A 29-year-old passenger was arrested after allegedly refusing to sit beside a woman, citing Sharia law, before assaulting a flight attendant on a flight to Düsseldorf.
Luke 22:36. I was directly referencing the Bible. Later when Jesus chastises Simon it’s for defying Jesus’s will and trying to prevent his arrest. When was the last time you read the Bible?
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.
There are two interpretations here of this passage. We seem to have come down on opposite sides.
The first is that he was calling them to take up literal swords to defend themselves, and that two swords would be enough for the purpose. The later rebuke of Peter was then about him using the sword to defend Jesus instead of himself.
The second, which makes more sense in my view based on how the gospel of Luke is laid out, is that Jesus was speaking figuratively, and when the disciples responded by producing actual swords, he rebuked them with “that’s enough!” This lines up structurally with his interaction with Peter in the garden as far as the literature goes. However, if taken as a recorded literal event, ignoring the structure that Luke used to frame the story, it does raise the question of: why did Jesus allow Peter to take one of the swords with them to the garden?
In my view, that doesn’t overcome the context of the events in Luke’s narrative or align with the events in Matthew, Mark or John, but I can see why others could use it to defend their position — Constantine certainly did; the early church did not.
Luke 22:36. I was directly referencing the Bible. Later when Jesus chastises Simon it’s for defying Jesus’s will and trying to prevent his arrest. When was the last time you read the Bible?
There are two interpretations here of this passage. We seem to have come down on opposite sides.
The first is that he was calling them to take up literal swords to defend themselves, and that two swords would be enough for the purpose. The later rebuke of Peter was then about him using the sword to defend Jesus instead of himself.
The second, which makes more sense in my view based on how the gospel of Luke is laid out, is that Jesus was speaking figuratively, and when the disciples responded by producing actual swords, he rebuked them with “that’s enough!” This lines up structurally with his interaction with Peter in the garden as far as the literature goes. However, if taken as a recorded literal event, ignoring the structure that Luke used to frame the story, it does raise the question of: why did Jesus allow Peter to take one of the swords with them to the garden?
In my view, that doesn’t overcome the context of the events in Luke’s narrative or align with the events in Matthew, Mark or John, but I can see why others could use it to defend their position — Constantine certainly did; the early church did not.