Bible History Buffs! I've Got A Question

[ProfessorGAC]

Surfing the channels yesterday, i stumbled on Jesus Christ Superstar. I didn't watch much of it, but i saw the seen in the garden where Peter cuts off the guy's ear and Christ puts it back on, telling him to "put away your sword".

So, i started wondering: What was a fisherman doing with a sword? I would think that Jewish folks carrying around weapons would have been something frowned upon by the Roman authorities. Why would a holy man's disciples need a sword?

Is it a mistranslation and it was only a knife? Or, was Peter another revoluationary like Simon Zealotus? Just wondering if anyone has ever heard an explanation of why one of the apostles would have been packing heat.
The Professor

[bryant69]

1. This belongs in the religion section

But the apostles had some inkling they were in trouble. Luke 22:35-38 has Chrsit saying that I sent you out before without purse or script, but now you are going to need those things if they are available to you, at which the apostles say they have two swords.

Also, Christianity is not a religion of pascifism.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ProfessorGAC]

8. Why The Religion Section? It's A General Knowledge Topic

This isn't a religion question, it's a history question. I would think history fits into the classification of general discussion.

Thanks for the reply though.
The Professor

[papau]

16. LOL - if only the atheist's post were kept in the religious section! :-)

:-)

Or even more appropriate, in the atheist's group.

But that is not how DU operates - so the comment is a bit funny!

As an aside - I answer your question down thread.

peace

:-)

[SidDithers]

50. Atheists are allowed to post in R/T...

perhaps you should just accept that fact.

peace

Sid

[papau]

52. No problem - posting anywhere - just which the topic was kept in R/T & atheist Group - n/t

n/t

[bryant69]

17. It's religious history

And the point to the question is pretty clear - we teach Christ as a man of peace and yet here his followers are with swords. That's not really an argument about history, it's an argument about the foundation of a religion. So it belongs in the religion section - anyway you'd probably get better responses there anyway.

Bryant

[ProfessorGAC]

21. We'll Disagree

That's ok. GD is not meant to wholly exclude religious topics. They're here all the time. Anything that even tangentially touches on a religious point being excluded seems rigid and unnecessary.
The Professor

[papau]

54. I agree - by the way as to the question- Zealots as a group did not exist until the war (67 -73 CE)

But setting himself up to be executed as a a person with Zealot ideas is a possibility since the meaning of "enough" Luke 22: 28 may well be that 2 swords are enough for the Romans to go nuts over his presence.

But back to whether he was a leader of Zealots for real.

From the internet two historians (Richardson and Donaldson) have separably pointed out that there was no identifiable GROUP known as the 'Zealots' until the Jewish War (66-73 CE.), and even then it was only one of several rival groups.

Making your thought that Jesus was leading a group in rebellion a little hard to establish.

So it seems the word in the Bible was most likely used to meant someone who was zealous (and perhaps a Zealot in their past - a person who refused to pay taxes to Rome nor acknowledge the authority of the Roman emperor and often actually engaged in acts of resistance to Rome) whose zeal Jesus refoucused on changing the world by spreading Jesus's teaching - thus we have a Zealot, Simon (Luke 6:15) as a zealous disciple.

Indeed while John died of old age, 10 of the 11 disciples died, were martyred, because of their belief in Jesus - and none are recorded as using or suggesting violence at anytime. So perhaps he called Simon the Zealot, refocused his zeal, and used him to impact the world. Acts 1:13

Then there is Flavius Josephus (37-98 CE) who had been a Jewish zealot fighting against the Romans until Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE. He changed sides and became the Roman Emperor's adviser on Jewish affairs. I like the history he wrote 'Antiquities of the Jews' which describes Palestine in the time of Jesus. In his writings, Josephus mentions the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians. He mentions Caiaphas, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Jesus (twice) and James the brother of Jesus. He also mentions the Essenes - the strict religious sect within Judaism that founded the Qumran community, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.

While historians think one part that talks about Jesus has been added to, when these extra bits are taken away we have from Josephus:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."
Antiquities, Book 18, 63-64.

He also said that the High Priest Ananias had:

"Convened the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish religious court / governing body). He had brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned."
Antiquities, Book 20, 200.

