Saturday, January 09, 2016

Buy a sword


35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough” (Lk 22:35-38).

Some Christians appeal to this passage is opposition to pacifism. Most commentators think it's figurative. My own opposition to pacifism doesn't require this passage, so in that respect I have no stake in the interpretation, one way or the other. Although most commentators support the figurative interpretation, their reasons are surprisingly poor.
1. To command them to buy a sword would contradict what Jesus taught elsewhere.
i) That objection is circular. It would only be contradictory if Jesus taught pacifism. So that begs the question.
ii) Moreover, the objection is puzzling. I doubt all Synoptic scholars who construe this passage metaphorically think Jesus was a pacifist.
2. The sword is a metaphor to be spiritually forearmed for the coming opposition.
i) But if the sword is symbolic, don't the money, cloak, knapsack, and sandals need to be symbolic as well? If so, what do they stand for?
Perhaps we could salvage that interpretation by saying these are parts of a complete word-picture. 
ii) But another problem is that these items are literal in v35. It would be a jarring transition if the sword is figurative. 
iii) Moreover, as all scholars grant, v36 stands in sharp contrast to the status quo ante. Without Jesus to protect them and provide for them, the disciples are on their own. They face a much tougher situation ahead. 
Although accompanying Jesus for the past three years was not without its hardships, it had fringe benefits. Jesus was the world's best bodyguard. An omnipotence bodyguard. They were safe with him. 
Likewise, so long as they were in his company, they never went hungry. He could miraculously produce food. If they took ill, he could heal them. If it was too frigid to sleep outside, he could miraculously produce a toasty campfire. 
But after he leaves them, they will have to fend for themselves. So procuring a defensive weapon makes sense in that context. They must made dramatic adjustments to life without Jesus by their side.
3. This isn't a Zealot-style call to arms against the Jewish or Roman establishment.
i) That's true, but a straw man. The nonpacifist interpretation doesn't require it to be an armed insurrection.
ii) This objection fails to distinguish between the defensive and offensive potential of a sword. Even if Jesus never intended for Christians to use it offensively, that hardly precludes a defensive use. It was standard equipment for travelers in the Roman Empire. 
iii) Keep in mind that a sword had defensive value against dangerous animals as well as dangerous men (cf. 1 Cor 15:32).
4. Jesus reproves their misunderstanding in v38.
i) That interpretation is less than straightforward. To begin with, if they misunderstood him on such a significant issue, wouldn't we expect him to correct them? And not just for their benefit, but for the Christian reader. It is not misleading to leave that unresolved? 
ii) As a matter of Greek usage, it not clear that "it's enough" means "drop it!" From the lexicons I consulted, that's an idiosyncratic definition of hikanos
5. Two swords are hardly enough to protect them.
i) True, but irrelevant. At this juncture, two swords are more than enough because they don't need any swords at the moment. They will only need to protect themselves after Jesus ascends to the Father. There's no urgency in having swords at the ready in the hours ahead. 
ii) Moreover, what's "enough" is probably not the swords, but the fact that they got the point. Showing him their swords confirms their understanding. 
6. The literal interpretation would contradict Christ's reproof of Peter.
That's confused. Naturally it's inappropriate for Peter to interfere with the plan of redemption. Resisting arrest would frustrate the very reason Jesus came in the first place. But you can hardly extrapolate from that unique situation to a universal principle. 
7. According to Acts and the NT epistles, the church was nonviolent
i) That's an argument from silence.
ii) When you are vastly outnumbered by potential enemies, then violent self-defense is futile. That doesn't mean you wouldn't or shouldn't protect yourself or others where that's a viable option. 
I conclude that the literal interpretation is the most likely. So opponents of pacifism can rightly cite this passage. 

7 comments:

  1. This is good; thank you Steve

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very helpful, thanks. IMHO the whole question of non-resistance/pacifism is one of the most vexing facing the New Covenant believer. Taken literally, it appears the weight of NT scripture leans toward physical non-resistance to evil. Do you have links to other posts on this topic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think probably your best bet is to go to Google and enter "site:triablogue.blogspot.com pacifism"

      Delete
    2. Here are four representative posts:

      http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/04/cherry-picking-pacifism.html

      http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/11/chic-pacifism.html

      http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/11/hipster-pacifism.html

      http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/01/swami-jesus.html

      Delete
  3. Just some quick observations and thoughts...

