Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | djconklin | 31876 | ||
"I will remain adamant, however, that our Lord would not, and even could not, advocate the sin of breaking both the 6th and the 8th commandments in the taking of "necessities" by force with a sword." Jesus wasn't advocating anything like that. Unfortunately, the disciples (as usual) misinterpreted what He meant. The passage has nothing to do with self-defense and given that the disciples split up sometime after the Ascension 2 sowrds would hardly have afforded adequate protection against anyone who was deteremined to rob or attack any of them--note that virtually all labor back then (except for Luke the physician and Matthew the tax collector) was manual labor--so virtually all males were phiscally fit (no couch potatoes!) |
||||||
2 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | SpreadWord | 31897 | ||
Then this brings us "full circle" then with your original comment on my note: "In context, Jesus was telling his disciples that if they lacked faith in His ability to provide for their needs then they should buy a sword and thus use it to take what they needed--note that none of them ever did such a thing." It appears to me that you are attempting to make the case that Jesus gave His tacit approval for them to use the sword to steal, and if need be, kill in order to obtain their necessities. If this is not what you intended to state, then I failed to see your original point. And what other legitimate purpose could these swords have served? While I could certainly be wrong on this interpretation of this particular passage, it certainly seems to me to be a good case for self-defense. And your statement about the disciples splitting up after the ascension would tend to validate one of my points that 2 swords are "enough" for an individual, not necessarily the entire group. |
||||||
3 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | djconklin | 31920 | ||
You didn't read closely what I wrote--note the word "if". If one lacks faith then one isn't a believer right? Whatever is not of faith is sin? From what we are given in the account there were only two swords amongst all of the 12 disciples. |
||||||
4 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | SpreadWord | 32006 | ||
First of all, I don't believe that a lack of faith entirely means that one isn't a believer. In Luke 8:25, Jesus asks his disciples, "Where is your faith?" Apparantly His own disciples lacked faith at that point, yet they were believers. Secondly, even if he were talking to an unbeliever, Jesus would certainly not instruct or give approval to anyone to take by force what is not rightfully theirs. I can not see how your interpretation of this passage is as you say. If you find your commentary reference, let me know, and I'll try to look it up and read their comments in context. Here is a take on it from the Matthew Henry commentary: "They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves." I could buy the argument of the spiritual weapons (2 Cor. 10:4), but that still doesn't explain Jesus' response when shown the two physical swords. |
||||||