Riverwind

Luke 22:35-38 (Good or bad, the following interlinear translation is my own.)

Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Οτε ἀπέστειλα ὑμᾶς ἄτερ βαλλαντίου
And he said to them, when I sent you without a purse

καὶ πήρας καὶ ὑποδημάτων, μή τινος ὑστερήσατε; οἱ δὲ εἶπαν Οὐδενός.
and bag and sandals, not a thing did you lack; But they said nothing.

εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς, Ἀλλὰ νῦν ὁ ἔχων βαλλάντιον ἀράτω,
But he said to them, the one having a purse, take it,

ὁμοίως καὶ πήραν, καὶ ὁ μὴ ἔχων πωλησάτω τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀγορασάτω μάχαιραν.
likewise also a bag, and the one not having, sell his clothes and buy a sword.

λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι τοῦτο τὸ γεγραμμένον δεῖ τελεσθῆναι ἐν ἐμοί,
For I say to you that this what is written must be fulfilled in me,

τὸ Καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη: καὶ γὰρ τὸ περὶ ἐμοῦ τέλος ἔχει.
that is, "And with the lawless he was accounted." For also that about me has an end.

οἱ δὲ εἶπαν, Κύριε, ἰδοὺ μάχαιραι ὧδε δύο. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Ἱκανόν ἐστιν.
But they said, lord, look, two swords here. But he said to them, "It is enough".


What in the world is going on here? I don't have the resources to look it up at the moment, so what prophecy is Jesus referencing?

I infer that Jesus is attempting to fulfill this prophecy, and that to do so he must "make" his disciples "lawless" by making sure they have swords?? Why just two swords? Did everyone else have them? Were only two swords enough to make them look "lawless"? Was it even "lawless" to carry swords? I've heard that they were often carried by one or two when people traveled because of "highway robbery".

Also, how does this tie in with the other portion of Luke being referenced, that is, when Jesus told them not to take these things with them when they went out? What significance does this have?

Anyone have viewpoints on all this (or my translation if you want to have fun picking it apart)?

Toto

There has been a long discussion on the Jesus Mysteries yahoogroup about this section, which I have barely followed and cannot begin to summarize.

The prophecy has been identified as Isaiah 53:12

Gamera

This is one of my favorite passages in the NT. Indeed, it is my favorite.

It's completely ironic and embodies the entire inability of the apostles to understand Jesus' message of love.

Jesus' reference to the swords is obviously symbolic. He merely means, a time of conflict will now come upon the apostles once he is dead. Taking up a sword represent being prepared for that conflict, not killing people. It is typical of how Jesus speaks.

But they take it literally. Just like they do his warning about the "leaven of the Pharisees" Matt. 16:11, which is downright comic. Though here it is tragic. They think Jesus is calling them to take up swords and fight (which is the exact OPPOSITE of what he wants them to do). So the poor befuddled feckless apostles rummage up two (probably rusty) swords and take them to Jesus, hoping he'll be pleased.

And his response is so touching. He is too exhausted, too burdened with his coming passion, too disappointed to admonish them for their complete misunderstanding of his message. So he merely says, sadly, "That will suffice."

God, it is so sad. Can't you hear the disappointment in his voice? They haven't learned anything from his ministry. Not a damn thing. After several years hearing his gospel of love preached personally to them, they're still anxious to grab swords and start killing people. It just cuts Jesus to the heart.

It's the saddest line in the entire NT.

John Kesler

If Jesus was speaking about symbolic swords, why did he follow up his command to buy swords with the words, "For I say to you that this what is written must be fulfilled in me, that is, 'And with the lawless he was accounted'"? Verse 37 certainly makes it sound as though Jesus was urging the purchase of swords for the purpose of fulfilling Isaiah 53:12, but Jesus would not be considered "lawless" if his followers were only symbolically armed. Without positing some type of interpolation or redaction, the text does not lend itself to any explanation which is entirely satisfying. I already mentioned what I see as a shortcoming in the "symbolic sword" theory, but if we assume that Jesus intended for two actual swords to be acquired for the express purpose of prophecy fulfillment, then why does verse 36 lump together the acquisition of a sword, purse, and bag-- the latter two, along with sandals (v:35) being needed for the post-crucifixion missionary period?