And I am told Historians do not believe this second passage has been added to or changed.

Josephus was a Jew who was not a follower of Jesus and tells us:

He was a real historical person.
He was a teacher.
He was a worker of wonders (miracles).
He gathered a band of followers, who continued to follow him after his death.
He had a brother called James.
James was executed by the Jewish leaders in CE 62.
There were claims that Jesus was the Messiah (that is, the Christ).

And he does not tell us that Jesus was into violence of any sort for any reason.

Of course as the Jewish war (67 to 73 CE) drew nigh, it is likely that there were followers of Christ that joined the Zealot group.

Putting Jesus in a pigeon hole in first century B.C. social/religious parties/sects means choosing among the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, since he never acted like the Zealots. He certainly was not in the upper stratum of Jewish society - a Sadducees - where there was a strict interpretation of Mosaic Law and the perpetuation of temple ceremonies. He has some similarities with the Essenes, establishing a semimonastic community that believed in a physical resurrection of the body tied to the immediate coming of God's kingdom. However, in my opinion, he fits better the 4th group, the Pharisees, with their more flexible attitude toward Mosaic Law that depended on discussion and allowed for varying interpretations of the Law with some authority given to oral tradition as well as to written Scripture, and with their belief in an afterlife.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Again with the plagiarism, papau?

I would have thought you'd learned your lesson last time.

Did you really think adding and changing a few words would fool anyone?

Yet another shameful example of hypocrisy from the person who regularly accuses atheists in this forum of cutting and pasting "from the 1000's of atheist sites".

At least when the atheists do it, they're honest.

From RE:Quest

Jesus in History - Written Records:
Josephus, Jewish Zealot
Flavius Josephus (37-98 CE) had been a Jewish zealot fighting against the Romans until Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE. He changed sides and became the Roman Emperor's adviser on Jewish affairs. His history book 'Antiquities of the Jews' describes Palestine in the time of Jesus.
Jerusalem, where Josephus lived.
© Bibleplaces.com

In his writings, Josephus mentions the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians. He mentions Caiaphas, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Jesus (twice) and James the brother of Jesus. He also mentions the Essenes - the strict religious sect within Judaism that founded the Qumran community, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.

Historians think one part that talks about Jesus had been added to. With these extra bits taken away they think Josephus wrote:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."
Antiquities, Book 18, 63-64.

He also said that the High Priest Ananias had:

"Convened the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish religious court / governing body). He had brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned."
Antiquities, Book 20, 200.


Historians do not believe this second passage has been added to or changed.

http://www.request.org.uk/main/main.htm

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

74. Note that I have alerted twice on his plagiarism, yet MY comment is the one deleted.

Interesting. I guess the mods don't care about DUers plagiarizing?

[Zhade]

75. And note: the plagiarism remains unaddressed.

I've also received no response as to why.

Disappointing that this is being ignored by the mods.

[beam me up scottie]

80. Yep.

Un-addressed by the perpetrator as well.

He hasn't even tried to deny it like last time.

Oh well, we can just point to this when we're derided for "cutting and pasting" (as if that was something unique to atheists in this forum. :eyes: ).

[JuniperLea]

26. It should be in the make-believe section

It's a play. That scene and all the others are loosely biblical at best. One might also argue that Alice could not possibly fit down a rabbit hole. But is is worthy of a non-lounge thread on DU? I think not.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

34. But it had damn good music!

Doesn't that count for something?

:)

[JuniperLea]

43. Hella good music!

I was a theatre major in college and I had the pleasure of being in both Hair and JCSS... I loves me the rock operas!

;)

[Ex Lion Tamer]

48. I even liked the movie!

And my kids (13 and 7) know all of the songs.

Godspell is right up there also. Great stuff.

[bananas]

70. Monty Python's "Life of Brian" is good too!

He was born in the manger down the street from Jesus...

[EST]

2. The followers of Jesus wanted two things.

They wanted a god that would put all the other ones to shame so they made up a bunch of miracles that they attributed to him to increase his status among the god hungry and they wanted a king who would kick everybody's ass-since they had been knocked around pretty good over time.

