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.