Biblical Basis for RKBA

[One of Many]

Drew

EDIT to answer One of Many (posted at the same time)

No, I am no supporter of predestination. My point was, that if Jesus had no intention and rather condemns the disciples of using swords for self defense then telling them to buy some would be intentionally causing them to stumble. That is not in the nature of God, and is clearly condemned by earlier teachings. It would be the same as Jesus telling them to buy porn but then telling them not to look on a woman to lust. It is both hypocritcal and absurd (or absurdly hypocritical).

What I believe is that, the Jewish Religious Leaders considered anyone opposed to their teachings who also possessed weapons, to be outlaws. Jesus had to fulfill prophesy, so he had to be considered an outlaw by the Jewish leaders. In order for that to happen, his disciples had to possess at least one weapon, whether they used that weapon or not.

The Jewish leaders approached Jesus and his disciples with an armed mob, indicating that they did consider him to be an outlaw. Peter used his weapon to wound the slave of the High Priest (a High Priest who was acting contrary to the law), and Jesus told him to put the weapon away (Peter was not rebuked - just told to put it away, because it's purpose had been fulfilled). Jesus said he could call 12000 angels to defend him, so Peter's weapon had no defensive purpose as far as Jesus was concerned; Peter's weapon was just so the High Priest and his mob would consider Christ to be an outlaw.

Peter did no wrong in attempting to defend Christ, but he did not understand the purpose for having that weapon, or Christ's ability to defend himself. Jesus telling the disciples to arm themselves was not a case of God tempting his followers to do evil. It was a case of prophesy being fulfilled, by meeting the expectations of the Jewish leadership.

 

[Cosmoline]

You can read the Gospels as a series of parables, where nothing is as it seems. In this reading, when Jesus says "sword" he never means a sword. In fact he almost never means what he says. If he admonishes someone to settle a claim on the way to court, he's not actually talking about claims or a court, for example. The great benefit of this method of reading the text is it allows theologians to foist nearly any interpretation they see fit on the words. Once divorced of any direct meaning, the text becomes a lump of clay.

For example, if Jesus isn't telling his followers to get swords and prepare for life without his protection, then what is he saying? He could be telling them to guard their souls, or he could be testing their faith by seeing if they would buy swords. Or he could be telling them to live simply. Heck you could interpret it to mean they should kill themselves when he dies. ANY meaning can be written into the text, or no meaning. The whole thing can be reduced to a series of comfortably ambiguous sayings. It's alsmost as if the professional clergy cannot abide the notion that Christ could talk about something as base as settling a claim on the way to court or buying a sword to protect yourself.

This is why these sorts of interpretations are doomed to failure. You cannot strip the actual, direct meaning from the text in this fashion without destroying the text. Now it's possible Jesus's advice had multiple layers of meanings, but surely if he said "settle your claims" or "buy swords" he meant settle your claims on the way to court and buy swords. Otherwise, why would he have used these words? Was he playing with his followers--telling them one thing and then getting angry when they did it because he really didn't mean it? Absurd.

 

[One of Many]

Where does the Bible say that Jesus was angry that Peter used the sword to strike a blow in his defense? Jesus told his disciples to buy swords, his disciples immediately produced two swords, and Jesus said it was enough (there was no need for more swords). How does this translate into Jesus being angry with his disciples?

As far as settling disputes on the way to court, that is common sense.The lawyers and the courts take a very big piece of the action when they settle a dispute. It is better for both parties in a dispute to come to agreement without resorting to lawyers and courts, because the disputants retain all of the disputed goods between themselves, instead of losing most of it to the legal professionals.

 

[Cosmoline]

I've had clergy members all but yell at me for suggesting Christ was actually talking about courts. The idea that Jesus could be discussing something so earthly seems to offend them, which is pretty silly. Judicial disputes have been a key part of civilized life for thousands of years, and the advice to make peace with your enemy and come to a settlement is as sound now as it was 2,000 years ago. It's also true that questing for ultimate "justice" in an earthly court is vain, pointless and wasteful. I've personally seen people burn up half their lives in such disputes.

 

[horge]

Peace be with all of you!

Cosmoline, please do not be cross that I and others may see things differently
than you do. God is watching over us both, and guides us both with purpose.


