Posted on 06/18/2018 8:49:38 AM PDT by Salvation
There is no evidence in the NT that the temple guards arrested only Jesus because of armed resistance by the rest of the Apostles with those two swords. That is speculation, and it tends to be disproved by two things:
(1) The *one* time that *one* of two words was actually used, was when Peter cut off the ear of the servant of the High Priest. It was then that Jesus reached out and miraculously healed the man's ear. This illustrates that Jesus not only forbade, but counteracted this defense.
(2) Neither the NT nor any of the history of the Church for the first 300 years of Christianity shows Christians protecting themselves with armed force. Despite the fact that they and their families were in peril of their lives, there is no record of armed resistance.
If you have any historical sources which contradict this, I would be sincerely interested in hearing about it. I favor evidence-based discussion, and I am fully open to be persuaded by evidence.
`
Good suggestion to read the whole article.
> “(1) The *one* time that *one* of two words was actually used, was when Peter cut off the ear of the servant of the High Priest. It was then that Jesus reached out and miraculously healed the man’s ear. This illustrates that Jesus not only forbade, but counteracted this defense.”
...but counteracted this ***defense***
Be careful. Peter did not strike in ‘defense’ which is why Jesus intervened and rebuked.
But the incident served its purpose which was to put the Temple Guards on warning. After the incident they were more agreeable to take Jesus only and leave the others.
It's right there in the text. The purpose of the sword --- or one of the purposes --- was to fulfill the prophecy that he would be numbered with the transgressors. That would have served as corroborating evidence that he was a rebel and a king opposed to Caesar, as well.
So, both --- the fact that his followers were (ridiculously lightly) armed, and the false charge that Jesus was a revolutionary --- added up to Jesus being "numbered with the transgressors."
BTW, there is some controversy as to whether it was unlawful for non-Roman citizens to even possess swords. It's plausible that Jesus knew they would be arrested because of having swords.
In other words, the swords were not there for self-defense: they were there to provoke arrest.
I've read opinions for and against, but I don't know if it can be answered definitively.
Jesus does not say that one should not defend oneself if attacked; He says that one should turn the other cheek
Amen.
I think it is so sad how many will not be covered by the Blood of Jesus on Judgement Day.
So many just live in the secular world, unaware of how temporary it is and how carnal and evil it is.
Death comes at a moment’s notice, and then it is too late for those who are unsaved.
I am still trying after 30 years,,,long years, to guide my husband to Salvation. Like many, the scales on his eyes and in his ears and on his heart, are thick and tough.
BUT,,,God is Great and all things are possible with God.
Amen.
You are right, especially about the proud not wanting to bow to Jesus as Lord and Savior. I think this is why men are so hard to reach, in my experience. Men in my family anyway.
John 18:1-11 |
This makes it pretty clear that Jesus could make a gang of armed men back off and fall to the ground with a word. He did not need the Apostles' swords for this purpose.
The purpose of the swords was to fulfill the prophecy that He would be "numbered with the transgressors." I don't think a gang of armed men, "soldiers and officers," would be seriously deterred by fishermen with two measly swords. Especially after Jesus healed the first one who was slashed, and then ordered Peter to put back the sword.
Actually, the passage structure and Greek structure tells a different story.
Christ is contrasting what will come from what existed before.
(Specifically, it is a “counter-point/point” structural marker. Verse 35 “when I sent you out you didn’t lack *anything*../..” verse 36 “but now”)
How will it differ?
First, Christ answers Peter’s boast by showing the intensity of the persecution to come, “Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.” It will be that bad.
Then, Christ names the items, including the sword, As necessary now, in contrast to the situation that existed when the disciples had been sent out before.
“Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.”
The Greek structural focus of the supporting marker in sentence, is that Christ will be numbered with transgressors and this fulfillment of prophecy must happen and would change everything.
That change is positioned in Greek sentence structure as the supporting justification as to why the disciples needed these items including a sword.
This situation is a 180 degree turn from before, when He was welcomed and his disciples commanded respect.
(I mentioned earlier that it was not the presence of swords that Christ was charged with, but opposing Ceasar. )
Best
My theory is that killing is always wrong. Always and without exception. Including in self defense. Including in time of war. Including in the administration of justice.
But sometimes the greater wrong lies in NOT killing.
No one ever said the only choices we would have to make in life were between good and evil.
No one walked around back then at night without some sort of defense. That was how you got robbed, beaten and murdered.
Theory works great in the classroom, but in practice, knowing the laws governing the topic work much better. The levitical least demonstrate when killing is justified and those same laws are in use today, just different technology and circumstance.
Nevertheless, Jesus demonstrates that he did not need guys with swords to keep the soldiers at bay: He could do it with a word. (John 18:6)
Second, He actually says the purpose of the swords is to fulfill prophecy (Luke 22:36):
"... if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. For it is written: ‘he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
We have a difference in interpretation.
> “He did not need the Apostles’ swords for this purpose.”
I agree, but the disciples needed them.
> “The purpose of the swords was to fulfill the prophecy that He would be “numbered with the transgressors.”
That’s your opinion. My opinion is the same as that handed down to countless millions, that Jesus was numbered with the transgressors because they hung crucified and died on either side of him on at Calvary.
