The Snag of The Sword: An Exegetical Study of Luke 22:35-38 9783631653531, 9783653045475, 3631653530

Citation preview

New Testament Studies in Contextual Exegesis Neutestamentliche Studien zur kontextuellen Exegese

Thomas Kattathara S.J.

The Snag of The Sword An Exegetical Study of Luke 22:35-38

Lk 22:35-38 is peculiar because it is never proclaimed except on Palm Sunday in the Year C. Although it is a pragmatic instruction on mission, it puzzles us like the Apostles in the Upper Room. The Lord shortly before arrest, asLk 22:35-38 is peculiar because it is his never proclaimed except on Palm Sund serting the importance of the preparedness for mission in on mission, it puzzles inteaching, the Year mandates C. Although it is a pragmatic instruction the post-resurrectional period theApostles Church. The shepherd must be prepared likeofthe in the Upper Room. The Lord shortly before his arrest, a to defend the sheep underserting his/herthe care, even to the extend of being calledpreparedness for mission importance of the teaching, mandates “lawless” according to worldthe standards. Lk 22:35-38period thus inofnothe way contradicts post-resurrectional Church. The shepherd must be prepar the prior mission training sendings, rather the missionary witheven greater to defend the endows sheep under his/her care, to the extend of being call strategic responsibility and “lawless” commitment in pastoral care. The bookLk highlights according to world standards. 22:35-38 thus in no way contradic the contextual, hermeneutical, dimensions in therather final teaching theand priortheological mission training sendings, endows the missionary with grea of Jesus in the Lukan narration. strategic responsibility and commitment in pastoral care. The book highligh the contextual, hermeneutical, and theological dimensions in the final teachi of Jesus in the Lukan narration.

Thomas Kattathara S.J. entered the Society of Jesus in the Dumka-Raiganj Province after completing his university studies. Involvements in the social, pastoral and formation apostolate the Society have greatly ThomasofKattathara S.J. entered theinfluenced Society ofhis Jesus in the Dumka-Raiga exegetical research. He is now teaching Scripture in thehis Jnana-Deepa Vidyap- Involvements in the soci Province after completing university studies. eeth, Pune (India). pastoral and formation apostolate of the Society have greatly influenced h exegetical research. He is now teaching Scripture in the Jnana-Deepa Vidya eeth, Pune (India). www.peterlang.com

ISBN 978-3-631-65353-1

www.peterlang.com

ISBN 978-3-631-65353

The Snag of The Sword

NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES IN CONTEXTUAL EXEGESIS NEUTESTAMENTARISCHE STUDIEN ZUR KONTEXTUELLEN EXEGESE Edited by / Herausgegeben von Johannes Beutler, Thomas Schmeller und Werner Kahl

Vol./Bd. 8

Zu Qualitätssicherung und Peer Review der vorliegenden Publikation Die Qualität der in dieser Reihe erscheinenden Arbeiten wird vor der Publikation durch einen Herausgeber der Reihe geprüft.

Notes on the quality assurance and peer review of this publication Prior to publication, the quality of the work published in this series is reviewed by one of the editors of the series.

Thomas Kattathara S.J.

The Snag of The Sword An Exegetical Study of Luke 22:35-38

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Zugl.: Frankfurt (Main), Phil.-Theol. Hochschule Sankt Georgen, Diss. 2013 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kattathara, Thomas, 1963The snag of the sword : an exegetical study of Luke 22:35-38 / Thomas Kattathara, S.J. —1 [edition]. pages cm. — (New Testament studies in contextual exegesis, ISSN 1616-816X ; Vol. 8) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-3-631-65353-1 1. Bible. Luke XXII, 35-38—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BS2595.52.K38 2014 226.4'06—dc23 2014021891 F 42 ISSN 1616-816X ISBN 978-3-631-65353-1 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-653-04547-5 (E-Book) DOI 10.3726/978-3-653-04547-5 © Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Frankfurt am Main 2014 Alle Rechte vorbehalten. All rights reserved. Peter Lang Edition is an Imprint of Peter Lang GmbH. Peter Lang – Frankfurt am Main · Bern · Bruxelles · New York · Oxford · Warszawa · Wien All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. www.peterlang.com