Aristotleians and Averroists can find fact and truth interchangeable.
Christians sometimes know better: that facts merely point to the truth.
This is why we have room for miracles and signs.

Was he playing with his followers--telling them one thing and then getting angry when they did it because he really didn't mean it? Absurd.

In a sense, speaking in parables is playing with the audience,
enriching and enabling the road to personal epiphany. It beats rote.

Gospel is rife with instances of the disciples failing to understand.
Peter had the rare epiphany, but soon falls back into incomprehension.
Even after Christ was resurrected, they failed to understand.
Until Jesus Resurrected renewed their Fellowship briefly.

We might be cautious with regard to the "two swords" exchange itself,
because it is not replicated in the other Synoptics. The oldest gospel,
Mark, doesn't have it. Neither do John and Matthew.

Don't get me wrong: the exchange took place, but if the Holy Spirit did not
move the other authors to record it, then it must be relatively minor,
in the context of the central, profound events we ought to be paying more
attention to: the Crucifixion and the Resurrection.

All the Gospels are removed from the events they describe, by hundreds of
years. We can hope that the Holy Spirit moved the authors and translators
over the centuries to find/preserve the whole truth, and most of the facts.

Peace be with you.

-------------------


Hi, One of Many

Where does the Bible say that Jesus was angry that Peter used the sword to strike a blow in his defense?

There is rebuke, but I see no anger
Mark (the oldest gospel) and Luke do not record an explicit verbal rebuke of sword-use
in Jesus' defense at Gethsemane. Matthew and John do, but with different
emphases.

Matthew 26:52
τοτε λεγει αυτω ο ιησους αποστρεψον σου την μαχαιραν εις τον
τοπον αυτης παντες γαρ οι λαβοντες μαχαιραν εν μαχαιρα αποθανουνται
("Then says Jesus to him, Put up your sword again into its place: for
all those who take the sword will come to death by the sword")

Jesus' objection seems clear. "ALL those who take the sword" applies not just
to one person, and the grammatic tense applies to more than just the events
at Gethsemane.

John 18:11
ειπεν ουν ο ιησους τω πετρω βαλε την μαχαιραν σου εις την θηκην
το ποτηριον ο δεδωκεν μοι ο πατηρ ου μη πιω αυτο("Jesus therefore said
unto Peter, Put up the sword into the sheath: the cup which the Father hath
given me, shall I not drink it?")

John identifies the sword-wielder as Peter.
Here Jesus' objection is more profound: Peter is interfering with Jesus' mission.
That a sword was used in violence seems almost incidental.

Luke 22:50-51
και επαταξεν εις τις εξ αυτων τον δουλον του αρχιερεως και αφειλεν
αυτου το ους το δεξιον αποκριθεις δε ο ιησους ειπεν εατε εως τουτου και αψαμενος
του ωτιου αυτου ιασατο αυτον ("And a certain one of them smote the
servant of the high priest, and struck off his right ear. But Jesus, answering, said,
Permit this, at least. And touching his ear, he made it well")

Jesus' rebuke is indirect, gentle, and yet elegantly complete. The same
qualities present in a 'two swords' rebuke. Call it Lucan style or verbatim
reportage, but consistency matters to some of us.

Lucan medical precision even records that the sword-bearing apostle cut off
the servant's RIGHT ear (amputavit auriculam eius dextram), and many
of we Catholics suspect, if the Apostle (Peter) was right-handed, that Luke
may be implying an attack from behind.

Mark has the Lord being arrested, without Jesus addressing (Peter's) sword-use.
Jesus does question the swords and clubs that his arresters have brought
against Him. Some hold that by willingly submitting to surrender, Jesus is
rebuking armed resistance, but an unfiltered reading of the "Majority" and the Receptus
won't support it, IMO.

There are MANY apparent contradictions in Scripture, and it often takes
reflection and prayer to see the one Truth in them all, God be with us and bless us.

If others take the road of selectively dismissing one Gospel or another, as suits
their comfort from one verse to the next, then that is their choice, and may
God bless them too.


Thank you for sharing your interesting take on the swords issue. While I am not
entirely satisfied with it (nor am I entirely satisfied with ANY take, mine included),
I am overjoyed and grateful that you and others have come to share at the
table!


h.

 

[Drewtam]

God, Guns, and Government, lol
This thread is great.

