Actually, in the New King James Version, there in no exclamation point in Luke 22:37. The verse ends in a period. I see no rebuke there, only a simple declarative sentence.
Hi Cajun Bass
Okay, the NKJV.
Even as a flat declarative, it remains that Christ's response sounds contradictory
to any literal manda for each Apostle to get a sword. The response is
even inconsistent with a
general advocacy of post-Fellowship KBA, because a
mere two swords can't be enough for THAT, when the Apostles must break up,
go forth on their own and preach (and there is every indication they went about
this business as they had when Christ was with them: without money or most other
possessions.)
Anyway, back to "It is enough". It looks to contradict a supposed order for each Apostle to
pack a sword. Given such a contradiction, it would not seem that Christ actually issued a manda,
unless one presumes:
a. Christ issued a manda, then changed His mind and contradicted Himself
b. Christ issued a manda carelessly, then stumbled into contradicting Himself
Not likely!
However, His response is consistent with a point being made obliquely, like many other points
he made obliquely, via parables.
The NKJV, right?
I can go back to the Septuagint and even earlier, and see just how much has been censored
and mistranslated. A lot of folks think the Nicene expurgations were substantive enough, but
honest error and gradual sugarcoating over the centuries did much more.
It will only confuse matters further, unfortunately, but let's look at it, then:
οι δε ειπον κυριε ιδου μαχαιραι ωδε δυο ο δε ειπεν αυτοις ικανον εστιν
"ικανον εστιν" is simply rendered "It/This is enough"
If Christ had referred to those TWO swords thereby, the form should've been
"ικανα εστιν for the
plural "They are enough".
He was referring to a
singular something
If he wasn't referring to the two swords, then my posit of a contradiction disintegrates.
There are now at least two possibilities:
Jesus is saying "Enough. You've understood.", or
Jesus is saying "Enough. You will understand soon enough, anyway.""
I hope you appreciate my willingness to providing material supporting both your position(s) and mine.
I do so because I am not here to "win" an argument,
but to
discuss, towards (hopefully) nearing the Truth.
Anyway and again...
I lean towards the latter interpretation, given the context of the 'arc' of the disciples'
understanding of Christ's mission, and their prior track record of (in)comprehension.
Many times when Jesus spoke in parables, the disciples misunderstood Him,
because they took His words just too literally.
This has significant bearing on us and our discussion.
The disciples had trouble "getting it" even with Christ giving it to them direct.
We in the present have the added burden of receiving Jesus' words through the filter of
centuries of corruptive mistranslation. Even the earliest source document for our
part of Luke is many generations removed from a living memory of the living Christ, or any
personal memory of His actual words.
We can rely on a word-for-word literality of documents reconstructed from
doctored reconstructions, in turn based on patched-together anonymous writings
and best-guesses, or we can look at the whole context of what we have before us
as imperfect, and invite Divine enlightenment (and use our own reflective discernment)
to sort through the mess.
This is the very reason I brought up St. Augustine vs. Aristotle and Averroes.
The good Doctor had a pretty solid point founded in both faith and practicality:
In matters of faith AND living, personal experience and reflection trumps
what scholars/mass-media/translators/apologists hand out and hand down,
because ultimately, every one of us has a hot-line to God Himself.
All that said, I could be totally wrong and all of you could be totally right.
Right or wrong, thank God that He loves us all, this poor sinner included.
Right or wrong, as some of us must be, we all nevertheless KBA as Christians,
and I chose to do so after much study, reflection and prayer.
God bless us all!
h.
