|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "buy yourself a sword"
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Relating to a tangent developing on the violence and Islam thread in Purgatory.
What do we make of Luke 22: 35-38. In particular the "if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" part?
As I confessed in Purgatory, I've never really thought much about these few verses. They seem to be at odds with other things Jesus said. They quite plainly, and deliberately, run counter to the instructions when the disciples were sent out to take nothing and to rely on the hospitality of others. Why would the disciples need swords? Why did they have some to start off with?
If someone slaps you on the cheek you let him do it again, but if someone draws a sword on you then you get out your own sword? Just does not make sense.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
OK how about this:
When Jesus sent his disciples out previously, he sent them out without what would normally be considered basic preparations (like taking some money and spare clothes), and they trusted that everything would be OK, and everything was OK. They were enjoying a period more or less free from persecution.
Now Jesus is saying that a dark time is upon them. They can't expect that bad things won't happen to them - persecution is coming. This is what his words symbolise.
Unfortunately the disciples take him too literally and start gathering actual swords. Jesus says "That's enough!" indicating "That's really not what I meant at all...".
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I was about to start a thread here on this topic as suggested on the Islam and violence one in Purgatory but Alan has beaten me to it ...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
As I mentioned in Purgatory, I've heard these verses cited by an American combat-knife manufacturer as justification for the use of personal side-arms for protection. He would obviously extend that to fire-arms too and is a great supporter of the Second Amendment.
His argument is that everyone had weapons of some kind in times past - and before the establishment of standing armies and so on.
In the context of the verses in question, I've always taken it as an indication by Christ to his disciples that the 'good times' (as it were) were now over and that what lay ahead was the possibility of violence and death.
I've not particularly taken it to imply either an endorsement or a condemnation of the need to carry weapons. I've always taken it in a more rhetorical or hyperbolic way ... as in 'if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out ...'
I've got no real hermeneutical justification for that save that the idea of Jesus endorsing the use of personal weaponry doesn't sit very comfortably with me ...
Mind you, he did use violence - albeit 'controlled' and not over-the-top violence - to drive the money lenders from the Temple courts.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of them nursed cuts and bruises either.
The 'it is enough' might fall into the category of what the Orthodox call 'ekkonomeia' if I remember rightly - ie. it might not be perfect but it's permissible for reasons of human weakness or what might be called 'situational ethics' ...
'Ok - that's enough now lads, I wasn't advocating a cache of weapons, we're not planning an armed uprising here ...'
All this is pure supposition on my part of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To clarify a point on the Purgatory thread, in my response to Green Mario, I was thinking of the verse, 'I come not to bring peace but a sword' rather than this one.
Hence my comment there that I didn't think it had anything to do with the certainty or expectation of persecution.
This passage clearly has that particular context, though.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
There is the follow up later in Chapter 22.
quote:
49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, ‘Lord, should we strike with our swords?’ 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered, ‘No more of this!’ And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, ‘Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? 53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour – when darkness reigns.’
This part of the narrative by Luke strongly suggests that Jesus wanted the disciples to carry swords but not use them to defend him or use violence in his defence.
Now that makes the whole sequence "curiouser and curiouser"! What was going on, what was intended?
And I've never seen a satisfactory answer! The "sword of the spirit" spiritualisation doesn't work (why two swords?) and the self-incriminating argument (numbered amongst the transgressors) is inconsistent with v 52 as well.
Anybody any the wiser?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Is it right that missionary journey redux sent them out farther than the first one?
Because I always thought the sword was a practical matter-- they are heading out to places they knew not, they needed to be prepared for anything. Heck, there were jackals and lions and whatnot roaming around.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
I can see how out of context ""if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" could be used as a verse to justify the right to bear arms.
it never really occurred to me that you could read the relevant chapter and conclude that Jesus was advising his disciples to carry a sword, let alone use it on another person.
