Was Jesus a peaceful and loving man, or, as Nathan pointed out, was he something else? The evidence in the NT is clear: Jesus had no problem with cursing thousands of human beings to hell: "Then he began to insult the towns where he had performed most of his miracles, because they had not changed their ways: 'Damn you, Chorazin! Damn you, Bethsaida! If the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have (sat) in sackcloth and ashes and changed their ways long ago. So I tell you, Tyre and Sidon will be better off on judgement day than you. And you, Capernaum, you don't think you'll be exalted to heaven, do you? No, you'll go to Hell. Because if the miracles done among you had been done in Sodom, Sodom would be still around. So I tell you, the land of Sodom will be better off on judgement day than you." (Mt. 11:20-24)

Did Jesus use the word "sword" figuratively or literally? We read:
Jesus said, "Don't get the idea that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. After all, I have come to pit a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Your enemies live under your own roof." (Mt. 10:34-36) Clearly, Jesus was divisive, if not violent. But, could he also be violent?
When Jesus was arrested, the following is reported:
"And they seized him and held him fast. One of those standing around drew his sword and struck the high priest's slave and cut off his ear. In response to this Jesus said to them, 'Have you come out to take me with swords and clubs as though you were apprehending a rebel?'" (Mk. 14:46-48)

The above passage is problematic for several reasons. First of all, Why would a group of men arm themselves to go and arrest a peaceful, loving man? Second, Why would a follower of Jesus be carrying a sword--if he was also a peaceful, loving man? Third, Why would a follower of Jesus cut off the ear of a slave--if the follower was a peaceful, loving man? I think there are plausible answers to the above questions: 1) The group of men armed themselves because they anticipated trouble and, thus, prepared themselves to counter armed resistence. 2) The follower carried a sword because he was instructed to do so by his master. Neither the master nor the follower was a peaceful, loving man. 3) The follower cut off the ear of the slave in an attempt to help Jesus avoid arrest. Again, this is not the act of a peaceful, loving man.

Would an angry man who had no compunction about cursing thousands of human beings to hell have a problem with suggesting that non-believers be slain? No.

Would a zealous man who clearly stated an intent to cause turmoil within families have a problem with suggesting that non-believers be slain? Possibly.

Would a possibly violent man who evidently had armed followers have a problem with suggesting that non-believers be slain? Maybe, but probably not.

rodahi

As well I hold out hope that you will address the fact that Jesus is apparently addressing events at the end of the age--in other words, when all humanity is already dead, as in, there would be no chance for genocide since this is referring to the Second Coming. Remember, at the very beginning of this thread, you were the one who made the claim "Jesus is advocating the genocide of all non-Christians in this passage," and therefore, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, that is, you.

In light of your most recent posts, I feel I should revise something I've said, and I thank you for bringing this to light. You have said that my interpretation of judging (what the first two servants do to the third) is false because the nobleman is the one who does the judging--the servants do the slaying. I think you may be partially correct here. The nobleman (God) judges whether or not a servant is worthy enough to make it into heaven--or if he should go to hell. God decides this. I think the "slaying" part refers to when the saints at the end of the age do the actual condemning of the unbelievers. I know you're going to think I pulled this one out of thin air, but it is the most plausible explanation I can find in relation to all the verses I listed earlier showing that the saints will take part in judging sinners. Meanwhile, I haven't seen you list a single cross reference where Jesus (or God in general) advocates genocide.

You have misunderstood me. I have not tried to equate slaying with judgment--rather, I have said in the parable, that one is symbolic of the other, and above in this same post, I revised it to say that it most likely refers to a straightforward condemnation. Let me give an example: In some court cases, it is for the jury to weigh evidence and either convict or acquit the defendent. If convicted, then it is for the judge to pronounce the sentence. In this parable, I believe God acts the jury--deciding whether a person is "saved" or "lost"--and the saints act as a collective judge--pronouncing the sentence of condemnation for those whose sins are not covered. Again, if you have problems with this (and you most assuredly will), I want to see a more plausible explanation complete with cross references.

Let's look at some context here. I have already established that this parable is to be interpreted in light of the end times, and even Nathan has not challenged that notion so far as I can discern--I'm assuming he must agree with that part. With that in mind, let's look at other verses (I'll be using the NASB) in this parable that speak in non-future tense but are referring to future events.

1) Verse 15: "When he [the nobleman] returned..." Is Nathan going to claim that Jesus has already come back?

