The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Why did he tell them to get some swords?

First, I'm using BDAG, TDNT,and LSJ to determine the meaning of MACAIRA. Here are the definitions from LSJ:

1. large knife or dirk, carving-knife, sacrificial knife, a knife adapted to various purposes.
2. as a weapon, short sword, dagger, an assassin’s weapon, used by jugglers
3. sabre, opp. the straight sword, cavalry sabre.
4. shears or scissors.
5. metaphorically Zen.3.19, cf., Posidipp. 1.10; Eph.6.17, cf., Lxx; Is.49.2.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1996), s.v., MACAIRA.

The abridged version of TDNT has the following:

MACAIRA means the “knife” used in sacrifice, cooking, gardening, etc., then the “small sword,” e.g., the saber or dagger. In the LXX it is the knife in Gen. 22:6; Josh. 5:2-3, but mostly the dagger or small sword.

Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich , Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, translated and abridged by Geoffrey William Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 572.

Anyone who is so inclined can go to the Perseus site and look up MACAIRA in LSJ to see for themselves how the word is used. I'm not sure why quoting standard lexical resources is construed as forcing an idea on the text. If one reads widely in Greek literature you can see a variety of ways the word is used. It may be that I err when I read Jesus' principles peace and love of enemy into these passages but if so, it is from a desire to be consistent in my understanding of Jesus' attitude toward violence. . .even in this passage when he rebukes the disciple. You accuse me of "forcing" my "presuppositional pacifism upon the text in question" but where is the validity of this analysis? I am trying to understand the purpose of the swords in relation to Jesus subsequent rebuke of Peter. How is that forcing presuppositions on the text?


I agreed with this from the beginning (see my initial post on this thread). What I disagreed with was the poster's understanding of Jesus intention for the items. When the instrument (MACAIRA) was used for personal defense [against the armed mob], Jesus rebuked the disciple and repaired the damage. Whatever purpose was intended by Jesus for the swords, inflicting harm on another person doesn't seem to be one of them. I'm trying very hard to discern their purpose from the text itself. If I am forcing an understanding, show me the evidence and perhaps I will be enlightened. This is not about pacifism it's about understanding the purpose of the MACAIRAI of Lk 22:35-38 in light of Jesus words in 22:51.


If you read my other posts on this thread, you would see I agree with your balanced understanding of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. As I said in another post, the question of defense is not whether it's my job or God's job but about which responses are available to me as a Christian. Why people always associate passivity with non-violence is a mystery to me. Some seem to be saying my only choice is to use the sword or take it on the chin so to speak. What about the multitude of other possibilities to curtail violence and evade direct violent confrontation? In those rare instances where the the only choice is to do violence or suffer, why can't we follow the example of Jesus instead of Peter? (cf., Mt 10:38). Why are we bent on resisting an evildoer?(cf., Mt 5:39) In Acts we see Paul being lowered over the city wall in a basket at night (Acts 9:25) -- that's a creative non-violent solution to a threat of violence. But sometimes there is no time for creativity or retreat. We have stories of Paul being beaten and put in prison before he told his assailants he was a Roman citizen (it was illegal to beat a Roman without a trial) (Acts 16:16-40; cf., Acts 22:22-29). If I am forcing this on the text, I seek enlightenment because my natural response is to push back.

Peace,
Brent