Preface to the Series The series New Testament Studies in Contextual Exegesis (NSKE) is dedicated to the publication of exegetical works which aim at enhancing a textually adequate understanding of the New Testament by taking into consideration the lifecontexts, horizons of interpretation, and questions of the non-Western world. African, Latin-American, Oceanic, and Asian exegetes can, from their own perspectives, make significant contributions to the field of New Testament studies with respect to content and methodology. They might motivate their Western colleagues to critically reflect on their own history of interpretation and methodology, by enabling them to acknowledge the fact that any exegetical approach is contextually coined. The contributions that appear in NSKE are works of critical exegesis. They are informed by methodological reflection. The authors consider the cultural embededness or contextuality of the New Testament writings as well as that of the exegetical perspective. Taking into account that non-Western voices are not represented adequately in the exegetical discourse, the editors of NSKE intend to facilitate cross-cultural networking of exegetical research in a world-wide perspective, especially with respect to the transfer of scientific knowledge from the South to the North. The editors Prof. Dr. Johannes Beutler, Frankfurt PD Dr. Werner Kahl, Hamburg Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmeller, Frankfurt

Vorwort zur Reihe Die Reihe Neutestamentliche Studien zur kontextuellen Exegese (NSKE) ist der Veröffentlichung solcher exegetischen Arbeiten gewidmet, die Lebenskontexte, Deutehorizonte und Fragestellungen der nicht-westlichen Welt für ein textangemessenes Verstehen des Neuen Testaments fruchtbar zu machen suchen. In ihrer je partikularen Perspektivität haben afrikanische, lateinamerikanische, ozeanische und asiatische Exegeten und Exegetinnen sowohl inhaltlich als auch methodisch einiges und zuweilen Entscheidendes im Bereich Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft beizutragen. Sie vermögen darüber hinaus, westliche Fachkollegen und -kolleginnen zur kritischen Reflexion ihrer Forschungsgeschichte und Methodik anzuregen, indem sie zur Anerkennung des Faktums der Kontextualität jeglichen exegetischen Zugangs nötigen. Bei den in NSKE erscheinenden Untersuchungen handelt es sich um exegetischkritische Beiträge, die wissenschaftlich-methodisch verantwortet die kulturelle Einbettung bzw. Kontextualität sowohl der neutestamentlichen Schriften als auch der exegetischen Perspektive bedenken. Angesichts der Tatsache, dass nicht-westliche Forschungsbeiträge im exegetischen Diskurs unterrepräsentiert sind, liegt den Herausgebern von NSKE daran, die transkulturelle Vernetzung exegetischer Forschung in weltweiter Perspektive zu fördern, und zwar insbesondere in Hinblick auf den Süd-Nord-Transfer wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis. Die Herausgeber Prof. Dr. Johannes Beutler, Frankfurt PD Dr. Werner Kahl, Hamburg Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmeller, Frankfurt

Acknowledgement

The writing of a dissertation on Lk 22:35–38 is to be considered as part of existential requisite of a missionary and not as an intellectual gymnast towards self-actualization. Every experience of pathos challenges a believer to look for religious responses. In the context of the Church in India, especially in the context of organized and unorganized persecution of the Christians, we look for biblical responses. The Christians seek to understand Jesus’ response to adverse and life-endangering happenings. Every empirical doubt or dilemma in the life of a genuine believer in Jesus Christ raises questions compelling one to find a ‘faith-answer.’ Here the question and the answer become an involved activity in faith; not a speculative luxury. In my attempt to reflect on the Word of God, I gratefully acknowledge here my indebtedness to different persons. Despite the fear of inadvertently overlooking some in the process, I sincerely thank all those who made it possible for me to do my research. First of all I thank Fr. Varghese Puthussery, S.J., who, as the previous Provincial, entrusted me with this mission. I extend my sincere gratitude to the Provincial of the Dumka-Raiganj Province of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Nirmal Raj, S.J. The Provincial of the German Province is remembered with warm gratitude. A special word of thanks is due to Fr. Peter Balleis, S.J., who as the Mission Procurator of the German Province awarded the scholarship to me and to his successor Fr. Klaus Väthröder, S.J., for the continued help and encouragement. Further, I express my gratitude to Fr. Dr. Heinrich Watzka, S.J., the Rector, Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule, Sankt Georgen, Frankfurt am Main and the members of the office staff of the Hochschule. I extend my sincere thanks to the members of the staff of the library of Sankt Georgen. I thank the Rector and community of Sankt Georgen, Frankfurt am Main, for their brotherly care and support. Fr. Thomas Gertler, S.J. and Fr. Wendelin Köster, S.J. are fondly remembered for their encouragement and support. VII