"...he [the nobleman again] ordered that these slaves...be called to him..." This refers to when the righteous and unrighteous will be called before God's throne--but it's spoken of here in past tense.

2) Verse 16: "The first appeared..." Servant One is appearing before the nobleman--symbolically, a righteous person is standing before God.

3) Verse 17: "And he [the nobleman] said to him, 'Well done...'" So far as I know, none of my Christian friends have heard the words "Well done" from God yet that are supposed to come after this life is over.

4) Verses 18 and 19 are a repeat of the same futuristic events, both recorded in past tense.

5) Verse 20: "Another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina...'" This is the third servant reporting that he had squandered the money entrusted to him. Here it gets interesting. His appearance is (again) in past tense, and this time we are introduced to the present tense when the servant is describing the current status of his trust--despite the fact that all this is to take place in the future!

6) Verse 22: "He [the nobleman] said to him[the third servant], 'By your own words I judge you...'" Here we see (again, symbolically) God judging an unrighteous person--but the passage is still in past tense, with the nobleman speaking in present.

7) Verse 24: More past tense.

8) Verse 25: (I believe this would also be the verse in question Nathan is referring to.) It reads, "And they [the two servants] said to him [the nobleman], 'Master, he has ten minas already.'" Here, Jesus the storyteller is speaking in past, but notice how the servants are (again) speaking in present.

9) Verse 26: Here is a verse that's speaking more in general than in reference to the storyline of the parable. But notice the present tense is used twice in it along with the future.

What we can deduce from these verses is that even though this parable is speaking of future events, that does not require it to speak in future tense (no rhyme intended). This should teach us all a lesson or two: Don't take parables so literally, and don't hold such strict literary standards over them as one would, say, a witness' testimony in court. We are dealing with a parabolic (i.e. symbolic, i.e. metaphorical) passage here.

That's all I'm going to say on this matter for the night--I believe that Nathan's other objections have been taken care of by things I've already explained in this post. If not, please let me know so I can address those more directly.

But I have one more issue I'd like to address, and that's the tactics of Nathan in discrediting me. I've seen in a couple of his later posts in this thread what I call "cheap shot" jabs against my arguments. These are such sayings of his like my style of argumentation infers that "the sky is green" can also mean that it's red. I only believe in tactful, respectable debate, one free from exagerration and misrepresentation as much as possible. I would request that Nathan refrain from such "below-the-waste" punches from here on out both in our dialogue and in his dialogues with others when he refers to me. If he should continue with the insults, I may withdraw from our dialogue concluding that he must throw up a smokescreen instead of presenting arguments without the flavoring that ad hominem gives them. I've been respectful enough to even point out where I've changed a couple of my interpretations based on Nathan's criticisms, and I think that at least for his part he should avoid tactless insults. He hasn't done this much (nowhere near as much as some skeptics I've seen), but it's been there a little bit, and my request here is more a preventative measure than a vanquishing one. Of course, if I have inadvertantly let some hostilities of my own spew forth, I would appreciate it if someone would draw my attention to these as I would like to correct them.

Thank you.

Andrew

[This message has been edited by Andrew Anderson (edited June 06, 2001).]

I believe Rodahi is using the "Scholar's Version" of Matt. 11:21, which I will from now on refer to as the Jesus Seminar's (JS) Version. The JS Version is rendered for maximum "shock value", more appropriately termed "functional equivalence". The Jesus Seminar intends on getting their views out to the public and gear the work in such a way as to grab the attention of today's media and public - colored beads, "shocking" translations, etc.

I am unimpressed with the JS translation and believe it is very inaccurate. The authors knew well that the word "Damn" would be shocking to people as words from Jesus mouth. This is not what Jesus spoke.

"Damn" comes from the latin "Damnare". So, if this translation were accurate, one would expect to see it in the Latin Vulgate (the common tongue). However, the Latin vulgate uses the word "vae" which not so amazingly corresponds to the very word that nearly every translation besides the biased JS Version uses, "Woe".

The Greek word used is "ouai" and, according to Thayer's Lexicon, this same word is used in the LXX to translate the semitic word "OY" which means "alas" or "woe". I'm sure we've all heard Mel Brooks say "OY"!

Jesus is not condemning these folks to hell, nor is he cursing at them like a sailor.

Rodahi, obviously you are free to quote whatever translation you like, but I implore you to consider using a more accurate and less biased version than the JS Version with it's bent toward shocking the public.