I think it might be more fair to say that previous to King George the British had been the proper government over the American Colonies, but that when their Chartered rights were violated, when they were for instanced taxed by a government in which they had no representation , then the British government had become improper.

You expose my ignorance of history then, I did not know that there was a rule of (unchangeable) law that the British rulers were violating. But are you sure that Brittain did not have the authority to impose any law that they felt necessary?

What I believe is that, the Jewish Religious Leaders considered anyone opposed to their teachings who also possessed weapons, to be outlaws. Jesus had to fulfill prophesy, so he had to be considered an outlaw by the Jewish leaders. In order for that to happen, his disciples had to possess at least one weapon, whether they used that weapon or not.

That may be true, there are reasons why I doubt it, but lets assume it so. Even in that case Jesus would (should) still not be telling them to buy swords if such a thing was evil (the use, not the object; I'm not a Gnostic either ). Even if He or the disciples had no intention of using them, as in my earlier analogy, it would be like possessing porn but never looking. Possessing just to appear evil to others; again this sort of deception is not in the nature of God or what he intended for His disciples.

I would by no means use this Luke passage as a strong argument for biblical self defense: Esther, Law of Moses (Exodus), and Romans passages have much stronger supporting texts. Like Horge was saying, this topic is not of great importance to God, it seems. It could be that it is human nature to defend oneself (so why press the issue?) and there are much more important topics that have not been corrected in the behavior of us sinful humans, that need repeating over and over and over again. :banghead:

Drew

PS

Jesus said he could call 12000 angels to defend him.

He said He could call 12 Legions, which is approx 60,000 angels (5,000men/legion).

 

[Stand_Watie]

Rom 13:1-7
1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities....if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

This verse needs to be taken in light of the particular government structure that a Christian lives under. As an American I believe I am both to be in subjection to and am one of the governing authorities - in context of actions - as I'd say all law abiding American citizens are. Self defense, common defense, and the defense of third parties are all codified in American law.

 

[1911 guy]

Context is everything.

In the many examples of Jesus teaching by parable, those listening knew He was using a parable, but didn't understand the underlying message. The hebrew, greek and aramaic are all very expressive languages that allow for easy (for scholars of those languages) diferentiation between literal and figurative language. That's where the "but what does it really mean" argument falls flat. The misunderstanding is not in the language, but in our understanding, or lack of, of the language. The same is true for translations, as pointed out by Horge. All we have are translations, but the Dead Sea scrolls have proven that coresponding books of the Bible have been fairly well preserved in their original meaning. If God can inspire a Bible, it stands to reason that He can direct translation and preserve His word as He sees fit.

It is also important to remember that the Old Testament is not a seperate entity from the New Testament. The purpose of the levitical law was to prove the point that none of us are perfect, but it would never command or allow sinful behavior. So, the right to self defense in the Old Testament is still valid in the New.

More examples reinforcing that fact are:

Moses killed an egyptian for abusing a hebrew, yet God saw him fit to lead the isrealites out of Egypt. God told David he could not build a temple because he had blood on his hands from having Uriah killed. So one killing was justified, the other was murder.

At Jericho, Rahab was told to hang a cord outside her window to be saved from the coming seige and destruction. So she, by her choices, was not a threat to the isrealites and was spared. This would imply that conditions must be met for violence to be justified and she did not meet those parameters so was spared. This also means that violence WAS justified for the others in the city.

During Nehemiahs time in Jerusalem, the workers rebuilding the walls were told to keep their building tools and a sword close at hand. They were not to go looking for trouble, but Sanbalat and Tobiah were rabble rousing and trouble might come looking for them. They seem to have met with Gods approval by being prepared, otherwise He likely would not have allowed them to complete the building of the walls.

 

[baz]

Anybody who gets a RKBA out of Jesus' statement to his disciples to go buy a sword does not understand much about the principles of Biblical exegesis. It is a fundamental mistake to ask a question of a text that it was never intended to answer. Even using the text where Jesus describes defending a home against those that break in doesn't prove anything on point because Jesus' point was something else.

I don't think there is anything in New Testament directly on point. The closest I find is Rom 13, which teaches that civil authority "does not bear the sword in vain." In other words, there's a place in the divine scheme of things for arms to maintain civil rule, and punish the wicked. Implicit in Rom 13, and explicit in numerous Old Testament passages, is a divine expectation that civil rule be exercised for good, not evil, and that when it is exercised for evil it no longer has divine sanction.