    4. i) There's a lot of things in the Bible the disciples didn't understand when it happened (the leaven of the pharisee in Marc 8:14-21 or the cross : Luke 9:45, 18:34) or that are not clarified for the christian reader like baptism for the dead, Jesus saying "no divorce except for adultery" (so no divorce for domestic violence? What about Paul who says abandonment is a good ground? Does he go against Jesus? Clearly an important topic!). It's not clear to me it's a good refutation.

    ii) Ἱκανόν ἐστιν = Enough it is = a sign of exasperation because they don't understand (Robert H. Stein, M. Eugene Boring, Luke Timothy Johnson, Fred B. Craddock). It's not literally drop it, but that's the implication of course, like he says in v.51 : Ἐᾶτε ἕως τούτου = permit until this, or 'Stop! No more of this'." With the parallel version in Matthew 26:52 : Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

    5 i) "At this juncture, two swords are more than enough because they don't need any swords at the moment. They will only need to protect themselves after Jesus ascends to the Father." Now Jesus must not be clear because he said "But NOW, whoever..." (not when I'll send you in mission later.) So he's not clear when he should sometime (it's enough! = exasperation! Should have showed more reproof except v.51 + Matthew 26). But now he's not clear but it's ok?

    It seems to me that the only point of Jesus with "sell your stuff and buy a sword" is that Jesus is giving a figure of speech to help them realized that, with his arrest coming in a minute, the public opinion will radically change from hospitality to hostility.

    For people who read French and wants to see the other side :
    http://www.theophile.xyz/fr/2014/12/la-violence-dans-la-bible-reponse-a-un-musulman-partie-2/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "i) There's a lot of things in the Bible the disciples didn't understand when it happened (the leaven of the pharisee in Marc 8:14-21 or the cross : Luke 9:45, 18:34)…"

      But those misunderstandings are corrected later in the narrative.

      "or that are not clarified for the christian reader like baptism for the dead…"

      That's a letter addressed at a particular audience which whom Paul had extensive contact. The reason we find the reference enigmatic is precisely because Paul's immediate audience (the Corinthians) presumably knew what he was alluding to, which is why he didn't spell it out. We don't have their background info.

      "Jesus saying "no divorce except for adultery" (so no divorce for domestic violence? What about Paul who says abandonment is a good ground? Does he go against Jesus? Clearly an important topic!)."

      An incomplete prohibition is not analogous to letting the disciples (future teachers of the church) think you mean the opposite of what you intended. If Jesus doesn't correct it, or the narrator, then that's cast in bronze.

      "Ἱκανόν ἐστιν = Enough it is = a sign of exasperation because they don't understand (Robert H. Stein, M. Eugene Boring, Luke Timothy Johnson, Fred B. Craddock)."

      Sure, you can cite commentators who construe it that way. You can also find erudite commentators like C. F. Evans who dispute that. In addition, that's not how the word is defined by standard lexicons like BDAG or Louw & Nida. So I'm dubious.

      V51 uses different words, so that's irrelevant.

      Mt 26:52 is beside the point. Naturally forcible resistance is misguided in that particular situation. To begin with, Jesus can protect himself better than they can, if it ever came to that. More to the point, he is supposed to let himself be taken into custody. It's part of the divine plan.

      "Now Jesus must not be clear because he said "But NOW, whoever..." (not when I'll send you in mission later.)"

      Don't be silly. The reference is proleptic. His arrest marks a dramatic turning point in the fortunes of the disciples. It doesn't mean everything will happen all at once.

      "So he's not clear when he should sometime (it's enough! = exasperation! Should have showed more reproof except v.51 + Matthew 26)."

      You are conflating your own interpretation with mine. My interpretation doesn't suggest that Jesus was unclear. Rather, the pacifist interpretation does. And Lk 22:51 is a red herring.

      "It seems to me that the only point of Jesus with "sell your stuff and buy a sword" is that Jesus is giving a figure of speech to help them realized that, with his arrest coming in a minute, the public opinion will radically change from hospitality to hostility."

      False dichotomy. That necessitates their taking precautions that were hitherto unnecessary when they were with Jesus or when he used to send them out on a mission to divinely foreseen receptive hosts.

      Delete