Ish

It is really sad what is implied here by Rodahi, and I find it rather lacking in historical understanding as well.

First of all, many (most?) males carried "swords" (more like long daggars) because there were bandits around at night and along the highways. These "swords" were carried for their own protection.

Obviously, Jesus' followers didn't always understand his message of peace. Remember they thought that he would eventually be the conquering Messiah. Perhaps Peter, well-known for his temper, reacted out of fear as he did when denying Jesus.

Rodahi's assertions are simply geared toward making Jesus and his followers look bad in the same "shocking" ways as his preferred JS version.

I'm quickly losing respect for your postings Rodahi. You seem to be heavily coloring things with the "bias" that you don't think you have. You're adeptly earning the label of "militant" or "fundamentalist" atheist, at least in my book.

Ish

Nathan and all: lots of interesting thoughts have come up on this issue, and though I am writing off of Nathan's letter, I'll summarize the main points:

I agree that interpretation is achieved by consulting the text and
attempting to find the intent of the author and/or the subjects of his
writing. This kind of interpretation must be based on argumentation and
not assertion. In addition, for the sake of argument I agree that it is
important not to look backward at these passages of Scripture through
Christian-colored glasses. After all, the theology of Christianity is
based on proper interpretation of passages like this. To avoid arguing in
a circle, we need some other standard of good interpretation.

I disagree with Nathan's interpretation of Luke 19:27 because of immediate
references in the containing passage, which all point to judgment and not
genocide. I also disagree because of a parallel passage in Matthew 25,
which contains no references to genocide, but instead to judgment. I
argue that there is a better synthesis explaining Luke's motives which
captures the meaning of Luke 19:27 in the context of the entire parable
and the passage in Matthew 25.

Also, I find the supporting verses Nathan cites for his argument to place him in an even more serious bind regarding his contention that Jesus was commanding his followers toward pogroms of unbelievers. The "hard sayings" that have parallels use these parallels to soften or provide different depth to the message than the violent undertone Nathan is arguing for. What I am talking about will be clear below. This is significant because it forces Nathan to provide a reason for the harsher reading of two parallel sayings. I don't believe he does so in his argument. Rather, he asserts that his supporting evidence is rather incontrovertible.

I still enjoy this argument and am not trying to offend anyone with it. :-) I would deeply appreciate a Greek expert injecting their testimony at some point. Any info on Q as it pertains to this argument would also be great.

Let's begin-

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DanLewis wrote:
Nathan claims his own right to interpret this passage over and against
other explanations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that argumentation in such cases is always always necessary. I
don't disagree with you about any of this.

I just may disagree about what explanations "flatly contradict" the text.
I know people who want to kill their lawn mower even though it isn't
alive. Staying close to the biblical language is fine- but I have more
than enough room to challenge your interpretation of a certain sense of a
certain verse, as I do below. We aren't disagreeing about verses and for
the sake of this argument, I affirm the biblical language in Luke 19:27.
However, the interpretation you advocate is what I disagree with below.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan is committing a linguistic error when he assumes the fiat to
interpret someone else's language as he means, rather than as they meant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nathan, I apologize. I thought you were making a different kind of
argument about the bounds of interpretation, tending toward loosening them
and subjectivizing them... glad to know you were not, and we can proceed.

If you mean by other than textualism that I support eisegetical
interpretation of the Bible in this context, I disagree. I was attempting
to convey that the texts reveal the world-views of those writing and those
written about. So, if I can give a story that explains the text's style
and content, and at the same time keeps those world-views consistent, so
much the better for my theory.

If I, however, improperly interpolate some Christian philosophy or
theology into my argument, please catch me.

I wish he had done a better job about giving you reasons. I'll try and
pick up the pieces.

Here are three reasons from the text that the 'judge' reading is more
plausible than the genocide reading:

Verse 11: "people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at
once." They were anticipating the last-days conquest of the Messiah, who
would come and rule the earth as its Judge. Jesus delivers his parable to
explain the coming of the kingdom of God to them, and his audience would
hear certain things he said in a certain way, filling in the Day of
Judgment beside the coming of the kingdom of God.

Verse 22: "'I will judge you by your own words...'" So, the servant's
conduct is grounds for judgment. The master hears the servant's proposed
standard in verses 20-21, and follows it to its logical conclusion,
showing that the servant's conduct was wanting in verses 22-23.

