Comments on: Maintaining Character in the midst of God’s Sovereignty

By: Joy

Joy — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:08:44 +0000

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.

By: Steve Scott

Steve Scott — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:20:43 +0000

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.

By: Hutch

Hutch — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:48:30 +0000

Check out Isaiah 53:12.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:29:09 +0000

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.

By: Hutch

Hutch — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:01:52 +0000

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.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:53:18 +0000

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?

By: Hutch

Hutch — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:57:29 +0000

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…

By: Hutch

Hutch — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:52:22 +0000

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.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:38:12 +0000

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.

By: chas pike

chas pike — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:26:33 +0000

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.