John 18
"4 Then Jesus, sknowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, t“Whom do you seek?” 5 They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.”1 Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 6 uWhen Jesus2 said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 So he asked them again, t“Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.”"
Interesting note, in the Greek Jesus' response translates more correctly as "I am", which religious Jews would have instantly recognized as the name YHWH give Moses to refer to Him as. Three references to Jesus being God in just this one short passage.
"10 Then Simon Peter, whaving a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant3 and cut off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)"
If, as some claim, Jesus was an absolute pacifist why would one of Jesus' disciples have been carrying a sword and why wouldn't Jesus have told Peter that he should not be carrying a sword?
"11 So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; "
Jesus' didn't tell Peter to get rid of the sword, only to sheath it, Jesus clearly didn't seem to object to Peter carrying and using the sword for defense.
"shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”"
Jesus objection to Peter's action wasn't an objection to using violence to defend themselves, it was that Peter's action was or might have gotten in the way of Jesus' reason for being there in the first place. Peter's action might have also been problematic to Jesus fulfilling His promise noted in verse 9 "This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken: “Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one.”".
Finally, it seems important to note that Jesus went willingly with his accusers, knowing what the end result would be. He didn't "slip away" as He'd done in other instances when confronted, He went willingly. If Jesus' primary goal was to provide physical food to the physically hungry, release all of those physically captive and oppressed, or to alleviate physical suffering, why would He go willingly with those who wanted Him dead? How would His death have furthered His alleged social objectives?
13 comments:
Even more, was Pete's sword concealed or openly carried? If the latter, that more clearly indicates Christ's tolerance of self-defense.
I don't think it matters as Jesus was clearly able to discern things beyond what was easily visible. Earlier Jesus tells His disciples to take swords with them, so He clearly is not opposed to carrying weapons for protection. His lack of negative response to Peter, also suggests that His objection was not to Peter having or using the sword, but more about interfering with Jesus purpose.
I certainly agree with your representation of the facts. I'm just wondering if Peter even carried under his garments in the first place. I would think not, but I'm not down with the details of Roman law regarding Jews carrying weapons. It might have been concealed, whether because it was the only way to be armed at all, or because clothing of the time made it more practical ( many aren't keen on so much as seeing weaponry and thus concealing bows to those sentiments). I'm just suggesting that if the weapons were concealed, it would suggest carrying and using weapons if a circumstance called for it wouldn't be "non-Christian" to Jesus.
In any case, we know Jesus advised them to carry in one way or another, and that's good enough for me. I have a number of bladed weapons, most of which are likely best concealed to prevent unnecessary scrutiny from LE.
I suspect that many people carried some form of weapon at that point because of the dangers of travel. Both 2 and 4 legged creatures posing said dangers. From Jesus' perspective, it's likely that He would have known regardless and told Peter to leave it if He was against carrying on principle. It could be one of those things where Jesus allowed it, because it gave Him the opportunity to show His power once more in front of those who wanted Him dead.
I'm not necessarily using this to justify carry now, I'm simply pointing out that in that circumstance, when Jesus planned to give Himself up, that He did not rebuke Peter for using his sword in a defensive manner.
I saw someone....I won't say who it was...disparage your (our?) position in this topic. One would think that such a person would believe that carrying a weapon means one's first option is to kill people when in danger.
"No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for another."
Some might regard this to mean allowing one's self to be murdered as opposed to killing the murderer before one is murdered. While I can in some cases regard that as noble, I don't think it means that at all. Rather, if one jumps in front of a bullet to save the life of the person for whom it was intended is more likely what's in mind with this adage. I can think of no teaching of God the Father or Son which suggests one should let someone murder him.
Art,
There's been a lot of bullshit that got moderated out into the sewer where it belongs. It's a lot of wishful thinking, conjecture, and crap bundled up in condescension. (I know this without even reading it)
Yes, it IS a show of great love to "lay down one's life" for others. It's literally the essence of Jesus' Gospel. Yet there is no requirement to do so, no command to do so, just a commendation of those (Jesus) who make that choice. Yet, in this passage, Jesus does not rebuke Peter for carrying a sword, for defending them, or for violence. Jesus seems more concerned with Peter's actions getting in the way of Jesus choosing to "lay down His life" for others.
I agree that the "for others' part of the proof text is critical. Laying down one's life so some dude can steal $20, is not what the proof text seems to be talking about. Further, there is NO reason to conclude that carrying a sword (weapon) or defending one's own life is problematic. Certainly not from the John 18 passage. Simply placing one's head on the chopping block for no reason seems pointless and absurd.
But, if someone CHOOSES to do so, that is their choice and I'm not going to tell them it was the wrong choice. Personally, I'd like to see any of these idiots actually be confronted with a life or death situation. and see if they practice what they preach.
Apparently the troll said something is his now deleted, and unread, comments that he believe to be so original that no one else in the entire world could have thought about it. Maybe he'll sue me for copyright infringement or something. I guess he said something about the dangers that could be encountered in 1st century Israel and why it made sense to protect yourself. Who knows, who cares. It's freaking common sense. It's no different today, danger exists pretty much every where, to some degree, unless one is an idiot one should at least consider some sort of defense against the danger. As we know, it's not the job of the Roman empire (back in the day) nor of the police (in 2024) to protect anyone from harm. Therefore prudence dictates that one accurately assess the degree of danger, and take appropriate action.
What's interesting is that the troll is probably against 21st century US citizens being able to engage in the same sort of personal protection he advocates for 1st century Jews.
I know his narcissism compels him to believe that I read and hang on every word he pollutes my moderation page with, unfortunately he's wrong about that too.
If the trolls history holds, he's likely posted his comments at Dan's, where they sit unchallenged. Since I rarely read the comments at Dan's, and actively avoid threads when I suspect the troll is trolling, I'm still in the dark about specifics. As I've said, I do occasionally get a glimpse of the first line of comments (as is the case here) and can guess the topic while not opening them to read the entire thing.
I didn't peruse his comments, but simply noticed he referenced you and your position here. Like you, it's rare when I read an entire comment from him, much less address it.
Depending on how much attention I'm paying when I delete his comments, I might catch the first line, but never more than that. The one nice thing about the new Blogger is the "collapse comments" so even if I do dive into the cesspool that is Dan's blog, I can only expand comments by others.
You both know who you are when you need to avoid your bizarre manipulation of the verses in your book idol and spend time trying to disparage me to make yourself feel better. And use juvenile lies in the process. Pathetic. Fake. Ideologically committed to irrational and warped reason (damaging the image of god in which you are created).
And fearful of the truth: the Holy Spirit will teach us everything, as Jesus promised in John 14. (Not a book.) And the Spirit principally teaches us to meditate on the vast cosmic safety of divine love for everyone living today.
But you two prefer bombing runs and ostracizing brown Catholics and brown evangelicals.
Fucked in the head.
I delete Feodor as soon as it hits my moderation. His comments are always worthless and borne out of abject ignorance and stupidity. He claims to be a Christian but really, really twists the Scriptures to support his horrid ideology. I was really surprised to see a comment from him here.
As do I . I firmely believe that he desperately craves attention and an audience that tells him how erudite he is. His persistence in commenting when he knows that he'll be deleted and unread seems to be an indication of an unhealthy desire to inflict his views on others.
Post a Comment