The incident occurs when Jesus is teaching the disciples about the fulfilment of His mission. Time and again the disciples show that they just don't get it, they're squabbling about who will be the greatest among them they fall asleep when Jesus has asked that they remain faithful and when Jesus is telling them to be prepared, that times are going to be tough-they take him literally and pull out 2 swords. I always imagine Jesus getting quite frustrated at this stage and saying "that is enough" in an exasperated, "Be quiet, I can't believe you guys still don't get it" sort of way. The fact that Jesus says two swords are "enough", surely means we cannot infer that He is literally telling people to acquire or use swords-there were several Apostles present and 2 swords just doesn't make sense as being literally enough.
If we were left in any doubt, the chapter continues and Peter, who has been shown to not comprehend what Jesus is saying and who is to deny Jesus, shows his wrong-headedness again by actually drawing a sword and slicing off the ear of one of the soldiers who is arresting Jesus.
Jesus leaves us in no doubt that this is not how we should act, he not only rebukes Peter but takes time out to heal the soldier's ear. So to conclude that Jesus is telling His disciples to draw on somebody who draws on you...is just not justifiable IMO.
What I found interesting in thinking about this passage that hadn't really occurred to me before is that Jesus tells his disciples to get swords-but in fact at least a few of them are already carrying swords around in Jerusalem. I wonder what they were doing with them and where the whole sword-carrying thing fitted in at the time. I never really imagined the disciples or anyone but soldiers wandering around with swords.....interesting....any historians have an insight?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
They're carrying swords, but they're incompetent when it comes to using them. All Peter manages is a minor flesh wound on one of the priests servants - not even one of the armed soldiers there.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
I always assumed like TurquoiseTastic that it was yet another example of the general cluelessness of the disciples.
As in:
Jesus: "Sell your cloak and buy a sword"
Disciples: "OK. Here's some swords, Master!"
Jesus: "Oh for f*ck's sake. I don't know why I bother."
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I like the idea that it is symbolic. When they first went out, they didn't need extra clothes, and could rely upon the hospitality of anyplace they showed up. Now, it's different. They have to learn to use the powers of this world, because they're going to be a church, not just a gang of itinerant preachers. And the power of the world is symbolized by the sword.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
To develop my earlier post, I think the issue is that Luke's theological purpose is unclear in Luke 22. I simply can't make out what he was trying to say about swords!
But in general, I go along very much with the observation that the New Testament documents, both gospels and letters, command a non-violent approach to aggression and conflict. The move is way away from e.g. Joshua 6-7 towards love of enemies (Matthew 5-7) and a Romans 12 lifestyle of seeking to live in peace with one another.
If there is a battleground, it is not against "flesh and blood" but against "the principalities and powers and spiritual forces of evil" (Ephesians 6 12-13) and the "armour of God" is described in metaphorical terms - breastplate of righteousness, shield of faith, helmet of salvation, sword of the Spirit etc.
[ 16. January 2015, 07:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Do you know what a synedoche is? It is when you refer to the crown for the sovereign. The sword seems to be strongly connected with authority and punishment see Romans 13:3-4. After all it is not the rulers who punish with the sword but the soldiers under them.
I am not sure this takes us any further, in that I think it raises as many problems as it solves but it does give a possibility of a different interpretation.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Sword = authority. OK
Sword = enforcement of authority by violent means. Not OK
The literalism/non-literalism of the Synoptic authors is an interesting side issue, Jengie, now I come to think about it.
Think I'm hanging my hat on the argument that the solution to the Luke 22 puzzle is more likely to be found elsewhere.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
They're carrying swords, but they're incompetent when it comes to using them. All Peter manages is a minor flesh wound on one of the priests servants - not even one of the armed soldiers there.
I might contribute to the exegetical discussion later. But since I used to be heavily into martial arts, including those that use (edged) weapons (Filipino Martial Arts in my case), I would like to point out that this is statement is unrealistic.
To the contrary, to cut off somebody's ear suggests a serious attempt to kill, rather than to say disarm. (Realistic disarming typically occurs by attacking the weapon wielding arm.) The most likely scenario here is an overhead strike to head / neck that was only partially parried and ended up as a glancing blow. Or possibly a successful overhead strike where the opponent wears some kind of helmet. Furthermore, "head hunting" is quite difficult, since people have natural protective instincts for their heads. The type of attacks with the greatest "success rate" are probably stabs (hence the Roman army basically set up a "stabbing line").
