I have often felt like the lying, misleading, deceiver Jacob arguing and defending myself against a false accusation…you can convict me of plenty of sin, but I did not do that! Grin.

Luke 22:35-38 addresses the same matter with a bit more intentionality. But as it relates to the sword I believe he is be very literal with the disciples. I think many times we have made God out to be a passive punk that just let everything fly. You have the lamb side of him no doubt but there is also the lion that will service more so in the end times.

I take those statements literally but with some hesitation. Reason being the relationship that Jesus shared with the disciples has a major impact and importance. They understood his “hyperbole” versus him being concrete.They had the privilege of being in the moment and seeing exactly what was being said. Because the times were so turbulent I than he literal. I too find difficulty in those passages.

your thoughts?

the paradigm shift from a matriarchal to a patriarchal society would seem to be in full swing. God has called abram out of the house (house is not only a dwelling, but a line of secession) of his father in fertility goddess worshiping babylon, to canaan, where he seemingly will establish the paternal system of israel.
we are given more pictures of the house of terah, now ruled by laban, who is the spawn of the consolidation of the house of terah. laban being descended from the union of milcah, daughter of haran, and the other brother of abe, nahor. laban now has the dynasty, and in the tradition of terah, is an idol worshiper.
it is here that the patriarchs get their brides. sarai, rebekah, rachel, leah, bilhah, and zilpah all come from this breeding tank. they are the mother’s of the nation of israel. abe, isaac, and israel would go on to be referred to as “the fathers” through out the torah and the bible. yet, an interesting thing to note about essau is that when they list his descendants of esau in gen 36, there is an emphasis on the maternal lineage. there is a line being drawn here between what would be the patriarchal line of israel, and the matriarchal line of esau. perhaps because esau did not take his bride from the women of terah?
in regards to jacob taking flight, was this not at his mother’s behest? didnt she send him to the house of laban (the consolidated house of terah) to choose his wife and start his family (house)? is this more a shot of jacob as a coward, or of the dominance of the women of terah?
what a crazy way God has brought about his plan to deliver the Messiah. have jacob trick esau. have the mother of both conspire with one son to cheat the next.
have the brother of the mother cheat his nephew and unload all of his women on him, building up laban’s financial house, but depleting his house of the women, who turn out to be the women of the promise.
in the garden God has promised redemption through the women’s seed. thought there would appear to be a shift of focus from maternity to paternity in the passing of the seed, i have to note here that God is working it so that the women of terah preserve his promise, and that despite the lineage of israel, it is through the woman, mary, that the messiah is delivered, and that the messiah is not fathered by israel, but the seed is incubated through the woman, the descendant of the women of terah. lol!
in todays lesson we find jake poised upon entrance to the promised land, where his women will die off and his children will be evicted and delivered into slavery.
all of this supplemented with a lesson of animal husbandry and breeding, creating a super race of sheep, not of a pure white sacrificial variety, but of a spotted and striped kind. kind of like the lineage of Christ, and like the bride of Christ, who will not be of the “pure” bloodline of israel, but rather made up of stripes and hues of all kinds.
thank you for your indulgence.

Pike,
The mixture of the sheep and goat was something that I had never paid attention to until today…

riffing on big mat, and bf’s introduction of luke.
the main message in matthew seems to be about the restoration of shalom with the sacred bloodline of adam an israel. those who were kept out of the temple are now cleansed, they are made part of God’s provision. they are the spotted sheep of jacob, and are now not being distanced by the law. Messiah has come and he is bringing them under the restored tent of david. the twelve are named and sent out, spreading faith, and relying on faith only, bringing about shalom to the lost and disenfranchised. interesting enough, by the caveats placed upon them, they will be unable to travel to jerusalem. it will be hard to hit outposts that do not have an roman or greek influence. this will be smaller villages and dwellings, perhaps where there is not even a synagogue to worship in.
as for the quote from the good doctor, i do not think this is literal. Jesus has just come to restore peace and bring salvation. he is neither commanding them to kill for him, nor to defend themselves to the death. it contradicts the whole sheep upon wolves thing.
i am a big one for the “law of first mention” theory in the bible. which is basically a premise that there are themes introduced early on, which carry significance through out the book, and that certain references later in the book should be viewed through the introduction of the theme early on.
the swords. the first mention of the sword is in genesis. when the first couple are out of the garden, cherubim are placed at the entrance with a sword of flame to protect the way back to the garden. this is not to keep man from coming back, but so that he can find his way back to the garden when time has reached his fullness. this directive in luke is given in a garden. they are to be the spiritual guardians that leave open the path to Christ, and restoration to the direct relationship with God.