In spite of Jesus' exhortation to the contrary, they designed and built just such a being and added to it over time to convince the gullible. It worked.

[4dsc]

3. You have to remember when the Bible was written

The bible wasn't written about 100-150 years AFTER the Christ alledgely lived.. And it was written by men who drank wine. The bible is a good story but not true!!

[Ex Lion Tamer]

19. You need to do some research.

You're wrong. Sorry.

[JuniperLea]

28. I think you should tell this person why he/she is wrong

Merely saying so doesn't prove your point.

Personally, I think nearly everyone who has posted on this thread is wrong. It's a play for crying out loud. I can't believe this discussion is even happening on DU! I thought people here were a little better informed and less likely to jump to conclusions.

It's a play... :eyes:

[Ex Lion Tamer]

38. That was kind of my point: to have the poster check his/her facts.

[JuniperLea]

30. The play was written in the late 1960's or early 1970's

And at the time people were bright enough to understand it was theatre, entertainment, and was never meant to be biblically correct.

[bananas]

69. I remember when the Bible was written!

Man do I feel old!

[Chemical Bill]

4. I've heard one theory...

that they were all zealots, but Jesus betrayed them by preaching non-violence. Judas was reacting to that when he turned Jesus in to the Romans.

Please remember that the prevailing attitude was one of hatred for the Roman rule, with revolts both before and after Jesus that the Romans suppressed with much bloodletting.

Bill

[keopeli]

5. These guys were expecting trouble and probably came armed.

They'd been up for days worrying about Jesus and the authorities. When Judas brought the Romans to arrest him, the apostles were asleep (some guards!). He was probably wielding a large knife.

All that being said, it's probably just a myth. Gore made stories more popular in those days. (My, how things change!)

Peace.

[bryant69]

6. Gore made up stories?

What stories are you talking about?

What I heard was that media said a lot of bullshit about Gore in order to portray him as a liar.

Bryant

[Kelly Rupert]

10. "blood and gore", not Al Gore. n/t

[bryant69]

15. I see what you mean - sorry

[ProfessorGAC]

9. Probably So

I'm not a bible guy, so i was wondering if anyone had every unearthed any historical evidence that Christ was widely followed by the zealots. The whole sword thing got me wondering.
The Professor

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. They had been on the road from Galilee, and there were robbers on the road

(cf. the story of the Good Samaritan). Peter may have decided on his own to carry a sword for protection.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. OK. Thanks

That makes sense i supposed. Still i wonder how the Romans felt about that. While they tried pretty hard to incorporate local culture into their conquests, i would think they would be uncomfortable with armed folks in the occupation.
The Professor

[zeemike]

41. I am sure the Romans could have cared less about a small

Sword. Andy Roman soldier could deal with someone with a small sword and no armor or shield. They were pros after all.

[LaurenG]

12. Luke 22: 36-51

During the last supper Christ told them to buy a sword

22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take , and likewise scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

22:39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.

22:40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.

22:41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

22:43 <[And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.>]

22:44 <[And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.>]

22:45 And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,

22:46 And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.

22:47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.

22:48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?

22:49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?

22:50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.

22:51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

[AngryAmish]

57. see Austin 3:16

[notadmblnd]

13. I personally don't think that the bible is a good source of reference

in regards to history. The Romans were the occupying force at the time and the Priests in the Temple were used to control the masses. As I understand it, it was the priests in the temple who were afraid of Jesus and his growing popularity among the masses that resulted in them turning him in to the Romans.

I shocked a Jehova's witness once, she had spent a considerable amount of time trying to convert me. When I told her that I could not involve myself in an organization that could not take part in the political process. Her reply to me was that, it's against their faith because Jesus wasn't political... I said "Are you kidding? Everything about his life was politics. Running the money changers out of the temple and speaking out against the ruling class using god to enrich their pockets. How was his life not politics?"

Needless to say, she was speechless. She went away and never knocked on my door again.

I don't think I ever did see the movie, so I couldn't answer about the sword. But I do think that if Jesus existed, he was more of a Ghandi or a MLK type of leader. I also think that he probably had followers with more militant views and ideas in regards to the Romans.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. Well, I Didn't Say It Was

I'm certainly not one to use the bible as any source of historical accuracy. I was looking for someone with expertise in history to provide some context as to whether the zealot movement could have included a lot of Christ's followers. I don't think about the bible at all, really. Just jogged a historical thought based upon that snip of the movie.

