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

What’s wrong with Matthew Henry’s comments on the idea of carrying two swords?



Wes

I can't decide what it is Henry is saying! At times, it appears that he seems to indicate that the disciples were to carry BOTH a physical sword as protection AND to be armed with the "Sword of the Spirit", i.e., the Word of God. But he also appears to be saying that the disciples didn't need a physical sword.

The problem I have, as has already been stated elsewhere, is that the text does not allow the sword, which the Lord says the disciples should have, even if it means selling their outer garment to buy, to be spiritualized to mean the Scriptures. The literary form of that passage alone mitigates against doing this.

BTW... Matthew Henry is well-known as one who often spiritualizes the Bible in his Commentary. Thus one needs to read him with discernment!

In His Grace,

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

Of course MACAIRA was an instrument used for military purposes. But just because modern soldiers carry knives doesn't mean the primary purpose of a knife is military.

Peace,
Brent

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.

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,

Well I see it is NOT "impossible" to prove it, is it? The Greek can prove it, the context of the Scripture proves it, and even, the translators (NIV, NAS, Message, Amplified, NLT, KJV, ESV, CEV, NKJV, ASV, Youngs, Darby, NLV, Holman, NIRV, WENT, etc.) go so far as to NOT to translate this term simply as a "knife," but a "sword" (indeed, because that is what it is). However, it is more like a multi-purpose sword, not one for just crushing Armour. While it is true that Jesus was not training His subjects to be theonomists <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> (thus, it would have been wiser to be armed with a larger sword), IMO He was revealing a couple of things, as I attempted to point out in a previous post:

1. Mentally, I believe Jesus is saying prepare for hard days ahead. Times of peace are disappearing.

2. Yes, the sword can be used for provisional things such as food, hunting, etc., thus a multi-purpose tool. Not everyone is going to fend for you now, you have to do it for yourself at times ...

3. Yes, it may also be used for self-defense--which is not negated in Scripture, as I (and others) have shown in other posts. Indeed, this sword was one used for precision maneuvers, like dissecting ears (and Peter would not have been rebuked, if his purpose would have been self-defense and not the stopping of the bringing in of the Kingdom). While Christ told Peter to "put your sword in its place," He clearly did not say get rid of it forever. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" /> That would have contradicted what He had told the disciples only hours before!

In the OT they were to have judges rule in cases involving bloodshed (Deut 17:8), which suggests not all bloodshed was to be punished. This seems to allow use of deadly force in defense. If a thief was caught breaking into a home at night, the homeowner had the right to kill the intruder in protection of his family and property. But if the incident occurred during the day, presumably when the homeowner could properly judge the intruder's intentions and the intruder could see the homeowner was present and willing to defend his household, the homeowner could not kill in defense of his household (Exod 22:2-3).

And just who is the One who trains us for war?

However, let us not stay within the realm of the OT, for the NT has some revelations of its own as well.

Years after Pentecost, Paul wrote in a letter to Timothy: "But if any provideth not for his own, and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8). This passage applies to our subject because it would be absurd to buy a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one’s family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property. Likewise, it would be absurd not to take, if necessary, the life of a thief to protect the members of the family (Exod 22:2-3).

At I will end this with the WLC;

What Are the Duties Required In the Sixth Commandment?

If I understand him correctly that's exactly what he's saying. First he makes a reference to a physical sword to protect against robbers and assassins (making reference to Paul's experience in 2 Cor. 11:26). I think we all agree on this.

Matthew Henry is quilty as charged of spiritualizing the text by bringing to the table something more than Luke had drafted into this particular verse when he makes mention of the Sword of the Spirit. But even though Luke doesn't seem to have that in mind here a true disciple must arm himself with the Word of God to do battle against the kingdom of darkness just like Jesus did when he was in hand-to-hand combat with the evil one (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). It may not be intended here by Luke but it is not untrue.

The final idea in Henry's comments sugests if we fight a spiritual battle we may not need the physical swords. So he goes on to point out that the Lord will provide and protect. His comments are good but unfortunately not restricted to the verses in Luke 22.

Just my thoughts. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" />


Wes

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.


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.


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.

Blessings,

Brent

Give me a break..... will ya? Where did I even hint that I was questioning your character or intelligence? What I wrote was, "Evidently, you have no real experience with individuals who would do you harm??" Some of us are just as committed to living our lives under the authority of God's Word as you are. And we are just as convinced from our study of the Word and from the works of other reliable men that pacifism as you are espousing it is not taught in Scripture. The question, albeit rhetorical (notice the double ??), addressed the issue of real life experiences with people who have tried to harm you or even take your life. The fact is, I have... on several occasions. I have had people who were high on drugs try to break into my home. And yes, I both prayed and called the RCMP for assistance. They took 40 minutes to arrive. But if you think that "love your enemies" translates into allowing such evil individuals to break into your home, assault you, rape your wife, molest your children, etc., I think you have totally misunderstood what the Lord means and are sadly mistaken. Loving my children includes using physical punishment to discipline them. And loving my enemies may include physically subduing them so as to protect my body, family and possessions. My children never had to fear that their father would stand in the corner and pray while some crazed pedophile sexually molested them.

In His grace,

I Just wanted to pass on a relevant anecdote: “A gentle Quaker, hearing a strange noise in his house one night, got up and discovered a burglar busily at work. So he went a got his gun, then came back and stood quietly in the doorway. “Friend,” he said, “I would do thee no harm for the world, but thee standest where I am about to shoot.”

I suppose this should go in the Lighter side…but it is in answer to the topic at hand.

In His Light,
Tracy

I suppose it could be if you really believed a Quaker owned a gun. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />