Quote
digger said:
But how can we say "for the purpose of protection" when that very use brings rebuke to Peter from Jesus? Since the text does not tell us what the 'purpose' of these swords is, ISTM that we are simply making guesses based on our preconceived ideas (me included).
The rebuke was as I already wrote in my previous reply. The N.T. is replete with examples of how the common unbelieving "followers" of Christ wanted to crown Him "king" due to their erroneous belief that an earthly kingdom was to be established (sound vaguely familiar? giggle ). The Lord, of course, resisted both their attempts and the Devils similar challenge/temptation for He was appointed to suffer on the cross. On the other hand, His true disciples wanted to prevent Him from going to His death but for obviously different reasons. And He rebuked them, even sharply at times, and insisted that it was imperative that He suffer and die so that they might live. Thus, Peter (assumed) was rebuked for his overt act, which really shouldn't be surprising given that Peter was quite well known for being impetuous.

To suggest that these two swords which the Lord Christ unquestionably approved of and told them to carry with them was to be used for cutting wood, culinary purposes or shaving, etc. is hardly defensible given that these swords were "military" in nature. (see also: TDNT pp. 524-526) Absolute Pacifism is not taught in God's Word where one is to allow anyone to do anything they wish to us or to those over whom we have care. And the subject of pacifism and violence has already been discussed on this Board several times. wink I don't advocate offensive violence. But I have yet to find any reasonable apologetic to defend a position of absolute pacifism from the Scriptures.

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]