Verse 24-26: "'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has
ten minas.'" Here is the actual judgment on the servant's character. his
bad behavior reaped bad consequences.

I will note that we are probably glancing over some oddities about this
passage. I'm not sure but at first glance it seems like two stories have
been melted together, oddly to my ear. There is a story about being made a
king and about earning minas. I'm not sure exactly what to make of it, but
I bet our analysis would get more complicated... here goes.

What follows is a more involved story for what is going on the text, and
supports the 'judge' reading.

There is a parallel story in Matthew 25 which doesn't contain all the
details about the noble man being crowned king, but is otherwise basically
the same (is the style more rabbinical? I don't know) in the three
respects I mention above: it is about the kingdom of God (Matthew
25:1,14); it contains a servant being judged on his conduct (Matthew
25:24-27); it contains the execution of judgment on the servant (Matthew
25:28,30). But it does not contain the enemies of the king, nor the
judgment on them.

I also note that there is a close correspondence here between Luke and
Matthew but not Mark. I am not familiar with the contents of Q but this
seems like a candidate to me.

If we then tried to find out the original meaning of the parable in Q we
might come up with a very different answer than your answer, that Jesus
was bloodthirsty for demanding the heads of his enemies. Luke 19:27 would
then mean on my reading, that "the kingdom of heaven comes in judgment,"
explaining this punchline in regards to the context the parable was being
delivered in.

A further theory: Luke conflates these stories because to him they are
really about the same point, with a catch. The story about the good and
bad servants is about how the kingdom of God comes in judgment of wise and
foolish conduct. But the other story here in Luke 19 is about how judgment
comes to those who refuse to recognize the rightful king. "But his
subjects hated him" in verse 14, and so judgment was executed, in verse
27. Luke might be making the two parallel points that conduct is required
but recognition of the king is also essential, to avoid the judgment
coming with the kingdom of God.

I honestly wish I had more command of the Greek or the textual history,
the style of Luke, etc. But that seems like a more inclusive theory of how
and why Luke has edited this passage in this way than your literal
understanding of Luke 19:27 as a command to slay unbelievers, whether at
the end-times or not.

I agree that the power of seeing a text more fully can be abused by those
too lazy to do the work on their own. And I also agree that Christian
assumptions can creep in to all kinds of places. It is also something that
Christians are likely to be blind to. Well, if you find a Christian
assumption creeping in, you are free to call these Christians on it. I'm
sure that their argument would be more persuasive to you if they rid it of
these assumptions. Like I said, call me on mine, if it happens.

That is not exactly the kind of context I was looking for: I was looking
for an assessment of the use of your phrase in the context it occurs in
the text.

However, you have a valid point that parallel sayings and attitudes can
shed light on a passage, and so I want to examine the citations you choose
here in detail.

I don't know what your edition of John 15:6 says, but mine contains no
such distinction to men throwing branches into the fire. Instead, it
reads:

"If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away
and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire, and
burned."

In addition, I will add that my edition contains no references to the
actions of men carrying out God's wishes in John 15:1-8. Instead, I have
only the reference in verse 1: "I am the true vine, and my Father is the
gardener." There is the passage's context to support that the gardener who
prunes and cuts off in verse 2 is the same gardener who would throw away
in burn in verse 6. This is consistent with the Jewish belief that God
would judge, and with the parable above as I have discussed it. My edition
is the NIV, and no doubt this reference will rest on you producing your text.

Matthew 10:34-36 has a parallel passage again in Luke, which is
instructive. It says "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I
tell you, but division." (Luke 12:51) He goes on to explain, as in
Matthew, that families will be divided against one another for him (this
'for him' because he says that he brings division).

This idea is picked up in another subsequent passage in Luke, Luke
14:25-27. Jesus explains that you have to hate your own mother and father,
etc. to follow him, even have to hate your own life to be his disciple.
You cite this as another piece of evidence above that Jesus is happily
advocating hatred while neglecting the parallel to this passage in
Matthew, which is Matthew 10:37-39, placed directly after the 'sword'
passage in Matthew. It reads:

"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 his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my
sake will find it..."

In this case, Jesus says that to be worthy of him (compare to "be my
disciple"), one must love him more than one's mother and father,
one's son or daughter, and take up their cross and follow him. The
correspondences between the Luke passage and Matthew passage, I
hypothesize, are too close to be a coincidence. I think these are more
candidates for Q.

