[CS-FSLUG] Luke 22:36 - 22:38

[James Thompson]

I agree with your assessment. There is a tendency to ignore the
timeframe over which the Bible was compiled and canonized as well as
simply when certain texts were written. The reason for this is simple
and a result of naivity, because the text we has is complete and
presented as a whole work rather than a collection.

You wouldn't expect an individual poet to use a metaphor in an earlier
work and for that metaphor to not be sensible until a much later work,
barring some evidence of intentionallity. We shouldn't expect such an
occurence in two different genres by two different authors seperated
by many years without extrordinary evidence. Most likely the Luke
passage refers to a real sword simply because everything else in this
passage is very straightforward. Why use a metahphor in the midst of
literal instructions.

There is also a historical problem with the metaphor interpretation.
In the early first century there were no books. The scriptures of the
Old Testament were contained on very bulky scrolls which were held at
the Synagogues and places of learning. Few families would have had
their own copy of scripture unless they were very wealthy. If I
recall, it wouldn't have been until the late first and possibly not
until the early second century that the codex form was developed which
would have allowed for easier handling of a large volume of text, but
even at that these codexes were bulky and few individuals would have
had them. Because of all the difficulty with having written forms of
the scriptures was the primary reason most memorized the scripture.

The metaphor interpretation, in my mind, is incredibly weak both
historically and from a literary point of view. You can not divorce
the scriptures from the time in which they were written. One of the
most fundamental rules of Biblical interpretation is to set the text
in its historical context and to remember that no text can mean today
what it couldn't have meant to its earliest readers. The historical
evidence alone is troublesome but the literary arguments against the
metaphor interpretation are just as strong, unless you completely
affirm literal dictation as the mode of inspiration...

>From an interpretive standpoint I would say this is probably the
clearest passage advocating the ability for self-defense in the New
Testament. I think the argument could be made based on the "That is
enough" statement that Jesus only advocated what was neccessary to
preserve life, not full revolution like the previous poster noted
although I would want to do more study before preaching such as true
since it could be read as a rebuke. Interestingly if it is read as a
rebuke it completely destroys the metaphor interpretation from my
point of view since how could having two copies of scripture possibly
be a bad thing.

-- 
James W. Thompson, II (New Orleans, LA)


RESPONDING TO THE FOLLOWING
On 7/13/05, Aaron Lehmann <lehmanap at lehmanap.dyndns.org> wrote:
> I'd like some reasons for these beliefs.  I've no particular stance one
> way or another as yet, but it seems like a bit of a jump to assume that
> the word as a sword metaphor was already in use.  After all, Jesus spoke
> cryptically to the masses, but he explained things to the twelve.  Why
> would he be catty and use an unexplained metaphor, when it would be just
> as easy to be straightforward about things?  It seems more likely that
> he wanted to be sure they had enough swords to defend themselves, if
> they were attacked, but not enough to start a revolution.
> 
> Also, I was under the impression that Biblical cannon was not very well
> established yet.  Different scripts were holy in different places, so
> you couldn't just say "make sure you have a Bible," as what was holy
> writ varied, and wasn't collected and available to everyone as what was
> holy writ varied, and wasn't collected and available to everyone.  On
> the other hand, I doubt it was much better collected by the time Paul
> talked about the Sword of the Spirit.
> 
> I guess my basic problem with this view of things is that it assumes
> that Jesus must have been using the word -> sword metaphor, just because
> Paul used it later.  But Jesus, oddly enough, tends to extend on
> metaphors used before him, not after him.  If he were being
> metaphorical, it seem more likely that he would tell them to sell their
> cloak to buy bread (i.e. the bread of life).
> 
> Aaron Lehmann
> 
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 09:17:08AM -0400, Fred A. Miller wrote:
> > The respons I rec'd is:
> >
> > The passage with TWO swords is in 22:38. Jesus' response is not an
> > approval--"It is enough" has the meaning of "Enough of this." The sword
> > referred to in 22:36 is not a physical sword--see Eph 6:17.
> >
> > --
> > Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft. We have no bugs in
> > our software, Never! We do have undocumented added
> > features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost
> > to you, at this time.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> > Christiansource at ofb.biz
> > http://cs.uninetsolutions.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> Christiansource at ofb.biz
> http://cs.uninetsolutions.com
>