What is your interpretation of the sword verse?

[John Goddard]

haha

Any way to get around the possibility of self-defense, right?

And I guess the purse is symbolic of -- well, hmm...

Gold is what you get out of facing persecution for the Word of God...

Revelation 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire...

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God...

God's Word takes the place of the sword.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

[penguinfan]

The last verse is pretty interesting, J. Goddard. Do you think Jesus believed in self defense or that this verse can accurately be interpreted as allowing for self defense?

[John Goddard]

The last verse is pretty interesting, J. Goddard. Do you think Jesus believed in self defense or that this verse can accurately be interpreted as allowing for self defense?

I think you can defend yourself or others from attackers until you put on your preacher hat, then if you get persecuted for the Gospel you have to put your life in God's hands, not take matters into your own.

That's a practical application for me, it's still hard to accept that I should stand by and use no violence to protect others from it, even if I am willing to give up my own life for God. I think that's a reason why Paul said it's better not to be married or have a family, you won't have to worry about them being martyred along with you.

[Obsidian]

Whoa John Goddard...that's actually a remarkably reasonable position coming from you. Based on some things you'd written, I was under the impression you were one of those idiot strict pacifists. I personally believe that preachers may defend themselves under reasonable circumstances -- but nonetheless, you're making me proud.

[John Goddard]

Whoa John Goddard...that's actually a remarkably reasonable position coming from you. Based on some things you'd written, I was under the impression you were one of those idiot strict pacifists. I personally believe that preachers may defend themselves under reasonable circumstances -- but nonetheless, you're making me proud.

I have held a lot of extreme positions, some I still keep. Others I couldn't live up to and made myself a hypocrite. That made me rethink some of them and decide I was using unreasonably high standards to interpret the Bible.

Partly selfish just to let myself off the hook, admittedly, but also because it made more sense in some cases.

I simply don't see where Jesus ever said to stand by and let children, elderly, handicapped, otherwise helpless etc. be raped, beaten, murdered, etc. in front of your eyes just for some pacifist ideal. It seems more of a sin not to try and stop it, using violence if necessary.

So at the moment, this is the best compromise to coexist with turning the other cheek, being harmless as doves, etc. in terms of how to handle persecution for the Gospel I can think of.

[penguinfan]

Here's an interesting interpretation from John Howard Yoder that I came across recently:

The Politics of Jesus, 2nd ed., p. 45, n. 44:

Traditional proof-texting debate for and against pacifism has always made much of the "two swords" passage. If Jesus had meant his disciples never to kill why would he now have told them to arm? Is he not preparing them for legitimate defense while on thier post-Pentecost missioanry travels? But Jesus says he is preparing them for his capture, for the fulfillment of the prediction that he would be found among compromising company. When they respond, "We ahve two swords," his reponse, "Enough," cannot mean that two swords would be enough for the legitimate self-defense against bandist of twelve missionaries traveling two by two. He is (In direct parallel to Deut. 3:26 where YHWH tells Moses to change the subject [Note: Yoder points out that the Greek in the LXX is identical to what Jesus says here]) breaking off the conversation because they don't understand anyway...In the Matthew account of the sword in the garden (26:54) the reference to fulfillment is in Jesus' own words (rather than, as usual in Matthew the Evangelist's) and likewise centers upon the sword. Thus the "fulfillment of prophecy" theme has a special link to the garden capture in both Gospels.

Basically, Jesus tells the apostles to arm themselves so he can be found with compromising company and this will give the Jews/Romans the reasons needed to crucify him.

[Obsidian]

So basically, Jesus was lying. So basically, the Pharisees didn't already have enough reason to kill Jesus. So basically, Jesus should have left the servant's ear unhealed to make them even angrier with him. So basically, Jesus should've carried a sword himself, and told Peter to slash at a few more people.

Besides, anyone reading the text can see that the sword issue never came up at any of his three trials.

Basically, Yoder was an idiot. I hate to be so uncharitable to someone so sincere, but seriously, the Amish/Menonites are unbiblical ascetics who practice demonic man-made traditions and make a mockery of Christianity. If Jesus had ever commanded something along the lines of, "Thou shalt progress in technology for 1700 years, but after that, stop," then maybe I would be more forgiving of their idiocy. Seriously, don't believe a word Yoder says. He's grasping at straws to build support for his man-made and nonsensical ascetic beliefs.

[anewlife]

I am going to sell my cloak and buy a sword this weekend at the gun and knife show.

[ManFromHeaven]

Allegorical: The two swords represent the spoken word from the tongues of Peter then Jesus. The high priests slave did not have an ear to listen to peter, but his will to listen was restored or healed by Jesus who knew what he was talking about and was able to catch the ear so to speak of Malchus who's name means My king, kingdom or counselor. A further indication of who he would only listen to.