I look upon the 2nd Amendment as affirming the role of citizens in maintaining the kind of civil rule and authority that is according to God's will. If, in an act of self defense, or to protect someone else who's life is threatened, I shoot a BG to stop him from doing evil, I'm exercising the power of the sword described in Rom 13. Under any good and right system of governance, my actions will be recognized as legitimate and justified, and I'm simply acting as an implicit agent of the state doing what is authorized in Rom 13. I don't feel that I need the 2nd Amendment to justify this view, but I think it shows that the founders understood things in a similar way. And I've read enough sermons from the Revolutionary war period to know that they did.

When governments, by any and whatever means, punish the good and sanction evil, they forfeit divine approval. Denying law abiding citizens the RKBA, and then punishing them when they use arms to defend themselves or others, calls evil good, and good evil. This is never pleasing to God.

This is all I need to convince my conscience before God of my RKBA. I don't need to wrest the statements of Jesus from their context. I think that harms the case, rather than strengthen it.

 

[afsnco]

Great thread!

The way I see this one is as follows:

1. Notice that the disciples DID have weapons already. The Lord hadn't said, "What are you doing with those!" to them. So they already had a means of self defense.

2. Based on what Christ said about the goodman of the house and thieves, I think this means that we may rightfully defend ourselves and ours from common criminals. I think this is why the disciples had swords in the first place. Why else would they have them? Those 2 swords wouldn't be very effective against Roman legions.

3. Based on what Christ said about taking up the sword, I think He's saying that by doing so there's a logical likelihood we'll die by the sword.

4. Most interestingly, I think that based on the preponderance of everything else Christ & the apostles said, we're NOT to defend ourselves against our governments who want us dead because of our faith in Him. The American Revolution was therefore justified because the British government was acting like common criminals in their wealth confiscation. The Revolution was NOT fought because of British hatred of American Christianity.

5. The disciples, for instance, obviously had arms, but they allowed themselves to be led like sheep to martyrdom, because their governments hated their faith.

6. This brings me to an uncomfortable point: If Muslims establish a caliphate here in the U.S., will we have the faith to face martyrdom as Christ directs? European Christians will face this question soon, based of their unwillingness to reproduce.

7. Even more likely is the complete secularization of our nation. We know that the radical Left, if given the opportunity, would silence Christians for our beliefs. It's already happened in Canada, where pastors can't speak out against homosexuality without facing prison. The Left has a profound hatred of the morality Christ requires. If such were to come to power here, we'd face a government that hates us for our Christianity. From my reading of the Scriptures, we can't fight them once they're in power, at least not with arms.

8. Who says elections aren't important?

 

[One of Many]

What I believe is that, the Jewish Religious Leaders considered anyone opposed to their teachings who also possessed weapons, to be outlaws. Jesus had to fulfill prophesy, so he had to be considered an outlaw by the Jewish leaders. In order for that to happen, his disciples had to possess at least one weapon, whether they used that weapon or not.

That may be true, there are reasons why I doubt it, but lets assume it so. Even in that case Jesus would (should) still not be telling them to buy swords if such a thing was evil (the use, not the object; I'm not a Gnostic either ). Even if He or the disciples had no intention of using them, as in my earlier analogy, it would be like possessing porn but never looking. Possessing just to appear evil to others; again this sort of deception is not in the nature of God or what he intended for His disciples.

...

Drew

Your analogy comparing weapons to pornography is incorrect. Pornography has never had a legitimate use in the scriptures, and is only associated with clearly sinful thoughts and actions (lusting after strange women, adultery and fornication).

The possession of weapons has had a legitimate purpose all through the scriptures (self defense against man and beast - the armies that defended the nation). Buying swords in order to fulfill prophesy could never be evil, because it is according to God's will; just because Men make the mistake of assuming someone that is armed is an outlaw, does not make them outlaws.

