Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Baidarka · 06-06-2004, 04:56 AM

Matthew 12
29"Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.
Mark 3
. 27In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.
Luke 11
21"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. 22But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils.

There is something rotten about this metaphor. What can we say about the mind that came up with it? What can we say about the cult that produced and preserved such an ignominious statement in it's holy writ.

Toto · 06-06-2004, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baidarka

. . . Luke 11
21"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. . . . .

American Second Amendment fundamentalists like this verse, but never cite the one following it.

I don't know why you think that this metaphor is so bad. I think I could probably find worse metaphors in the NT.

mike T.W. · 06-06-2004, 10:32 AM

[v-insult deleted]

Baidarka · 06-07-2004, 07:50 PM

Hi Toto

The Bible contains metaphoric references to farming, carpentry, animal husbandry, stone working, harlotry, baking and wine making but as far as I know this is the only reference to banditry. It has a nasty and mean spirited ring to it. It sounds a little like Gangster rap. Who ever wrote this was inviting the reader to identify with the gangster. I think that this might explain why Jesus was hung up between two thieves.

Baidarka · 06-07-2004, 08:00 PM

Dear Mike T.W.

I am amazed and shocked that your verbiage could have aroused censorship. I am very curious as to what you had to say.
Could you please re post the PG (parental guidance) version of your post.
Thank you for your interest.

Your American Friend
Baidarka.

Toto · 06-07-2004, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baidarka

Hi Toto

The Bible contains metaphoric references to farming, carpentry, animal husbandry, stone working, harlotry, baking and wine making but as far as I know this is the only reference to banditry. It has a nasty and mean spirited ring to it. It sounds a little like Gangster rap. Who ever wrote this was inviting the reader to identify with the gangster. I think that this might explain why Jesus was hung up between two thieves.

My initial thought was that the point of this is that if you rely on armament or human strength to defend yourself, it will not work against someone who is even stronger. But it appears that the strong man is Satan, and Jesus is talking about overcoming him:

Blue Letter Bible commentary

Quote:

3. (20-23) Jesus proclaims His strength over all demonic forces

a. Essentially, Jesus is answering the charge that He is in league with the Devil. He says, "I'm not under Satan, instead, I'm proving that I am stronger than he is"

b. In the picture Jesus presents, Satan is the strong man, who is guarding what belongs to him. Jesus' ministry, both in the case of casting the demon out of the man who was mute, and in the broader sense, is a defeating this strong man

c. Jesus is the one who is stronger than he (Satan, the strong man of verse 21); and He speaks about His work in overcoming Satan on several different stages:

i. He comes upon him - Jesus engages Satan in battle, even on Satan's "turf"
ii. And overcomes him - Jesus flat out defeats this strong man, showing all that He is stronger than he

iii. He takes from him all his armor in which he trusted - Jesus not only defeats Satan on our behalf, He also disarms him; Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it [the cross] (Colossians 2:15)

iv. And divides his spoils - Satan will never get to keep or enjoy the "fruit" of his temporary victory; Jesus' victory over the strong man is complete

This does make sense in context (the previous verses have Jesus facing the accusation of exorcising demons using the powers of Beelzebub), but you are right, it is an unsettling analogy.

Also John Calvin:

Quote:

29. How can any one enter into the house of a strong man? Though the Evangelists differ a little as to words, there is a perfect agreement among them as to the substance of this discourse. Christ is pursuing the subject, on which he had lately touched, about the kingdom of God, and declares it to be necessary that Satan be violently driven out, in order that God may establish his kingdom among men. What he now states is nothing else than a confirmation of the preceding statement. But to ascertain more fully the intention of Christ, we must call to our recollection that analogy which Matthew (8:17) traces between the visible and the spiritual layouts which Christ bestows. 17 Every benefit which the bodies of men received from Christ was intended to have a reference to their souls. Thus, in rescuing the bodily senses of men from the tyranny of the devil, he proclaimed that the Father had sent him as a Deliverer, to destroy his spiritual tyranny over their souls.

I now return to his words. He maintains that a strong and powerful tyrant cannot be deprived of his dominion, till he is stripped of his armor; for if he is not met by a force superior to his own, he will never yield of his own accord. Why is this asserted? First, we know that the devil is everywhere called the prince of the world. Now the tyranny which he exercises is defended on every side by strong ramparts. His snares for entrapping men are beyond all calculation; nay, men are already his slaves, and so firmly bound by a variety of fetters, that they rather cherish the slavery, to which they are devoted, than make any aspirations after freedom. There are also innumerable evils which he inflicts upon them, by which he holds them in wretched oppression under his feet. In short, there is nothing to prevent him from tyrannizing over the world without control. Not that he can do anything without the permission of the Creator, but because Adam, having withdrawn from the dominion of God, has subjected all his posterity to this foreign sway.

