Pilgrim said: 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.
You are quite right, context is definitely the only reliable way to determine a words specific meaning. You are also correct that words change their meaning over time. We can see from LSJ that 'sabre' was added at a later stage but I can't find evidence that the meaning 'knife' and 'short sword' were not still used in this period. Also, since the LXX is a translation from the Hebrew and it occured during the Koine period, its language is fundamentally the same as the Greek of the NT. If the translators of the LXX thought MACAIRA was a good translation for a ceremonial knife, it was because it was part of the word's semantic range. This is not unlike the English of the NIV, which is uniform to our period even though the underlying documents represent thousands of years of lexical change.
Quote
Pilgrim said: 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.
And I have acknowledged that as a viable interpretation in another post yet, while I agree with the prophetic/soteriological timetable, I don't think that was the ethical motivation. My reason is that Jesus' actions here are consistent with what he said elsewhere about loving enemies, praying for abusers, not resisting an evil person, and rejecting the way of the sword. I don't need to look at the overarching salvation timetable to explain Jesus' actions.
Quote
Pilgrim said: 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)
Do you truly suppose that because I choose to take Jesus literally about non-violence that my life must be sheltered and free of danger? What an indictment against a Christian's ability to live according to radical principles! We make our choices and we live with the consequences. I have choosen to not commit adultery, to not steal, and to not be carried away by greed. Using the above logic, I must be ugly and rich as well as safe and secure! I'm not saying I'd win any beauty contests, but I assure you, I'm certainly not rich. I'm saddened that instead of a reasoned dialog on the passages in question, my character (or apparent lack thereof) is brought in. Or perhaps it was just my intelligence that was questioned...either way, it is disheartening.
