Quote
digger said:
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.
First of all, it is the CONTEXT of the passage which will give the correct or most probably meaning of a word. In the context of Lk 22:36, 37, the meaning seems most likely to mean a sword that was of a military type, i.e., one used for the purpose of combat. It would also seem consistent from the fact that this sword was used to cut off a man's ear. In short, if you understand the information provided in those several sources, the word MACAIRA was used in a variety of ways throughout history and changed meaning. What it meant in the O.T. (e.g., a ceremonial knife) is not necessarily what it meant in the N.T. By far, the references in the N.T. are the swords carried by soldiers.

Quote
diggar said:
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.
I've already give a reasonable explanation of why the Lord Christ rebuked the disciple after cutting of the ear of the servant who was among those sent to arrest Him. The point was not that violence was wrong, but rather the situation didn't warrant it. It was God's appointment that Christ should be arrested and murdered so that He might atone for those whom the Father gave Him.(cf. Matt 26:31; Jh 11:49-51; 17:1, 2; Isa 53:5-8; Rom 3:25, 26; 1Pet 3:18; et al) The circumstances surrounding the arrest of Christ is not analogous to someone breaking into your home and wanting to assault you or someone attacking you on the street. There is a stark difference between one being arrested for his faith and one being attacked by some evil individual.

Evidently, you have no real experience with individuals who would do you harm?? In many situations, it is not possible to run, call the police, talk your way out of being assaulted, etc. There are but two choices one can make.... defend yourself or suffer injury or death. Since my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and I am to be a good steward of it in all ways, e.g., eating well, keeping it fit, not allowing sinful things enter my mind, etc., it is only reasonable to conclude that not allowing someone to destroy or injure it is prudent. There is no virtue in allowing evil to triumph. And there is no warrant to presume upon God's miraculous intervention as Christ also showed when He contended with the Devil in the wilderness. (cf. Lk 4:9-12)

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]