Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | luke 22verse 35-38 pacifist contradict | Luke 22:36 | prayon | 26417 | ||
According to the MacArthur study bible Christ first refers to previously sending them out without any provisions (Luke 9:3). He had sovereignly arranged for their needs to be met. The money bag, knapsack, and sword were figurative expressions for such means (the sword being emblematic of protection not aggression). The swords were short, daggerlike instruments - more like knives than swords. There was nothing unusual about carrying them in that culture. They had many practical uses besides violence. prayon | ||||||
2 | luke 22verse 35-38 pacifist contradict | Luke 22:36 | SRN | 26514 | ||
Yes, but in this case Jesus [as I see it] took up the sword/dagger to go into battle. How I came onto this was after a disagreement with a christian brother on the violence issue, I went looking and found. Always 'this cup to bear' meant to me was a plea to God to save him from his fate. But I looked deeper and found that, Jesus being so tatally appossed to violence was now faced with this [Job 3v25]and that's why he went to pray, so he could be sure it's the right thing to do and God answered by having him arressted before he could engage in battle. |
||||||
3 | luke 22verse 35-38 pacifist contradict | Luke 22:36 | Makarios | 26601 | ||
Greetings SRN and Grazi! The "Search" function on this website works and is very valuable!! Believe it or not, I asked the SAME question a while back. Here was my question: "Does the fact that Peter has a sword in John 18:10 show that the disciples used and advocated the use of a 'sidearm' weapon? Was the wearing or keeping of a sword used for self-defense? If so, would this advocate the use of a 'sidearm' for today? What does the Bible teach about the use of sidearms, and would this affect our views of gun control and/or usage?" And here is an exceptional Answer: "Greetings Nolan! I would agree that none of the passage advocate the use of a sword. However, I would also say that none of them prohibt it either. Most of the passages in the Gospels simply mention that some disciples were carrying a sword, while neither saying this was a good or bad thing. The only passage that seems to say anything about the morality of the situation is Luke 22:36-38. Jesus says to His disciples that (in contrast to earlier times) they should take a purse or a bag or a sword. The disciples, respond with a comment that they had two swords. To which, Jesus replies, "That is enough." What did Jesus mean? Since He didn't allow Peter to use his sword to fight for Him, I can't imagine that Jesus meant that two was sufficient. Since Jesus Himself said to get a sword, I can't imagine that it was immoral to do so (especially since several passages mention disciples carrying swords.) What does that leave? I think the words "that is enough" means "enough of this kind of talk." I think Jesus was frustrated that the disciples didn't understand that He was trying to warn them that times were changing. The point wasn't to actually go get a sword, a cloak, or a purse. The point was that the situation was going to change. As for sidearms today, I don't know of any Scripture that directly addresses the issue of the morality of weapons. Like anything else, they can be tools for good or tools for destruction. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran" Blessings to you, Nolan |
||||||