I would say literal due to the nature of the part off town they were in. Where they were trekking was not anti-crime by no means from what I have read. Though I do not think that they would use the sword but it was more as a show piece than actual weaponry. To use a Molinist point of reference Jesus knows “everything that does or will happen, God also knows what would happen if He acted differently than He does.”

okay, bf, i’ll play. why are two swords enough? which ones will be the ones to use them? which are trained to use them in battle? lol. do two hold them (the attackers) off while the other ten engage in hand to hand combat? when they do use a sword a few moments later, to cut off malchus’s ear, Jesus says, “no more of this” and he heals the ear, whats up with that?
here’s another bon mot, the cloak in the luke quote, what if this is a prayer shawl? what if he is telling them to divest themselves of their lineage’s enslavement to the law, and guard the path back to God?
lol.

All stands to be speculative because we have such a distance between the actual event and where we are right now. What is the cloak was not a prayer shawl and actually a cloak and what if he was protecting Peter from future incidents that would bring harm. These are questions that I have no answers my man. I can make assumption on these particular scripture at most… But as always you bring much for me to ponder.

i have to wonder what would happen if the disciples went into town during passover and bought some swords. question: when coming across a passage that is difficult to interpret, but seems to imply that it is a command, does one err on the side of peace and reconciliation, or aggression and division? do we look for other scripture to support both sides and then weigh? or do we come to our own conclusions, and, in the name of God, go out and buy another glock? lol.

Well i used to go out a buy a glock and actual have friends who do the same still. But the it would be safe to assume that we should err on the side of peace and reconciliation. you know that turn the other cheek scripture that I like to overlook…I like this question!I am going to post that brother because that is a beast of a question…interested in your thought on this.

This may be over simplistic as I am wont to be, but does not Luke 22:35-38 contain the reason for the swords? Especially in light of the beautiful picture of Christ’s substituitionary death for the transgressor Barabbas…Jesus was accused of leading a rebellion against Rome, (being a transgressor, being number with the transgressors) the thing that caused the coward Pontius Pilate to wash his hands of the Jesus affair even though he had found Jesus innocent…remember Barabbas had committed murder during an insurrection against Rome…Jesus took Barabbas’ place on a cross that already had been assigned to Barabbas…Jesus died in the place of a transgressor, the innocent died for the guilty…I’m not saying there is not more to it, but certainly this is part of the answer.

I would stick to Christ’s command after the purpose of the swords was completed…”Put away your sword, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword”…this is not to say that those who do not live by the sword will not die by the sword-All of the 12 except John did! Grin.

I like how ole Rich Mullins states it…I see Peter putting away the sword, he won’t fight no more…

Hutch,
Are you saying that he told the disciples to get the swords in order to fulfill that he would be captures or labeled among the transgressors?

Brian-

I think that is what Jesus said in Luke 22:35-38, what do you think? I think it is clearly part of the answer.

I never though about it in that light…. I actually like that stance because it has always been a hard one for me.It makes a lot of sense as well. Seeing that Jesus is so keen on being prophetically correct as well as stay in sync with the sovereignty of God.

Check out Isaiah 53:12.

It’s funny that a covenant of mistrust between a deceiver and a thief “The LORD watch between you and me” can be romanticized to the point of being used on split-heart jewelry between lovers.

It troubles me that a number of things appear to have happened or had no other meaning than “it was done to fulfill prophecy”. Something in me doesn’t want to accept that but I have no other answers. I will have to put that aside for now.