Jesus was not sentenced to death for causing his disciples to carry swords, he was convicted for speaking of a kingdom (possible treason), and even then, Pilate deferred to a Jewish mob to choose between Jesus or Barrabas. Pilate ruled Jesus had done no wrong and left it to a Jewish mob organized by enemies (a Jewish deep state) in the Sanhedrin. Pilate acceded to the Sanhedrin that they had no King but Caesar. Pilate washed his hands of it.
> “I don’t think a gang of armed men, “soldiers and officers,” would be seriously deterred by fishermen with two measly swords.”
The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto held off the German Army for two weeks with 15 pistols.
> “Especially after Jesus healed the first one who was slashed, and then ordered Peter to put back the sword.”
Which doesn’t mesh with your prior statement that Temple Guards would not be deterred. Peter’s action, in fact, did deter them for otherwise the Temple Guards would have attacked and arrested all the disciples.
Throughout the Bible, God has caused the enemies of Israel, who were tasked to remain obedient to God as they were chosen to bring forth the Messiah, to be defeated in myriad ways. It is clear that God does not restrict Himself from waging wars to protect the coming of the Messiah through the nation of Israel, and similarly that He would protect the Apostles who were tasked with spreading the Gospel. That protection included the sword where God deemed it was appropriate.
Satan’s minions can be stopped with the gun and sword, and all manner of armaments. My belief is that GOD protects this nation with the most awful weapons of war such that no enemy nation would even think to attack the United States. Although some missives of Jihadists and other enemies will plot to attack, they cannot defeat the US through armies and equipment, only a formidable enemy nation could imagine defeating the United States militarily and to this day none would think of it.
“Second, He actually says the purpose of the swords is to fulfill prophecy (Luke 22:36):”
No.
He is saying the disciples would now need the 3 items (not just swords) I like in the past, because being numbered among the transgressors was going to happen and it would radically change their previous experience.
Really I'm not!
I'm just pointing out that the swords mentioned in the Gospel are never USED for anything (except for cutting off Malchus' ear, which Jesus immediately counteracts and countermands.) Their only other "use" is that they help establish that Jesus is "numbered among transgressors," as prophesied.
That fact that His men carry (a few measly) arms, helps set up the pretext for Jesus to be accused of being a rebel and a rival to the Emperor.
This results in treating Him as a transgressor in the subsequent chapters: binding Him, bringing him to trial before the religious and secular authorities, having Him scourged and beaten, and finally, of course, having Him killed. In all these ways He was treated as a transgressor, and the swords were part of the (flimsy) pretext for doing that.
Tagline
It doesn't create suspicion that you're a transgressor if you carry money, sandals, backpacks, whatever. It does create suspicion if your men have arms.
I do think we've well and truly split this hair at this point.
You'll notice that nowhere in the NT do the Apostles ever use a sword, or any other weapon, for defense, although the Christian Community is frequently at risk for arrest and imprisonment and/or stoning.
I prescind from any argument for pacifism. (I do not believe in pacifism.) I'm just pointing to the record.
A sword is not necessary to be numbered among the transgressors - in fact is *wasn't* even brought up at Christ's trial.
You are making the argument that "since it is the evidence, it must be required." The Scripture doesn't say that.
I want to draw your attention to this in particular:
A sword is not found in the prophecy quoted by Christ, nor supported by the immediate context, nor found in the accusations against Christ.
It doesn't create suspicion that you're a transgressor if you carry money, sandals, backpacks, whatever. It does create suspicion if your men have arms.
No suspicion is necessary. Christ wasn't being arrested for suspicion of arms. Nor were soldiers walking buy who spotted some men with swords. They were already coming to arrest Christ.
This idea of suspicion is one your argument brings to the text. It isn't there found there in Greek, nor the Hebrew translation of the prophecy, nor otherwise. Suspicion of bearing arms is irrelevant to the event and to the history of the trial and to the prophecy.
You'll notice that nowhere in the NT do the Apostles ever use a sword, or any other weapon, for defense, although the Christian Community is frequently at risk for arrest and imprisonment and/or stoning.
This is an interesting idea that doesn't bear on this passage, since Christ instructs them to buy swords.
(I'm laughing to myself that you are requiring something to have happened during the NT and example of the Apostles. 😃)
... and ultimately, you are making an argument from silence. We simply do not know. The Holy Spirit chose not to record it if it happened.
(and here, if I was a Roman, I'd say, "But God could have! Not everything is recorded in Scripture!)
Rome certainly found the sword later in history...
Best.
we prayed for a family member for more than 40 years- one day- unbeknownst to us- she picked up a tract i had actually gotte4n for a catholic person- She read it privately, and accepted Christ out of the clear blue- We didn’t even know she had read the tract- never give up praying- God answered in a wonderful way for us
Prior to the time that began Jesus’s time of passion, He and the disciples had attracted an enormous following. There was no real perception of transgressions. There were tests but no condemnation from society.
Once Jesus revealed he would be given over to the unbelievers, his disciples were made aware that he would be made out to be a criminal. This was a sea change as to what was experienced before.
The swords were bought to present a deterrent because it was God’s will the disciples be protected after Jesus was taken.
The Temple Guards were ordered to arrest Jesus, not his followers. If they had engaged in an armed battle with the disciples, not only would the Sanhedrin be displeased but also the Roman governor. The swords, how ever many they thought there were, acted as a deterrent, especially as Jesus was willing to be taken so long as the disciples were left untouched.
The Temple Guards knew that once Jesus was delivered, they could later come back for the disciples. And after the Sabbath, that is exactly what they did. They came back for all followers of Jesus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.