Your last graf makes sense to me though. If the movement was big enough, there were bound to be some militancy.
The Professor

[papau]

20. expertise in history? not much - but zealot and Christ have not been seen in my reading. n/t

n/t

[notadmblnd]

23. Don't misunderstand me .. I wasn't implying you were using the bible as a reference

I was just expressing an opinion. I understand it was a historical question, but I also think that many of the answers you will receive will contain quotes from the Bible. I have a couple of historical books, A who's who in the bible and a History and Life of Bible times. Thats not their actual titles, just the general topics.

I apologize if I have offended you in any way.

Nota

[ProfessorGAC]

27. You Didn't. I Was Clarifying

I was specifically asking whether or not there would be any connection between the biblical story and the prevalance of the independence movement.

From a historical perspective, it could explain a lot about why the Christ figure would have been such a threat to the powers that be. It explains it a lot more than just a bunch of hippies who believed in peace being a threat.
The Professor

[notadmblnd]

39. I think the Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) may have a touch of truth

but one poster is correct (if you discount the dead sea scrolls), they weren't put to parchment (or papyrus maybe the more correct term) until 100-150 years after Jesus life. When Saul/Paul, a Jewish Roman citizen and tax collector, most probably hated by the masses, had a revelation, showed up and claimed himself to be Jesus' emissary on earth... (who also by the way also penned most of the rest of the New Testament), this in my opinion is the beginning/foundation of the Christian church. The thing that always stuck in my mind about Paul was that.. other than his claim to have a direct connection to Jesus, how do we know/verify what he claims is his agenda? Personally, I think Paul had some convoluted thinking especially in regards to women. The organization grew with Paul and continued to worry the Romans, which resulted in the next 150-200 years of Christian persecution.... boy I'll bet that feeding them to the lions thing .. must have been quite a show.

When the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity around 350 A.D., and if I recall correctly... at the request of his mother on her death bed, decided it would be the official religion, he had to convince the pagans to accept his decision peacefully. Hence, the merging of the holidays and the changing of the sabbath. That is when the "official" writing of the "bible" of the Christian religion was undertaken. Religious scribes were used, it was a huge project. I can't imagine that important details were not left out. In fact I'd probably go as far to say that of the original texts in regards to the character Jesus' life, many details of the practices, views etc., were left out or skewed intentionally.

I am by no means an expert but I have always been fascinated by early history. My comments are based purely in regards to how I understand this religion got rolling. There are many details, events and characters that worked in shaping the resulting work (along with all the revisions over the hundreds of years). I've never trusted that all their hearts and minds were pure. So for me I won't know the answer till I die. But in the meantime, I'll continue to look for the answer to the question.. Did god create man.. or did man create God?

[bluesbassman]

68. Paul was actually a tent maker, not a tax collector.

A most lucrative occupation in that time. He was also a Pharisee, meaning his knowledge of the scripture was considerable. So was Paul's agenda to earn a living fleecing the lambs? I don't believe it was, as all indications point to him sustaining himself mainly through his own efforts.
What was his agenda then? His training caused him to want to deliver the message of Christ to the Jews, but it would appear that God's plan was for a man of his Scriptural knowledge to bring that message to the Gentiles. So I think he worked with the cultural and societal issues that were prevalent among the Gentiles as was appropriate for the various groups he encountered.

[TRYPHO]

76. For the love of God...get your facts straight

but one poster is correct (if you discount the dead sea scrolls), they weren't put to parchment (or papyrus maybe the more correct term) until 100-150 years after Jesus life.

--> Rubbish, nonsense, bollocks. Fairly well established in the genuine academic area as between C.E. 80 and 120 - the last to surface being John, which was probably generated as a rebuttal to the now "un-gospel non-canonned" Gospel of Thomas; and hence why John makes no sense and is in complete reverse to Matthew, Mark and Luke - because its now read out of context.

