{"id":32250,"date":"2013-01-19T16:23:38","date_gmt":"2013-01-19T23:23:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2013\/01\/19\/luke-2236-vs.html"},"modified":"2013-01-21T23:17:21","modified_gmt":"2013-01-22T06:17:21","slug":"luke-2236-vs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2013\/01\/19\/luke-2236-vs.html","title":{"rendered":"Luke 22:36 vs Matthew 26:52 … FIGHT!"},"content":{"rendered":"

Wow. Obviously I've been living under a rock to have missed the New Most Popular Verse in the Bible: Luke 22:36<\/a> (http:\/\/bible.cc\/luke\/22-36.htm<\/a>):<\/p>\n

'Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.'<\/i><\/p>\n

This has led to a run on the Twitter market from gun enthusiasts, arguing that this proves that Jesus wants you — in fact, commands<\/i> you — as a Good Christian to carry a gun.<\/p>\n

The video below offers some broader context and an alternative interpretation. \u00a0Here are a few more of the passages:<\/p>\n

' 35 And He said to them, \u201cWhen I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?\u201d They said, \u201cNo, nothing.\u201d36 And He said to them, \u201cBut now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.37 \u201cFor I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, \u2018AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS\u2019; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.\u201d38 They said, \u201cLord, look, here are two swords.\u201d And He said to them, \u201cIt is enough.\u201d'<\/i><\/p>\n

I.e., by arming up, his party would provide further rationale for the arrest in Gesthemene … which is what immediately happens.<\/p>\n

And, of course, in the process of the arrest over in Luke, we get some sword violence\u00a0occurring (http:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=luke%2022:49-51&version=NIV<\/a>):<\/p>\n

'49 When Jesus\u2019 followers saw what was going to happen, they said, \u201cLord, should we strike with our swords?\u201d 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered, \u201cNo more of this!\u201d And he touched the man\u2019s ear and healed him.'<\/i><\/p>\n

Or, as Matthew has it (http:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=matthew%2026:51-54&version=NIV<\/a>):\u00a0<\/p>\n

'51 With that, one of Jesus\u2019 companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52 \u201cPut your sword back in its place,\u201d Jesus said to him, \u201cfor all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?\u201d)'<\/i><\/p>\n

And here are some various\u00a0translations of that Matthew 26:52<\/a>:\u00a0http:\/\/bible.cc\/matthew\/26-52.htm<\/a> … no suggestions there that God wants people taking up arms and striking at others, even in the face of so great\u00a0affront of Jesus being arrested by treacherous types in the dark of the night.<\/p>\n

So is the interpretation in the video the "right" way to translate the Luke passage? \u00a0I don't know. Various alternative interpretations by scholars at\u00a0http:\/\/bible.cc\/luke\/22-36.htm<\/a> suggest anything from the virtue\u00a0of self-defense to the idea of Jesus speaking in metaphor about spiritual warfare.<\/p>\n

Regardless, given how Jesus reacts to the actual use<\/i> of swords in the very same chapter, it doesn't seem likely to me that his out-of-context admonition in Luke serves as Biblical support for the Second Amendment. Even if (as some<\/i> suggest) it's a recommendation\u00a0by Jesus that, once He was gone, they would need some defense when going out on their mission, bear in mind that the disciples\u00a0would be\u00a0going to strange, even hostile lands, with highwaymen and wild animals still a significant risk. That's quite a bit different from claiming a holy duty to create\u00a0a militia, let alone\u00a0an exhortation to keep swords around in the house to protect against burglars, or to collect them to rise up against the tyrannical Roman government.\u00a0<\/p>\n