SUP class=xref value='(AL)'>(AL)</SUP>AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’;
Drew
Member
Precisely because an armed band of troublemakers need provisions.
No one is denying that Jesus knows he will be leaving His friends soon. And, of course, they would need provisions for that too.
But I think you are basically arguing that since it makes sense for Jesus to be "provisioning" his followers for the long term future, any statement about provisioning must have that in mind.
Well, what does Jesus actually give as the explanation for the provisioning instruction (that includes the swords):
For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘<SUP class=xref value='(AL)'>(AL)</SUP>AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’;
Drew
Member
Greg Boyd on the Luke 22 text:
“To fulfill prophecy, Jesus had to be viewed as a transgressor. He had to at least appear to be a political revolutionary to the Jewish authorities for them to feel justified in arresting him. His cleansing of the temple a few days earlier was probably calculated for the same effect. So, to fulfill the prophecy and to provoke the Jewish authorities, he had to have enough weaponry to justify being viewed as a law breaking revolutionaryâ€.
“To fulfill prophecy, Jesus had to be viewed as a transgressor. He had to at least appear to be a political revolutionary to the Jewish authorities for them to feel justified in arresting him. His cleansing of the temple a few days earlier was probably calculated for the same effect. So, to fulfill the prophecy and to provoke the Jewish authorities, he had to have enough weaponry to justify being viewed as a law breaking revolutionaryâ€.
Drew
Member
Consider the scene where Peter uses the sword to cut of the ear of the guard.
And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his <SUP class=xref value='(BK)'>(BK)</SUP>sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-24107>52</SUP> Then Jesus *said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.
Now: If Jesus has just told his followers that they need swords to defend themselves, He seems to have forgotten this here. Does it make sense for Jesus to advise His followers to arm themselves with swords for a future life without Him, and then say this?:
...all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword
And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his <SUP class=xref value='(BK)'>(BK)</SUP>sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-24107>52</SUP> Then Jesus *said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.
Now: If Jesus has just told his followers that they need swords to defend themselves, He seems to have forgotten this here. Does it make sense for Jesus to advise His followers to arm themselves with swords for a future life without Him, and then say this?:
...all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword
Drew
Member
The fact that Judas was already on his way does not really weaken the argument.
Jesus could be arranging things so that when Judas shows up with the authorities, Jesus and His now armed followers will indeed be then seen as the threat that Judas has presumably warned the authorities that He is.