We see this in modern society, where the law allows certain people to go about armed for self defense, and ignorant people call the police if they catch a glimpse of a gun, because they assume anyone with a gun and no uniform is a criminal. The gun owner that lawfully carries for self defense is not at fault, the person making the call to the police is at fault. I can know before-hand that certain people will react improperly to the presence of my firearm, but that does not make my firearm possession illegal or improper. The faulty perception of evil by ignorant people, does not create evil where it does not exist. If we allow anyone's (everyone's) ignorance or misunderstanding to define what is allowable, no one will have the right to do anything; paralysis will result, because every possible action will offend someone.

As one of the other posters has pointed out, the disciples had swords already, for their common use of self-defense, and Jesus had not rebuked them, so he did not consider the swords or their possession to be evil. Jesus was telling his disciples that he (and they) had to fullfil prophesy, and it was necessary for the Jewish authorities to consider them to be outlaws, so prophesy would be fullfilled.

 

[cordex]

I'm a little late, I know, but ...
Cosmoline,

Actually from the research I've done the original Koine word translated as "sword" was "makhaira", which at the time meant a short sword often worn my merchants and travelers as a defensive weapon.

Yup. From Thayer:

μάχαιρα
machaira
Thayer Definition:
1) a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh
2) a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword
2a) curved sword, for a cutting stroke
2b) a straight sword, for thrusting

Horge,

Matthew 26:52
τοτε λεγει αυτω ο ιησους αποστρεψον σου την μαχαιραν εις τον
τοπον αυτης παντες γαρ οι λαβοντες μαχαιραν εν μαχαιρα αποθανουνται
("Then says Jesus to him, Put up your sword again into its place: for
all those who take the sword will come to death by the sword")

Jesus' objection seems clear. "ALL those who take the sword" applies not just
to one person, and the grammatic tense applies to more than just the events
at Gethsemane.

If it is the case that Jesus is stating explicitly that ALL who take the sword will be killed by the sword, Jesus was utterly wrong. Some people who take up the sword (or gun) will be killed by others with a sword or gun. Many will die in other fashions, completely unrelated to violence.

Assuming Jesus wasn't ignorant (and I don't think he was), that leaves a couple of options.
He was saying, in effect,
1. "We're outnumbered, anyone who fights back against these odds will just get killed."
or
2. "Anyone who lives a life of violence is likely to suffer the rewards of that lifestyle."

The first makes the most sense to me. I can't wrap my head around the idea that Jesus might be unaware of the fact that not everyone who takes up a sword will be killed by one.

The implication seems clear, and it is not that Jesus was making a general statement that anyone in any situation who takes up a sword will be killed by the sword.

Lucan medical precision even records that the sword-bearing apostle cut off
the servant's RIGHT ear (amputavit auriculam eius dextram), and many
of we Catholics suspect, if the Apostle (Peter) was right-handed, that Luke
may be implying an attack from behind.

Or that the slave was attempting to move his head out of the way. If Peter was swinging a blade at him and rather than just stand there he jerked his head to the left, the blade might sever his right ear.

But both cases are speculation.

 

[Drewtam]

Your analogy comparing weapons to pornography is incorrect. Pornography has never had a legitimate use in the scriptures, and is only associated with clearly sinful thoughts and actions (lusting after strange women, adultery and fornication).

The possession of weapons has had a legitimate purpose all through the scriptures (self defense against man and beast - the armies that defended the nation). Buying swords in order to fulfill prophesy could never be evil, because it is according to God's will; just because Men make the mistake of assuming someone that is armed is an outlaw, does not make them outlaws.

We are saying the same thing! I'm just arguing from the other side.
Weapons have always had a legitimate purpose for self defense and otherwise. My point was that if they didn't have legitemacy then they shouldn't have them on thier possession in the first place.

We see this in modern society, where the law allows certain people to go about armed for self defense, and ignorant people call the police if they catch a glimpse of a gun, because they assume anyone with a gun and no uniform is a criminal. The gun owner that lawfully carries for self defense is not at fault, the person making the call to the police is at fault. I can know before-hand that certain people will react improperly to the presence of my firearm, but that does not make my firearm possession illegal or improper. The faulty perception of evil by ignorant people, does not create evil where it does not exist.

