Jezus a żydowskie stronnictwa

[Konq]

Szczerze mówiąc, to nie mam dobrej odpowiedzi. Wiem, że Jezus potępił to, co zrobił Piotr. Ostatecznie nikt nie ucierpiał i pewnie zapobiegło to wielu głupim posunięciom w przyszłości. Mogę Ci zaoferować wyjaśnienie z komentarza Barnesa. Mnie nie do końca satysfakcjonuje, ale zawsze to jakieś spojrzenie na sprawę - może jest w tym trochę sensu.

There has been much difficulty in understanding why Jesus directed his disciples to arm themselves, as if it was his purpose to make a defense. It is certain that the spirit of his religion is against the use of the sword, and that it was not his purpose to defend himself against Judas. But it should be remembered that these directions about the purse, the scrip, and the sword were not made with reference to his “being taken” in the garden, but with reference “to their future life.” The time of the trial in Gethsemane was just at hand; nor was there “time” then, if no other reason existed, to go and make the purchase. It altogether refers to their future life. They were going into the midst of dangers. The country was infested with robbers and wild beasts. It was customary to go armed. He tells them of those dangers - of the necessity of being prepared in the usual way to meet them. This, then, is not to be considered as a specific, positive “command” to procure a sword, but an intimation that great dangers were before them; that their manner of life would be changed, and that they would need the provisions “appropriate to that kind of life.” The “common” preparation for that manner of life consisted in money, provisions, and arms; and he foretells them of that manner of life by giving them directions commonly understood to be appropriate to it. It amounts, then, to a “prediction” that they would soon leave the places which they had been accustomed to, and go into scenes of poverty, want, and danger, where they would feel the necessity of money, provisions, and the means of defense. All, therefore, that the passage justifies is:

1.That it is proper for people to provide beforehand for their wants, and for ministers and missionaries as well as any others.
2.That self-defense is lawful.

Men encompassed with danger may lawfully “defend” their lives. It does not prove that it is lawful to make “offensive” war on a nation or an individual.

Rzeczywiście mnie to też nie przekonuje. To dość dziwna interpretacja, zważywszy na fakt, że poświęcenie na krzyżu daje inne wskazówki postępowania.