Notice something else: Matthew preserves one of your "hard" readings, the
one about the sword, while Luke does not. However, Luke preserves another
of your "hard" readings, about hating your family. That is at least some
reason to believe that neither one is preserving "hard" readings as
essentially accurate to understanding the character of Jesus. Instead, in
each case, a "hard" saying is explicated by the softer explanation in the
other Gospel.

The challenge for you is to explain how you are right about the
bloodthirstiness of both of these verses, when your readings are
mitigated by the parallel passages in each Gospel, which each provide a
wider context for the other.

My theory is that we have two cases here where Jesus said something hard;
used a striking turn of phrase, as elsewhere in Matthew and Luke. But each
one, for certain reasons, chose to crystallize it in such language as
would explain it to their audience. Maybe Matthew toned down the language
about the family to make it acceptable for his primarily Jewish audience
(remember, the Jews were worried that Christianity was upsetting their
deeply held beliefs about God and morality), while Luke toned down the
language about war for a more political Gentile audience (who were worried
about the influence of the Christian movement regarding rebellion against
the empire). I have no problem with such a theory.

It is up to you to explain these parallels, where each evangelist
alternatively picks up and drops a hard saying, in terms of your theory.

Agreed.

My challenge is that whatever individual verse you cite, you provide the
immediate context and the broader intentions of the author. I believe it
is widely accepted that the synoptic Gospels are redactions from earlier
traditions, and for the most part not original with the Evangelists. They
must have had motives for certain redactions, and you should provide
those.

However, Nathan, this is precisely my point. Luke is interpreting Jesus
throughout his Gospel as the means of salvation, the Messiah, the lover of
mankind, the good shepherd. I find your analysis problematic because it
avoids the context of what Luke was trying to write, what he thought the
message of Jesus was, and why he might have put your quotation in a
certain part of his narrative.

So, to make my argument I do not presume that Jesus was himself
consistent. But I take a very plausible step to say that Luke had a
definite view of Jesus' character as consistent, and to ignore that is
simply to ignore the rest of the text of Luke. That he has broad, repeated
themes in his text, I find a convincing claim.

I think that the background question (whether Jesus is good or not) is not
properly settled by appeals to actions of his that seem bizarre or evil to
us. There is a prior question to the ethical judgments we make here- is
Jesus God or something else? Because it is plain to me that if he is God
in the way I argue, that whatever he said is true, no matter how
distasteful it sounds.

I think that it is very natural that Jesus should have an unnatural
character, and do things that do not please everyone all the time. Maybe
there is some bloodthirsty person out there who would prefer Jesus, the
Just Judge of Luke 19:11-27 to what it seems you would prefer (given your
argument against Jesus' character using these verses)- a Jesus about love
and virtue. He is an odd mix. That fits more with my view of him than yours. One-dimensional, he is not. Mysterious, certainly.

This is only one theory of Biblical inspiration. Don't set me up for a
fall where I'm not standing. I don't subscribe to the dictation theory,
and I will say for now that, as far as I have been able to discover, these
writers are the men God walked around with. So, they have the most
important things to say in the whole world. It is worth discovering who
they were and why they wrote as they did to understand what it was that
they came in contact with, and what He wanted them to know.

What that does for some inerrancy doctrine, I am not privileged to know.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, why argue about one verse out of one parable out of one
chapter of a book written by a guy two thousand years ago?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I disagree in the strongest terms with your theory that this is what
Jesus has in fact commanded. IMO, you have a ways to go to support your
theory.

I was getting at the idea that there are much more 'offensive' things that
Christians claim Jesus said from the get-go. So I didn't understand
why you were hanging so much on this reference (Never will I worship him!
you weren't using CAPS but I got the picture).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That seems to be your tone though: "this kind of thing should prevent
someone from being a Christian. ..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, of course I reiterate that the message you claim is in the parable
and these other references isn't there. I explain so above. And I would
also add that the message of what Jesus really does counsel about
un-believers is much more explicit in many other places, like Matthew
28:18-20 (the commission to make disciples of all nations), Matthew
5:43-48 (loving enemies), Luke 23:34 (Father, forgive them), Luke 13:31-35
(Jesus longs to gather the children of Jerusalem), and so on. Jesus' act
of sacrifice certainly speaks louder than questionable interpretations of
phrases (if, of course, it happened).