Also, we should not really think of medieval "long swords" wielded in a "fencing" manner here. The swords in question would have been short swords, or quite possibly "long knives" (as a modern equivalent think of a machete). Fighting with these is "close up and personal", and typically "dirty", as one is not in a range where only weapons can strike.
I don't know how much of a warrior St Peter was, but almost certainly you should think more of a guy slashing about with a huge bowie knife than of Zorro executing a clinical precision hit from a distance. If he took off an ear with that, then things were getting rather serious for the victim indeed...
It probably is stretching the martial angle too much, but... If St Peter indeed surprise attacked the priest's (unarmed?) servants, and there were armed soldiers present, then Jesus could be seen as ordering St Peter to stand down in the face of overwhelming opposition which would likely otherwise have rushed in and slain St Peter as armed and dangerous.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And, when I conjure up an image of a swordfight melee, I do not envision fishermen as great warrior. That's just not a career that calls for training with a blade. I am sure Peter was strong (hauling nets, carrying baskets of fish), but probably not great with the hand-eye.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And, when I conjure up an image of a swordfight melee, I do not envision fishermen as great warrior. That's just not a career that calls for training with a blade. I am sure Peter was strong (hauling nets, carrying baskets of fish), but probably not great with the hand-eye.
Well, I don't know about proper "combat training" (though I would bet that many men in the ancient world had some, if only from their father - it was a rougher place). But I assume fishermen would have used knives regularly for fish cleaning, gutting and filleting. And they do need to be rather skilled with their hands to repair fishing nets, boats, etc. The word used "makhaira" can mean any kind of sword. But it was more specifically used to mean something like a "Greek machete" (a one-edged slashing tool/weapon), and the word originally meant a large knife.
I imagine having a "large hack & slash knife" would have been quite normal for ancient farmers, like for example Filipino farmers would carry a bolo today. If a non-military person would try to acquire a "sword", then I guess this would be the easiest thing to get. And cutting off an ear is perfectly consistent with a weapon designed primarily for slashing. So I think we are talking about something like this (bottom one).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
One of Jesus' disciples was a zealot, or had been, anyway. He probably had a sword.
I agree with those who think Peter screwed up. He was certainly trying to do serious damage (death or major wound) but taking off the ear of a minor, probably unarmed servant suggests to me he was aiming at someone else--and that he was using a downward slashing motion and an unfamiliar blade (maybe one longer than he was used to using--when would a fisherman use a very long blade, anyway? It wasn't exactly jungle territory).
I do think Jesus was trying to protect Peter and the rest of the disciples by nixing the violence. The healing miracle alone would get rid of the evidence for Peter's misdeed (though I'm sure compassion was a major motive there too).
As for "buy a sword"--I wonder if Jesus wasn't speaking hyperbolically in order to underline the dangers of the world they were now going to be facing as missionaries, as was said upthread. Two physical swords is certainly not "enough" for 11-12 guys if he's speaking literally, particularly when they'll not be traveling together. It might be more like we'd say to an out-of-towner, "Take your bullet-proof vest if you're going to drive through [that neighborhood]." We're trying to say "Expect and plan for the worst," not "You can get one at the five-and-dime around the corner."
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I would agree with Kelly's and Ingo's thoughts:
[1] Function. The context of the time (based on similar settings today) suggests that the carrying of a personal utility bladed device would have been advantageous when it came to preparing food, particularly for a team on the move. I doubt food came pre-prepared much at the time, more likely fish needed filleting, lambs needed beheading, etc. And in remoter areas the threat from wild animals might also motivate the carrying of something by way of protection.
[2] Style. The Greek term used (makaira = μάχαιρα) could refer to the object used to execute someone, which suggests something more along the lines of an Arthurian Excalibur (let's face it, a 1st century equivalent of a Swiss army knife would be a bit messy for that), but more often than not it refers to the kind of utility blade described above.
I suspect, then, that Simon “The Blade” Peter had about his person the sort of knife / dirk that a fisherman would carry in case he came upon a severe case of a fish that needed a good fillet. When it came to Jesus' arrest, I imagine this would suit better a hand-to-hand grappling type of activity, where the guard laid hands on Jesus and Peter laid hands on him, one thing led to another... If a full-blown sword had been used I'd have thought a severed ear would have been the least of the guard's worry: skewered skull or sliced shoulder blade would have been on the menu as well.