True, but if you were falsely accused of being an 'evil militia' leader, you would not go out and intentionally wear a uniform of that militia while open carrying an eeeevil black rifle. Especially if your political/social message was nothing like what those groups want.
Jesus was nothing like what those local Jewish rebellions wanted, and would never set out to intentionally decieve others. Notice also that at the "trial", and I use that term loosely, the Sanhedrin could not bring a charge against him even with false witnesses! Surely, if Jesus' intention was to decieve them into thinking He was some sort of rebellious leader then He could succeed in getting the leaders to accuse Him of having a 'well armed' group. The best they could come up with at the time was asking whether He was the "King of the Jews."
What I conclude then, is that possession of the swords was a inconsequential thing to everyone at hand, and that there were other reasons for Him to tell His disciples to acquire some. Furthermore, just as we agreed above, the mere posession of the swords indicate the level of innocence in using them.

afsnco
1. Notice that the disciples DID have weapons already. The Lord hadn't said, "What are you doing with those!" to them. So they already had a means of self defense.

Agreed.

But I think we are arguing about a very minor point.

afsnco
4. Most interestingly, I think that based on the preponderance of everything else Christ & the apostles said, we're NOT to defend ourselves against our governments who want us dead because of our faith in Him. The American Revolution was therefore justified because the British government was acting like common criminals in their wealth confiscation. The Revolution was NOT fought because of British hatred of American Christianity.

Even if Christians suffer under oppression for secular reasons, I do not see how God has said he would be pleased with rebellion. The Jews suffered mightly under Roman rule, yet Jesus had no intention of encouraging the Jews to throw off thier oppressors. We are flatly told in Romans 13 to be in subjection to our governing authorites. Paul places no qualifiers as to making distinction between religious persecution and secular oppression.

Drew

 

[One of Many]

Jesus was nothing like what those local Jewish rebellions wanted, and would never set out to intentionally decieve others. Notice also that at the "trial", and I use that term loosely, the Sanhedrin could not bring a charge against him even with false witnesses! Surely, if Jesus' intention was to decieve them into thinking He was some sort of rebellious leader then He could succeed in getting the leaders to accuse Him of having a 'well armed' group.

The purpose of fullfilling prophesy did not require deceit on the part of Christ (by possessing weapons); the Jewish leaders were deceiving themselves (God allows people to deceive themselves), by assuming that armed people that opposed the false teachings of the Jewish leaders were outlaws. The Roman authorities did not assume that Christ and his disciples were outlaws. Jesus went to great lengths to declare to everyone that he was not trying to set up an earthly kingdom, but his teaching were to prepare people for the Spiritual Kingdom of God. Prophesy had to be fullfilled, and it required the Jewish leaders to deceive themselves; Jesus providing the props to support their self-delusion was not a case of Jesus deceiving them directly.

 

[horge]

If it is the case that Jesus is stating explicitly that ALL who take the sword will be killed by the sword, Jesus was utterly wrong. Some people who take up the sword (or gun) will be killed by others with a sword or gun. Many will die in other fashions, completely unrelated to violence.

Assuming Jesus wasn't ignorant (and I don't think he was), that leaves a couple of options.
He was saying, in effect,
1. "We're outnumbered, anyone who fights back against these odds will just get killed."
or
2. "Anyone who lives a life of violence is likely to suffer the rewards of that lifestyle."

The first makes the most sense to me. I can't wrap my head around the idea that Jesus might be unaware of the fact that not everyone who takes up a sword will be killed by one.

The implication seems clear, and it is not that Jesus was making a general statement that anyone in any situation who takes up a sword will be killed by the sword.

Greetings cordex

I think my point throughout this thread has been that even near extremis,
Jesus uses allegory and euphemism.

In agony and prayer, when He speaks of a "Cup", does He mean a literal Cup
that God the Father is handing to Him?

In the midst of his rebuke of Peter's sword-use, he mentions the Cup again,
so even in the particular moment we discuss, he is using allegory and poetic
reference, unless we all now argue that there WAS a physical Cup, because
"When Jesus isn't speaking in parables, He always means literally what he says".

The fact that he tells Peter to sheathe the sword, rather than, say, discard it
in favor of pacifism, should make it radiantly possible that Jesus is not referring
to some 'literal' "arm yourself = your own death by arms".

What I posted earlier was:

Jesus' objection seems clear. "ALL those who take the sword" applies not just
to one person, and the grammatic tense applies to more than just the events
at Gethsemane.