When Saul/Paul, a Jewish Roman citizen and tax collector, most probably hated by the masses, had a revelation, showed up and claimed himself to be Jesus' emissary on earth... (who also by the way also penned most of the rest of the New Testament), this in my opinion is the beginning/foundation of the Christian church.

-->He wasn't hated - he was just really good at fund-raising and kept being sent away to get funds. He was also full of shit and lied like a whore, but then everybody likes to be told they've got a big one. (sorry - delete that if you like moderator!)

The thing that always stuck in my mind about Paul was that.. other than his claim to have a direct connection to Jesus, how do we know/verify what he claims is his agenda? Personally, I think Paul had some convoluted thinking especially in regards to women. The organization grew with Paul and continued to worry the Romans, which resulted in the next 150-200 years of Christian persecution.... boy I'll bet that feeding them to the lions thing .. must have been quite a show.

--> they were persecuted, but a) they weren't "Christian" they were just Jews, and b) there is not one bit of evidence that any Christian was ever fed to the lions.

Jesus, I hate it when people think they know stuff.

TRYPHO

[LittleClarkie]

61. He was just wondering what it said in the book, not whether the book was true

Looking at the Bible purely as literature, the poster just wanted to know how the story went.

Rather like arguing that hobbits don't exist when someone asks how the hobbits got their swords.

[TRYPHO]

79. Hobbit swords

LittleClarkie wrote:
Rather like arguing that hobbits don't exist when someone asks how the hobbits got their swords.
--
They were forged in the dwarf mines :banghead:


TRYPHO :-)
:rofl:

(Elven swords are a completely different thing entirely of course)

[hunter]

71. My mom got booted out of the J. Witnesses for her political activities.

Actual big guys at the door, God's Bouncers, telling her she couldn't come in.

As a grade schooler, that confrontation sort of stuck with me... Although my dad didn't say anything, and consoled my mom, I think he was actually quite pleased that this was the end of it.

After that we were Quakers.

[Az]

73. Eesh

Hopefully she had contacts outside the church (sounds like it). In closed communities being shunned can be nasty.

re Quakers. I like them but I have ADhD. There is simply no way I would survive more than a few meetings. Either my head would explode or one of the pacifists would kill me.

[papau]

14. Jesus's warfare is only spiritual and moral (Ephesians 6:10-20) The Church proclaims peace, or it

Jesus's warfare is only spiritual and moral (Ephesians 6:10-20) The Church proclaims peace, or it may counsel a just war, depending on the circumstances. If the Church were to teach only pacifism, it would violate its own Scriptures (Romans 13:1-7).
==============================================
Matthew 10:34 reads:

34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword (New International Version, NIV)

And Luke 22:36 reads:

36 said to , "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." (New Revised Standard Version, NRSV)


but in context:

32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--

36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household

37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."


Seems the verse isn't a call to a military holy war but refers to how following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may "split" it up (Micah 7:6), the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that?

also

Luke 12:49-53 reads:

49 "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo , and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Seems Jesus did not endorse physical violence against one's own family, but he warns people about possible family division.

and at the last Supper

Luke 22:35-38 says:

35 asked them , "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"

They said, "No, not a thing."

36 He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered among the lawless'; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled."

38 They said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."

"It is enough," he replied. (NRSV)

There are two interpretation of the verses -strictly physical in which swords must be used -or a non-physical one in which swords must not be used, The violent use of swords does not fit the rest of the story so we are left with the non-physical one, I believe.

Jesus says to the disciples to buy swords, but when Peter shows him two, Jesus says they are enough. The first direction, the literal one, is inadequate for two reasons. First, the obvious question is: two swords are enough for what? Are they enough for a physical fight to resist arrest? This is hardly the case because during Jesus' arrest a disciple (Peter according to John 18:10) took out his sword and cut off the ear of the servant (Malchus according to John 18:10) of the high priest. Jesus sternly tells Peter to put away his sword, "No more of this!" and then he heals the servant, restoring his ear (Luke 22:49-51). Resisting arrest cannot be the purpose of the two swords.

Second, were the two swords enough for an armed rebellion to resist the authorities and to impose the new Jesus movement in a political and military way? Jesus denounces this purpose in Luke 22:52, as the authorities were in the process of arresting him: "Am I leading a rebellion that you have come with swords and clubs?" The answer is no, as he is seized and led away (22:54).