The only possible counter to this I can think off is the fact that knives of some sort were associated with the brigands / Sicarii in Judea, which presumably had a function in respect of assassination from time to time. I don't have much in the way of linguistic data for that to hand, though – does anyone know what the Latin biblical texts use to translate makaira? Is it sicae, by any chance?
Anyway – back to the co-text! I wondered about the following options:
[1] The items Jesus was advising his disciples to carry in Lk. 22:36 are being offset against the list of things he told them not to take for the first missionary outing. They all have to do with the things one would need if one was not shown hospitality in the places one visited. During that first event if a community rejected the disciples, Jesus' advice to his followers had been not to hang around, but to shake the dust off their feet as a sign that God would destroy the community. Now the advice is to expect a noticeable reduction in acceptability by communities and therefore the need to manage for periods of time without being hosted.
If that's the case, then 'sword' could be placed among the list of “Items-Without-Which-I-Would-Not-Be-Able-To-Fillet-A-Fish” and 'nuff said. A problem with this interpretation, though, is that Luke records Jesus quoting a passage in Isaiah 53:12, which opens up the world of the whole chapter, really. Jesus is being included in the list of those charged with being a rebel – that maps to the brigand / Sacarius idea above and suggests inter-personal violence, rather than food preparation.
[2] Dark humour? This is the idea that Luke (and Jesus before him) was playing with irony here. The question that needs addressing is: Does that kind of humour fit with the humour in use among people at the time? Or is it us, in our own context today, imposing the interpretation because it suits our desire to read what we want to read? Jesus may indeed have wandered over the line from literal to figurative when he moved from hats and coats to swords, but is that likely? Is that humour a la 1st century Judean style? Would it have brought the house down if staged in Jerusalem's version of The Globe theatre?
Jesus certainly used rhetorical devices appropriate to his time, but usually writers wave a flag if something needs treating other than in pure literal terms. I'm not sure that Luke does anything like that here. The text moves smoothly from one item to another with no change in beat, structure, or language use. Jesus' closing remark is more along the lines of “That's satisfactory” or “That will be sufficient” in response to the number of blades being produced, rather than “Enough of this loose talk!”
This doesn’t answer the OP question, I know. I'm tempted to go with the possible line of least resistance and say that the disciples were now being encouraged to provide for themselves in a world of rejection, that they could not assume they could count any more on traditional hospitality. They needed to do this because Jesus was now being treated not as a bringer of good news from God, but as a dangerous heretic and rebel. He was no longer safe to be around.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think that makes a lot of sense, Nigel M.
Alongside Jengie Jon's comment about synecdoch and earlier comments about the literary parallels - ie. 'take nothing for the journey ...' / 'sell your cloak and buy a sword' it underlines the need to consider the literary and rhetorical aspects too.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I would agree with Kelly's and Ingo's thoughts:
[1] Function. The context of the time (based on similar settings today) suggests that the carrying of a personal utility bladed device would have been advantageous when it came to preparing food, particularly for a team on the move. I doubt food came pre-prepared much at the time, more likely fish needed filleting, lambs needed beheading, etc...
[1] The items Jesus was advising his disciples to carry in Lk. 22:36 are being offset against the list of things he told them not to take for the first missionary outing. They all have to do with the things one would need if one was not shown hospitality in the places one visited. During that first event if a community rejected the disciples, Jesus' advice to his followers had been not to hang around, but to shake the dust off their feet as a sign that God would destroy the community. Now the advice is to expect a noticeable reduction in acceptability by communities and therefore the need to manage for periods of time without being hosted.
I think this is what I was groping to express. Thank you.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Have you ever tried to filet a pomfret with a broadsword? I'm not sure that's a likely use.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
The notes for this passage in the Oxford Annotated Bible explain v.36 as "An example of Jesus' fondness for striking metaphors, but the disciples take it literally (v.38)," and also describes v.38 as "an ironic rebuke."