I only describe who the objection applies to (that being, all of us, throughout eternity).
The actual objection, I did not elaborate on, save for its clarity to me.
What was His objection then, as seems clear to me?
If you will allow me, my own poor understanding will take some length to describe.


A preface:
I have bemoaned the many liberties taken in translating original scripture, and
the vulnerability of the originals themselves. Our brother 1911guy cited fidelity
between Dead Sea Scrolls and modern Judaic text to suggest that not much liberty
has been taken. This is unfortunately an insufficient comparison.

The Dead Sea scrolls, however old, are from midstream of an already-stable,
written tradition many centuries old already; whereas I am talking about
ORIGINAL Christian texts, which are the first peril-fraught transition from
a fluid oral tradition into written form, and the equally-perilous road from there to
relatively-stable tradition as an orthodoxy.

I crave fidelity in translation, but word-for-word literality can be as hobbling in
the interpretation of Scripture as it is in translation. Preserving the
spirit of the words, through knowledge of conventions and euphemisms familiar
to the original authors and of the original subjects, is crucial.

When euphemisms and other stock allegories become unfamiliar over time,
in a world where poetry is less and less common, translators can try to substitute
modern usages and inflections. To "take (up) the sword" can mean more
than literally holding a sword unsheathed.

The interpretation I take from that Gethsemane rebuke is:

"(Kephas), put your sword back in its sheath, for beware:
all those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."

There is IIRC, a modern translation that sounds like that, and it is possible
that the translators accurately carried over the sentiment of the original.

In the above sense, Peter is chastised for choosing to put faith in his blade,
rather than the Son of God physically present before him. With all the clues
and occasional epiphany to draw on, Peter clung to his blade, not to the
Son of God and His mission.

---
Peter was in Jesus' presence, yet he chose to trust in a blade. Wrongly.
What about us? If we truly believe in God's constant loving presence with us today,
as-real a presence as the Apostles experienced, ought we not keep our 'swords' sheathed?

No.
We are not armed because we want to (stupidly) protect Jesus Himself with those arms.
We are armed to protect the sheep from the wolves, as the Shepherd Himself would want,
as the Old Testament has a whole nation arming themselves to do. We simply aren't
in Peter's situation.

How gentle and encouraging our God, that he chooses Peter, so flawed and yet so
repentantly able to redeem himself again and again.
What a Rock that God built His Church upon!

It's been pointed out by many that Jesus did not tell Peter to discard the weapon,
but to sheathe it. The fact that there were two swords to produce earlier shows that
some were already armed in Jesus' presence ---something Jesus hadn't objected to.

To (regrettably) return to the Lucan "two swords"...as I would to make this point...

If the two swords were enough, why bring it up?
If the two swords weren't enough, why say they were?
Why mention buying swords, then? Or a moneybag? or...?

Jesus may have been subtly --again yes, Jesus can intend something other than
the literal-- using "swords" to foretell of Peter's misplaced faith in a weapon; just as
his "command" to take a moneybag foretells of Judas' choice of silver; the sack, of a
general return to worldly possessions as their focus, abandoning the mission they had
during the 'poverty' of their Fellowship. Subtlety allows yet other intended meanings,
and when contradiction discourages a literal reading, we might consider it.

The faithful already HAD swords, and maybe there was a little money (to buy ointment, etc.),
and sacks and baskets (for fish and loaves), and sandals, et cetera, et cetera,
so perhaps, their 'poverty' was such that those things were not treasured 'possessions',
but mere tools for a higher purpose and mission

Nothing intrinsically wrong then, with having a gun, luggage, a wallet and cash,
if we don't make them out to be anything more than useful tools with which to do His will.
If we are careless like Peter was, they become the means with which we deny His will.

God knows we are careless, but like God's chosen Rock we will be forgiven if we repent,
And never --NEVER-- are we parted from His love.



+
horge





*Ah, subtlety. If only I could be subtle!
All I have burdened you with at length could be summed up in a few words.
But we are, crudely, a 'species' ---the word itself specifies.
And we do. Extensively. In minutiae: what we are or aren't; what we do or don't;
what we can or can't; in language so supposedly-clear and literal it cannot be
mistaken for meaning another and cannot be subverted.

And behold, what a just and perfect world such literal specificity has made!
In our image!

I can not --I must not-- despair.
Not for so long as two or three are gathered.