I will add that I prefer a definition of Christian that rests on a
response to the historical fact of the resurrection, but that's not really
at issue in this thread. We have been assuming for the sake of argument
that the Gospels can be taken at face value. That definition speaks to
this point because it questions how much bearing the hermeneutical
question we are dealing with can have on the question of the fact of the
resurrection. Some people don't care about this question, but I regard it as world-shaking if true.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps... you just enjoy having these mental wrestling matches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guilty.

- Nathan

And myself as well...

:-) See you soon-
Dan

[This message has been edited by DanLewis (edited June 06, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by DanLewis (edited June 06, 2001).]

For the most part, I am in agreement with Ish's arguments here, but I think they can be elaborated upon. I will take Rodahi's assertions point by point.

Most likely because they were unaware of how much of a peaceful, loving man Jesus was. J.P. Holding, a friend of mine, gives the following suggestion:

Let us keep in mind the setting: The Garden of Gethsemane upon the Mount of Olives, which itself was very likely an olive grove, privately owned - and perhaps, enclosed by a high wall with a single gate. Now enter the mind of the arresting party and see things through their eyes. You are being led to this place by one reputed as a traitor and scoundrel; it is the darkest part of night, and you are told that your subject is inside a walled garden with only one entrance, wide enough for only one or two people abreast. If you are an experienced officer of the Temple police or the Roman army, what might you be thinking? One word surely would have been on their minds: AMBUSH! The garden may have been a perfect place for an small armed force to make a stand; and of course, whoever enters first is the most likely to be killed!

Now enter unto the next step, when your "informer" (?) steps forward to make his identification. He greets the suspect cordially; they exchange a few quiet words that you can't quite overhear -- you see a few others nearby, bearing weapons -- then all at once, the suspect asks who you seek, and in answer to your reply, steps forward, saying in a loud, clear voice, "I am he!" If you are in the lead ranks, nervous enough already, that MIGHT be seen as a signal to the suspect's followers to emerge from their hiding places and start laying some heavy hurt on you and your party! And thus, I tender as a suggestion: What John reported here, unwittingly, was a sudden, clumsily executed, and quite untactical expression of the better part of valor on the part of the front ranks of the arresting force! This is not at all implausible, especially if we are dealing with mixed Temple and Roman troops, who would be decidedly unfamiliar with each others' tactics and movements.

Probably for the same reason many people nowadays who are peaceful and amiable have firearms in their homes. Why couldn’t the disciples have carried swords (really more like daggers, as Ish noted) for protection? It should also be noted that only two of the disciples carried swords and not merely because Jesus told them to (Luke 22:38). Also notice that Jesus never carries a sword. If Jesus and His disciples were really around to cause trouble and a commotion, wouldn’t more of them have swords, especially Jesus Himself?

Who said the follower (Peter) was a peaceful, loving man? As many as I’ve heard claim that Jesus was such, I’ve never heard anyone claim that for the disciples too—-at least not before the resurrection. But the most important thing to note is what Jesus says in the verse immediately following: He rebukes Peter and goes on to say, “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword”! If Rodahi wants to claim that the disciples were not peaceable men, I can agree with him. But to take that and say that Jesus was not peaceable is something quite different-—especially when He rebukes His disciples when they get unruly.

Correct. But where we differ is on the reason why they anticipated trouble. Based on what we know about how arrests were handled at the time, it is plausible to believe that the soldiers were intimidated at facing an alleged rebel in very closed quarters. But if you assert that they were apprehensive because of Jesus’ teachings, character, etc. (not on how the Jews had labeled Him a rebel and seditionist), I hope you can furnish some cross references from other parts of the Gospels bringing this to light.

Again, carrying a couple swords (among twelve men) does not necessitate an unruly or violent personality. Many well-respected, peaceful Americans in our own day carry firearms for protection. In fact, in the hostile climate of first century Judea, this is what one would expect. The above claim does not carry enough force.

Yes, and I agree (as will just about everyone, I suppose) that Peter was wrong for doing so. But regarding Jesus, what would we expect a peaceful, loving man to do in response to this? Rebuke the one slinging the sword, and this is exactly what happens. Jesus appears opposed to violence here.

I therefore conclude that neither Jesus’ parable of the talents nor the narratives of His arrest are sufficient to suggest that He possessed a violent or unruly demeanor. The historical and sociological data just make such claims too much of a stretch.

Andrew

[This message has been edited by Andrew Anderson (edited June 06, 2001).]