So the physical interpretation of Luke 22:36 (the two swords were intended to be used) will not work in the larger context. Two swords are not enough to resist arrest, to pull off a revolt of some kind, or to fully protect themselves in the Garden of Gethsemane.

The contextual meaning of swords
In contrast to the literal interpretation of using swords physically, the following interpretation works smoothly in context so that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

First, Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 9:3; 10:1-17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because people were friendlier, and their opposition to him was spread out over three years. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem, and he has undergone the compacted antagonism of religious leaders seeking to trap him with self-incriminating words. When the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords--no more than that--represent the tension. Jesus' mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must beware. However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, as we just saw in the literal interpretation, above, for he is about to tell Peter to put away his sword.

Second, "For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered among the lawless'" (Luke 22:37). By far the clearest purpose of the two swords is Jesus' reference to Isaiah's prophecy (53:12). He was destined to be falsely arrested like a criminal, falsely put on trial like a criminal, and even falsely crucified like a criminal. After all, he was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is also a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39-43).

What are criminals known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered among criminals, Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough--to fulfill this prophecy. Also, Matthew mentions fulfilling prophecy (26:54). If Peter had kept on physically using the sword to prevent Christ's arrest, then his death would not have taken place, so prophecy would have been thwarted. That is why Jesus told him to put his sword back in its place (Matthew 26:52). And in Luke he says to Peter after he cut off an ear, "No more of this!" (22:51).

The third and final non-literal interpretation says that Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep and so on) to teach non-physical, universal truths, and the same is possibly true of the two swords. This interpretation is supported by Matthew 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword." As we have seen, above, in context, he does not mean a literal sword that divides the family, but a spiritual and moral one. And it is precisely Luke who clarifies Jesus' meaning of "sword" as non-literal in the two parallel passages. If Luke does this in 12:51, then why not in 22:36-38?

Early Christian history

The foregoing interpretation of the non-physical use of swords does not say that the two swords did not exist (verse 38). They are not mere symbols, nor were they imaginary or invisible. Peter really did cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest with one of them (Matthew 26:50-51; Luke 22:49-51). Also, Jesus said to Peter in the Garden, "Put your sword back in its place," meaning, back in its scabbard or holder or in Peter's belt or another article of clothing. He never said to throw the sword away, off to the side at a distance. Therefore, it is entirely possible that some disciples carried them after the crucifixion and burial when they lived in hostile territory, and maybe some did after the Resurrection and Ascension.

However, later reliable tradition says that none of the apostles fought or even tried to fight their way out of fiery trials with swords, as some sort of misguided, twisted, violent martyrs. Instead, tradition says that all of the original apostles but John were martyred as a direct result of persecution (John died from natural causes in old age). Evidently, the example of Jesus throughout his life and in the Garden of Gethsemane made an impression on them.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/11/pacifism_and_the_sword_in_the.html

[JuniperLea]

22. It's theatre... a play... never meant to be historically or biblically correct

Someone who professes to be a professor should know the difference between reality, history and make-believe. Theatre is make-believe. That scene is no more accurate biblically than the acid communion in the play "Hair".

[Kelly Rupert]

24. I would think the Bible would be

Biblically correct, at least :P

[JuniperLea]

33. And had the OP cited the Bible instead of a theatrical piece

I would have let it go. I was annoyed that someone who claims to be a professor would use a made up word and ask about something in a play in terms of it being biblically correct.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. That Wasn't The Question

And i'm not "professing" to be anything. I was asking a question. And, if you don't want to believe that i've been teaching graduate classes since the late 70's, that's fine by me. Snarkiness based upon a lack of knowledge doesn't hurt my feelings.

I wasn't asking about the historical accuracy of the movie. That's ridiculous and reveals your inability to read for comprehension.
The Professor

[JuniperLea]

32. Then perhaps you should know

That incremental parts in a play are called "scenes"... not "seens"... which isn't even a word.

You cited a scene in a movie which was based on a play. Had you cited scripture, that would have been entirely different. You cited a "scene" in a play and asked about it.