Now though it is contrary to nature that the devil reigns, and though it is by, just punishment of God, on account of sin, that men are subjected to his tyranny, yet he remains in quiet possession of his kingdom, and may insult us at his pleasure, till a stronger than he shall rise up against him. But this stronger person is not to be found on earth, for men have not sufficient power to relieve themselves; and therefor it was promised that a Redeemer would come from heaven. Now this kind of redemption Christ shows to be necessary, in order to wrench from the devil, by main force, what he will never quit till he is compelled. By these words he informs us, that it is in vain for men to expect deliverance, till Satan has been subdued by a violent struggle. 18

He expressly accuses the scribes of ignorance, in not understanding the principles of the kingdom of God. But this reproof applies almost equally to all, for all are chargeable with the same folly. There is no man who does not loudly boast that he desires the kingdom of God; and yet we do not permit Christ to fight boldly, as the occasion requires, in order to rescue us from the power of our tyrant; just as if a sick man were to entreat the aid of a physician, and then to refuse every remedy. We now see the reason why Christ introduced this parable. It was to show, that the scribes were hostile to the kingdom of God, the beginnings of which they maliciously resisted. Let us also learn that, as we are all subject to the tyranny of Satan, there is no other way in which he commences his reign within us, than when he rescues us, by the powerful and victorious arm of Christ, from that wretched and accursed bondage.

judge · 06-08-2004, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baidarka

There is something rotten about this metaphor.

I think the idea of a metaphor is that it communicates the point. No doubt first century jews would have got a very clear picture of the meaning of this metaphor.

mike T.W. · 06-08-2004, 07:30 AM

Is it now an insult to protect one's own faith?

You said in the OP, "what can be said about the mind who came up with it". All I done was apply the same question to your thread. It seems this is an outrageous attack on the secularists, and they can in no way handle a christian defending his Master.

Baidarka · 06-08-2004, 09:07 AM

"Then he can rob his house. "

Gangster Rap! It says nothing about liberating the lost souls imprisoned by Satan. It says "Then he can rob his house."

This was written by a criminal mind and it was meant to appeal to criminal minds.

Magdlyn · 06-08-2004, 09:13 AM

Baidarka, stop being a literalist. It is an allegory, dude.

06-06-2004, 04:56 AM	#1
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Robbing a Strong Man Matthew 12 29"Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house. Mark 3 . 27In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. Luke 11 21"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. 22But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils. There is something rotten about this metaphor. What can we say about the mind that came up with it? What can we say about the cult that produced and preserved such an ignominious statement in it's holy writ.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-06-2004, 10:32 AM	#3
mike T.W. Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: UK - North West England Posts: 232	[v-insult deleted]

06-07-2004, 07:50 PM	#4
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Hi Toto The Bible contains metaphoric references to farming, carpentry, animal husbandry, stone working, harlotry, baking and wine making but as far as I know this is the only reference to banditry. It has a nasty and mean spirited ring to it. It sounds a little like Gangster rap. Who ever wrote this was inviting the reader to identify with the gangster. I think that this might explain why Jesus was hung up between two thieves.

06-07-2004, 08:00 PM	#5
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Dear Mike T.W. I am amazed and shocked that your verbiage could have aroused censorship. I am very curious as to what you had to say. Could you please re post the PG (parental guidance) version of your post. Thank you for your interest. Your American Friend Baidarka.

06-08-2004, 07:30 AM	#8
mike T.W. Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: UK - North West England Posts: 232	Is it now an insult to protect one's own faith? You said in the OP, "what can be said about the mind who came up with it". All I done was apply the same question to your thread. It seems this is an outrageous attack on the secularists, and they can in no way handle a christian defending his Master.

06-08-2004, 09:07 AM	#9
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	"Then he can rob his house. " Gangster Rap! It says nothing about liberating the lost souls imprisoned by Satan. It says "Then he can rob his house." This was written by a criminal mind and it was meant to appeal to criminal minds.

06-08-2004, 09:13 AM	#10
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Baidarka, stop being a literalist. It is an allegory, dude.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.