That at least one of Jesus' followers offered armed resistance to Jesus' arrest is attested in all four gospels (Mark 14:47; Matthew 26:51; Luke 22:50; John 18:10), and this might have seemed to Luke inconsistent with the nonresistance advocated by Jesus. In order to explain this incongruity, Luke, or a later redactor, may have inserted verse 37 to explain that the reason Jesus' followers had weapons was because Jesus wanted them to, to serve as another proof that Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets (see Luke 24:44). Leaving out verse 37, we then have a text which reads as follows in the NRSV:

If this rendering is what actually was said, then the only loose end to tie up is why Jesus would say that two swords were "enough." Possibly Jesus was saying that two swords were enough for the immediate future, with the understanding that more would need to be acquired later. Mind you, I am not a all dogmatic about my interpretation, because I don't have any proof that verse 37 is an insertion. Can anyone else speak to the textual attestation of vv 35-38? This source doesn't list any textual variants, but perhaps someone knows of some.

Riverwind

This is what I want to understand. The thing going for Gamera here is that to think that Jesus had real, earthly violence in mind seems contradictory to just about every one of his teachings from the gospels. So, I suppose I see some weight in the symbolic argument. And the fact that the disciples didn't understand also seems par for the course.

However, if anyone has information on sword use (or primary sources mentioning people with swords), it would be interesting to know if just having a couple of swords would make anyone "lawless".

Going with the symbolic theme, I suppose that Jesus could have meant that people would "think" they were "lawless" as opposed to actually being lawless.

This passage is baffling to me.

Well, there are some very minor variants in several of these verses, but they look like they were accidental or minor stylistic changes.

The one significant variant that I see is the use of a totally different word, "arkei", by Codex Bezae, but it still means "it is enough".

My crude analysis is using UBS4 and NA27. I believe that you can find Tischendorf and/or Von Soden online, I just can't remember where at the moment. Perhaps someone else knows and can check it/them.

Gamera

If there ever was an inaccurate statement, it's that. Jesus himself was counted as lawless, according to the text, and he didn't carry a sword. Jesus point is that charged will be trumped up against the Christians, so be prepared, which was not true up to that point.

pharoah

I think that you're reading your own conception of Jesus into the text, because there's nothing there to support your view.

Why did the disciple use the sword after asking Jesus for permission? Doesn't this imply that he didn't get a negative answer? Why didn't Jesus forbid them to purchase and carry swords in the first place if that was against his will?

I'm not advocating that Jesus was promoting or sanctioning violence here, because the text is too enigmatic, but there's nothing here to indicate otherwise.

spamandham

The reference is clearly a reference to Isaiah 53:12. I'm guessing that the significance of the 2 swords, is simply that Roman auxiliaries typically carried both a spear and a daggar. If this is what the two sword business is all about, it would indicate that Luke thought Jesus was not a Roman citizen.

This passage is also a prelude to the rest of the passion, in that Isaiah 53:12 refers to "I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier". In the first century, this would have included a civic crown of oak leaves (http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/romanarmy2.html) for any soldier who saved the life of a citizen, which is juxtaposed by a crown of thorns in the passion. Such inversions of symbolism are common throughout the Gospels.

The entire passion is clearly derived from Isaiah 53, as is much of the rest of the Jesus story. Considering the deep symbolism found all throughout the Gospels back to Jewish scripture, surely the Gospel writers were familiar with Isaiah 49 that set the context of the suffering servant as the nation of Israel itself, rather than some future messiah. That being the case, I believe that the life of Jesus was designed as a symbolic argument for a new direction for the Jewish people. If I'm right about that, then the Gospels were almost certainly written as a response to the Jewish wars and the destruction of the temple - a way to show that all hope was not lost afterall.

No, I can't justify any of this with references, because these are my own ideas.