[papau]

62. Ultimately, you are asking about the Zealots, and not about Jesus. Good luck

finding good research on the Zealots that tells you who they followed and when.

Sorry I missed the real question.

[noonwitch]

29. Except that this is also a line from scripture

Peter cuts off the ear of one of the soldiers, and Jesus heals it, according to at least one gospel account (John).


I'm sure that at least one of the disciples would have carried a sword with him, for protection or whatever. If you gather 13 random men together now, the odds are good at least one of them will be packing a gun.

[JuniperLea]

31. Jesus and the disciples were in the Bible too

That doesn't make a play accurate.

[LiberalFighter]

35. Except these guys weren't random

and if Jesus was Christ the Messiah -God

then why would he need to ask for his disciples to bring a sword along?

If his crucifixion was suppose to happen and he knew it was suppose to happen then why would he try to thwart that event by having sword(s) in his group?

Likewise, there wouldn't be a need for protection while traveling dangerous roads because as Christ he should had been able to protect himself and his followers.

[JNelson6563]

36. Troubled times

Apparently the last supper was considered a rather tense affair. There was trouble a'brewin' and they all knew it. I reckon the apostles were packin' heat in anticipation of just such a thing happening.

So it was s'plained in Catholic school to me and my classmates.

Julie

[msongs]

37. WHICH bible? there are so many to choose from nt

[Dorian Gray]

40. It's a play

and not represented as an accurate depiction of the Bible.

But, it's a general belief that the apostles wanted a more direct revolution against the Roman authorities, but Jesus was, in fact, a different kind of revolution. A revolution of the soul, which was a truly revolutionary idea for those who wanted to challenge the Roman authorities.

[Kellyiswise]

42. It was a fisherman's knife. The word "sword" was used figuratively by Christ

meaning instrument used to harm another was a weapon in the same sense as a sword.

[papau]

60. Interesting thought - the sword that rips families apart over Jesus's teaching may well be

different in Luke and the 2 swords are enough comment.

[Az]

44. Swords come up a lot in the bible

Jesus even claimed he came not to bring peace but rather a sword:

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Revelations depicts Jesus as having a sword for a tongue which he slays the nonbelievers with (that would be me).

So yeah, swords tend to play a part in the bible.

Keep in mind also we may be dealing with translation issues. It may have been a knife or other smaller blade which would be in keeping with a fisherman in those times. The bible you are reading is of course not the original words that were set to page. We don't know what the original words were. There is no such thing as an original bible. Most of the text came about years (even hundreds of years) after the events they preport to discuss. So take it all with a grain of salt.

[Zhade]

51. AZ! BUDDY!

Where ya been, we've missed you! When did you show up back here?

:hi:

[papau]

58. In context the sword has nothing to due with violence when Jesus uses the term. n/t

n/t

[Az]

64. The key would seem to be the devisiveness

He seems to be aware of the conflict his teachings contain. And the OT is pretty full of explicit descriptions of just what God expects his followers to do with swords to nonbelievers.

[papau]

65. True - family break up over fights about Jesus seems to be warning. n/t

n/t

[cynatnite]

45. I thought he got it away from one of the Roman soldiers...

:shrug:

I always thought Peter was an asshole anyway.

[yellowcanine]

46. My theory is that Pete was into Dungeons and Dragons. Knocking around Galilee like that he and the

other disciples probably got a little bored and played D&D to stay sane. Pete would strap on a plastic sword to make the game more realistic. And then Judas - he was a real kidder - switched the plastic sword for a real one when he was napping. He never intended to cut that guy's ear off. Pete was just trying to scare him.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

47. it was World of Warcraft...thank you very much... n/t

[Zhade]

49. Those fish were fierce, I tellya!

Or maybe it's yet another goof in this mythical story.

[hedgehog]

53. There are some fascinating bits in the Passion accounts.

I'm not competent to say which are true-to-life accounts and which are "true" in the sense that metaphors are true. (Think of Oliver Stone's JFK). In one Gospel, when the Apostles want to know where they are going to celebrate the Passover, Jesus tells them to go into town and find a man holding the halter of a young donkey and tell him "the Master needs a room to offer the Passover". They do so, and the man leads them to the Upper Room. I read this last Holy Week and realized for the first time that his exchange sounds like something out of a spy novel. It wasn't an accident that a room was available but apparently had been arranged beforehand by Jesus without the knowledge of at least some of the Apostles. That is, unless this sequence has some metaphorical meaning that goes right over my head!

