John 18:10-11 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servants name was Malchus).
Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"
Peter was carrying a sword some three years into his discipleship. He was prepared to use it and even swung a blow that should have struck the head in a deadly fashion (Good reflexes Malchus)!
If Jesus was against protection or any form of violence he would have surely rebuked Peter not for this one incidence but for ever having thought this action would be OK.
His only rebuke was that at this moment He had to submit and not fight because it was the Fathers will that He be taken.
Jesus being God cannot be molded into the pacifist of our touchy feely generation and culture. I believe that this would be an isogectical and not exegetical endeavor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You make a good point about Peter carrying the sword. But later on in that chapter when Jesus is before Pilate, he says in vs 36 "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
In this exchange, he almost seems to insinuate that a violent resistance is not the nature of his kingdom...
How do you think the two recooncile? I would be interested to hear your opinion...
n8
Is it fair to assume that Peter carried a sword with him those three years? Luke records Jesus telling the disciples to buy a sword (Lk 22.35-38) right before his arrest in the garden. And as Luke has it, as soon as the one takes action with the sword Jesus says, "Enough of this." Jesus is also heard saying "those who live by the sword die by the sword."
I don't know that we can assume that Peter had been carrying the sword for three years and if we want to avoid isogetical endeavors then we can't make that leap unless we are willing to entertain other leaps such as considering that Jesus' disciples may have carried swords without his consent and perhaps even against his will we are shown several instances where Jesus reveals frustration with the disciples lack of understanding of the gospel and the Kingdom of God (Matt 16.9,11; Mr 4.13,8.17,21,9.32; Lk 2.50,9.45,18.34: Joh 10.6,12.16...) and I think Jesus reference to bringing a sword in Luke was a continuation of his metaphor for the way the gospel was dividing Israel and even his own family (John 7.1-13...even Jesus' brothers didn't believe him)... so was Jesus a pacifist (one who opposes violence as a means of settling disputes)? I think we still have to say that Jesus would rather die for us than hurt us (John 10.1-18) and that he never permitted his followers to dehumanize anyone or pass judgment on them (Matt 5.21-32,7.1)
the way acts of violence have a tendency to do...violence lacks the imagination to see that redemption is possible and carries out the sentencing and the judgment as if the one doing violence has that authority to judge but I think we would all agree that only God has that authority so if he makes the day longer so that you can win the battle and do violence to your enemy (Jos 10.12-14) then I guess you have your licenses to kill otherwise we should probably drop our swords and use our imaginations to envision a world where there is no violence...some say that is childish but Jesus said in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven this is how we must begin to think (Mr 10.13-16)(Matt 5,6,7)As far as protection I am assuming we are protecting the innocent and the only precedent set forth by Christ on this issue seems to be sacrificially placing oneself in between the aggressor and the victim (that could mean standing between adulterous woman and the crowd or offering help to the marginalized of society i.e. touching the unclean so you might get hit in the crossfire with a stone or a bullet or you just might commit political suicide) in faith believing that the Heavenly Father will vindicate and play the trump, the ace in the whole ...Resurrection...but doesn't life everlasting cancel our need for violence?
Post a Comment