It reminds me a little of Matthew's version of the earlier "shake the dust off your feet" sending-out, in which he includes Jesus' advice to "be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." (Matt. 10:16) It's going to be tough now, guys, so let's be careful out there.
[ 17. January 2015, 17:48: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Have you ever tried to filet a pomfret with a broadsword? I'm not sure that's a likely use.
I wonder what fish they would actually have fished back then? I really have no idea what size fish could be caught (with ancient means) back then in that area? But here is some professional filleting of yellowtail, halibut, and sea bass (videos are on youtube, but commercial) with a nine inch blade. On one hand, that size blade could well have been the "sword" scripture talks about (as mentioned, the word used really originally meant a large knife, and was a bit of a catch-all). On the other hand, even if they did use a "proper size" sword, and even if the fish usually caught were smaller, these sort of skills may well have been why St Peter rather than someone else was carrying the "sword". I expect a professional fisherman would have an easy familiarity with handling blades. Not acquired in and for combat, but still... it might take away some of the natural hesitation to handle a big blade. (I'm also assuming that back then the fisherman and the fishmonger were the same person, at least in rural areas.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I just wanted to add that this leads to a fairly natural interpretation of the whole thing. Jesus goes on about "swords", using a word that is ambiguous and really means any "large knife". His fishermen disciples go through their stuff and pull out their two biggest work knives (there is no indication of a delay to actually shop for 'swords' here). Since they don't know if that's what Jesus meant, they show these knives to him and say "Well, here are two 'swords'. (Will that do for what you had in mind?)" Jesus then tells them "Yeah, that's enough." That answer could be practical (Jesus was thinking in terms of self-defence, not combat troops) or rhetorical (Jesus was using a metaphor, the disciples misunderstand, and Jesus stops the exchange) or both. It would also make perfect sense for eager St Peter to carry the 'sword' around on his person henceforth, ready for action, if it actually simply was his own big work knife.
[ 23. January 2015, 08:52: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
They're carrying swords, but they're incompetent when it comes to using them. All Peter manages is a minor flesh wound on one of the priests servants - not even one of the armed soldiers there.
Bear in mind that the Pharisees and soldiers are also terrified that they have actually encountered "I am He". Shit is about to get real. Peter may have decided to prove that he's very quick with a sword (so back off!) while choosing someone who doesn't have the rank to order a massacre.
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
Some days I get so tired at reading books and articles that say, "Look, so many thoughtful and well-meaning Christians are idiots - THIS is what the Bible is really trying to say. It was sitting right there in plain sight all along."
[/rant]
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Snow
Shipmate
# 16363
|
Posted
This text on the two swords gives us a prime example of the superficiality with which many sincere, well-meaning, but biblically illiterate Christians approach Holy Scripture We all need to be reminded that context is the key to any passage.
--------------------
http://spurgeonwarquotes.wordpress.com/
Posts: 62 | From: S. Dak./ Romania | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I would be cautious about identifying "biblically illiterate Christians" just on the basis of whether or not they agree with you, or a commentator you happen to be like, on the interpretation of a given passage. It's quite possible to be Biblically literate and come to quite different conclusions about the meaning of a passage - or, indeed, about the meaning of the context of a passage.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Snow
Shipmate
# 16363
|
Posted
My comment was not based on whether anyone agrees with my interpretation or not but on the well documented lack of literacy concerning the Bible. In the case of the text at hand, I had in mind what others have noted here, the use of this text to "justify the right to bear arms" which I've seen in many Christian forums.
--------------------
http://spurgeonwarquotes.wordpress.com/
Posts: 62 | From: S. Dak./ Romania | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, you are still equating an interpretation (that this verse justifies the right to bear arms) with Biblical illiteracy. That may, or may not, be the case. But, I've seen far too many examples of very Biblically literate people with some form of blinkers that prevent them from seeing an interpretation that other equally Biblically literate people see as obvious, or holding an interpretation that others see as bizarre or down right wrong. I'm sure I have my own set of blind spots, and it's entirely posisble that no amount of Biblical literacy will open my eyes. If they're a major problem I hope that my eyes will be opened somehow, but simply knowing my Bible better probably won't be the answer.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