I read the Passion accounts every year and am amazed each time at the drama and language. I wonder how these accounts would be evaluated as literature if they weren't sacred texts. Regardless of your beliefs, they are an account of a good man going to his death as bravely as he knows how.

[Generic Other]

55. Sounds like they were considering resisting arrest

May be why they denied knowing him afterwards.

[Cleita]

56. I'm of the impression that back in those days, everyone carried

some sort of weapon because of thieves and cutthroats. Also, you had to butcher your own food and other tasks that a knife would have been useful for. I think sword is probably a mistranslation for all purpose cutlery used in those days.

[leftofthedial]

59. gawdjeezis works in mysterious ways

surely hE could create a sword if hE needed one to perform hiS mighty miracles

[The Straight Story]

63. Pretty simple really

Was a common tool of the day, and Jesus' own followers were not always believing in him :)

Did you see what Peter did? He denied he knew Jesus, his faith was weak at times - but became strong.

[aikoaiko]

66. I would pack some heat if I walked with the Lord -- too many freaks out there nt

[TRYPHO]

77. If you want a fight....

Look up the history of the Maccabees (Hasmonean family). They were not only Jews with swords they were laterly the leaders of the Sanhedrin too - and cost about 1,000,000 lives in the various 1st century uprisings. I honestly think if it wasn't for them you'd all be Jews.

Were Jews revolutionary zealots - lots were.
Did they know how to fight - lots did.
Would a holy man and his disciples need a sword - you betchya if they were in the Jerusalem Sanhedrin.

TRYPHO

[On the Road]

78. This is a More Important Question That Most People Realize

A traditionalist might say the sword was a knife and the knife was to guard against bandits and robbers (remember the victim the Good Samaritan helped). But as the Gospel is written, Peter's first instinct is to fight the authorities.

You are correct that one of Jesus' disciples is called Simon Zealotes. In addition, Judas may have been called "Iscariot" after the "Sicarii" -- violent Zealots that carried concealed knives. That would make it two disciples. And regardless of whether "Zealot" is an anachronism, there is a long history of armed Jewish resistance before the Uprising in 67AD.

The Maccabees were the first, but there were many other unsuccessful ones, including Judas the Galilean (Jesus' neighbor) about the time Jesus was born, "the Egyptian" several decades later, and finally Simon bar Kosiba in the 130's. Some of them operated much like Jesus did -- roaming the countryside and building their reputation and support from the commoners. Many of these leaders promised that God would miraculously intervene on their behalf if they rose up against the oppressing power. Unfortunately, that never happened and they and their followers were generally slaughtered by the Romans. But it does make one wonder about Jesus' reply to Peter: "Do you not think I could call on my Father and he would send me twelve legions of angels?"

Jesus may have been referring to some of these rebel leaders when he sorrowed over Jerusalem for killing the prophets. The Old Testament books do not contain much of a pattern of killing prophets -- you have to get to the anti-Roman insurgencies for that to emerge.

Alongside the violent insurgent leaders, there were also pacifist prophets and religious leaders who may have declined to fight but were unambiguously against the Romans and on the side of the revolts. John the Baptist was apparently like this, so were previous lesser-known figures like Honi and Hannan. So was Jesus' brother James, who succeeded him as leader of the movement. I tend to think of the relationship between the rebels and pacifists something like the relationship between Muqtada al-Sadr and Ayatollah Sistani.

Which was Jesus? I've wondered whether he wasn't a third type -- someone who operated like a insurgent leader, but who believed he needed to give himself up for God to intervene. What I don't know is whether he expected to die. The Dead Sea Scrolls talk about a "pierced Messiah," and the tradition is very strong of Jesus predicting his own death and teaching it was necessary. You could even depict the Triumphal Entry and Cleansing of the Temple as provocations intending to get him arrested. On the other hand, his cries on the cross that God had forsaken him sounds like he was expecting some kind of intervention that never came.