Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Just to state, I don't necessarily believe Jesus contradicted Himself. But these parts of Scripture sound like a contradiction, and I would like to hear any thoughts on how this can be reconciled.

I thought of this question after reading this post and these verses:

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That is enough,” he replied.

Luke 22:36-38

But then when they come to seize Jesus, after Judas betrays Him with a kiss, this happens:

51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and, striking the body servant of the high priest, cut off his ear.
52 Then Jesus said to him, Put your sword back into its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

Matt. 26:51-52

As per the answers in the linked post, Jesus had them get swords so the prophecies could be fulfilled: That He would be counted amongst the transgressors, and His arrest would be certain. But then why would Jesus reprove Peter of using his sword the way he did in the latter verses, when that is what He wanted to happen? Perhaps "contradiction" wasn't the best choice of wording, feel free to edit if you can word it better for me :)

share|improve this question
1  
1  
Also Jesus did not want them to use their swords for that kind of purpose. See the question I have posted above for reference. –  Sȱɳɨȼ Ʈħe ǶḝÐɠḝħȱɠ Apr 12 '12 at 19:59
1  
I fear of closure to this question as it is answered in the very post. Yet I would give you a big summary of my own answer there. Read it and read the bible from where you cited from. "But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled." (Matthew 26:56). –  Nok Apr 12 '12 at 20:22
    
I didn't read @Nok's answer in the linked post, which was insightful. It makes more sense now, but my question still stands, as a comment by MarcGravell I just read in the linked post: "If we add the Matt 26 account to this, that means: Jesus instructed them to fetch swords, just so he could tell them off for using them?" - Not that I feel to that degree, since there was other purpose for it, but it still doesn't fully add up. –  Shredder Apr 13 '12 at 2:10
add comment

3 Answers 3

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I should preface my answer by saying this is entirely educated guesswork, as is any answer to this question. Don't take it as divine revelation, but as just one of many views on the events of the time.

Some have mentioned that maybe he was being metaphorical, and that the disciples were having one of their (quite frequent) blond moments in taking him literally. You think they would learn... anyway, this is very possible.

If you prefer to take it literally, my guess would be that Jesus wanted them to have swords for a short time. My reasoning is that Jesus has prefaced this with a comparison. Previously, they had gone out, preaching love, repentance and righteousness under the authority of their rabbi, their teacher / mentor / religious authority.

Having a rabbi was quite common. Many rabbis were radical, hard-hitting, slightly nutty and often very wrong (just read some of their recorded theories. One I read recently: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/hl/index.htm). While Jesus was "just another rabbi", they had little to fear.

Yet for the next few weeks, "Jesus" was synonymous with "criminal". People who wanted to get in the good books with the religious leaders might want to present the head of one of his disciples, and people who might have once given them free stuff as a thank you for their wisdom and guidance would now be treating them as scum.

This crowd that came with the temple guards might consider it a good idea to take Jesus' collaborators as well - but when they arrive they are faced with a dillema. They could take an unarmed and willing Jesus without any fuss - which is all they really came for - or they could try and take an armed and unwilling 12 disciples. It's a no-brainer.

P.S: I find it interesting that Jesus doesn't say "You shouldn't have done that", but instead says, "That's enough of that, you won't actually need to draw the sword unless you want to be killed by it" (paraphrased and liberties taken!). I imagine he was secretly glad they cut off the guard's ear, because it showed the crowd that the disciples meant business.

Also, to counter any potential arguments that God could have protected the disciples without resorting to swords, yes, you are correct. But that doesn't mean that the disciples were not more confident knowing that they had swords with them, and it meant that the legacy of focus was solely on Jesus. Remember that "the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed." Isaiah 53:5

share|improve this answer
    
Wow, great interpretation! I like how you said the purpose to move the guards to be more willing to leave the armed and unwilling disciples alone and just take an unarmed and willing Jesus, the reason they were there, and they didn't need to actually draw the sword unless they wanted to die by the sword. That makes a lot of sense. Tyvm for your answer :) –  Shredder Apr 13 '12 at 18:42
    
I don't necessarily think cutting off the ear had him counted amongst the transgressors (for prophecy), but just that they accused Jesus as blasphemous and had him nailed between two criminals could have fulfilled that prophecy. Whether Jesus actually wanted Peter to draw the sword and cut off His ear is debatable. –  Shredder Apr 13 '12 at 18:47
add comment

The sword is spiritual which he asks them to buy, such as the kind Paul refers to in his letter as 'the Sword of the Spirit', for example. Peter may have taken it literally (which mistake had been made several times in the past) and bought a sword with which he fought against the High Priest's servant.

In short, he is telling them to set aside worldly possessions (he who has a cloak) and arm themselves (let him buy a sword) for the war they are going to enter, which does not, indeed, end with his crucifixion, but continues until the end of time.

share|improve this answer
    
Why then would he say "that is enough", when they brought him two literal swords? –  Shredder Apr 13 '12 at 1:46
2  
Because one was all Peter would need. 'That is enough' could also mean 'you're not getting it.' –  RiverC Apr 13 '12 at 2:40
    
Well I get it would mean it is enough literal swords. I'm saying that doesn't tie with the sword of the Spirit. In this case, I don't think it means "you're not getting it", but that "it was enough" to fulfill the prophecy. But that's just my opinion. –  Shredder Apr 13 '12 at 16:50
    
Which prophecy do you have in mind? I'm thinking only that the example of restraint which showed that Christ was not going to fight, not that he couldn't, had to be made. –  RiverC Apr 14 '12 at 13:56
    
In the linked post, Nok says to fulfill Isaiah 53:12. I think it might have been so that they wouldn't try messing with the armed disciples and take them too, but instead just take jesus, and his disciples would flee and be separated, which jesus said would happen not long before this took place, and I believe it is prophesied elsewhere too, but idk the verse. –  Shredder Apr 15 '12 at 15:18
show 4 more comments

A simple message for all Christians to abide by. The war of spirit cannot be won by force - you will surely be identified as an enemy. Patience understanding and teaching are our arsenal wielded with our love.

share|improve this answer
4  
Would you mind expanding this into a full answer? I only see a vague connection, this should be fleshed out (possibly with some verses, a commentary reference or two, and some more thought from you!) –  wax eagle Dec 18 '12 at 15:13
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.