A few members of the community need special mention, they are: Frs. Michael Sievernich, Franz-Josef Steinmetz, Hermann-Josef Sieben, Ulrich Rohde and Raymond Eckstein for their valuable help. I am indebted to a number of other Jesuit companions in the community. I gratefully remember the immense help of Fr. Dr. Johannes Beutler, S.J. His expert corrections and suggestions are gladly admired. I thank him wholeheartedly. I consider it a blessing to have done my dissertation under the guidance of Fr. Dr. Ansgar Wucherpfennig, S.J. I gladly cherish his expert guidance and companionship. No words can sincerely express my deep-seated gratitude to my guide. I thank God for him. I assure all in the words of St. Paul: I thank my God every time I remember you, constantly praying with joy in every one of my prayers for all of you (Phil 1:3). Frankfurt am Main December, 2012.

VIII

Thomas Kattathara, S.J.

Table of Contents

General Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 Chapter One. Sword in the Bible: General Terminology of Weapons in the Bible ............................................................................. 9 Introduction ................................................................................................ 9 1.1 Weapons in the Old Testament .......................................................... 9 1.2 Weapons in the New Testament ........................................................ 13 1.3 Sword (ma,caira) ................................................................................ 14 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 20 Chapter Two. Comparative Study of Some Texts in the NT: Mt 10:34; Lk 2:34–35; Eph 6:17; Heb 4:12; Rev 1:16, 2:12, 2:16 ............ Introduction ................................................................................................ 2.1 Matthew 10:34 .................................................................................. 2.2 Luke 2:34–35 ................................................................................... 2.3 Ephesians 6:16–20 ............................................................................ 2.4 Hebrews 4:12 .................................................................................... 2.5 Revelation 1:16 ................................................................................. 2.6 Revelation 2:12 ................................................................................. 2.7 Revelation 2:16 ................................................................................ Conclusion ..................................................................................................

23 23 24 30 36 46 50 54 55 56

Chapter Three. Conundrum and Snag of the Sword in the Scene of Jesus’ Arrest (Mt 26:51–54; Mk 14: 45–47; Lk 22:49–51; Jn 18:10–11) ............................................................................................... 59 Introduction ................................................................................................ 59 3.1 The Gethsemane Scene in Matthew .................................................. 62 3.2 The Gethsemane Scene in Mark ....................................................... 69 3.3 The Mount of Olive Scene in Luke ................................................... 72 3.4 The Garden Scene in John ................................................................ 79 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 87

IX

Chapter Four. The Zealots and the Sicarii ....................................................... 93 Introduction ................................................................................................ 93 4.1 The Zealots ........................................................................................ 94 4.2 The Sicarii ......................................................................................... 104 4.4 The Robbers ...................................................................................... 115 3.1 The Socio-Political Concept of Jesus ................................................ 118 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 131



Chapter Five. Exegetical Study of Lk 22:35–38 .............................................. 133 Introduction ................................................................................................ 133 5.1 The Context of Luke ......................................................................... 136 5.2 The Source of the Discourse ............................................................. 139 5.3 Exegetical Study of Lk 22:35–38 ..................................................... 142 5.4 New Rules for a Time of Crisis (22:35–38) ...................................... 143 5.5 The Exegesis ..................................................................................... 147 5.6 Luke and the Use of Scripture ........................................................... 191 5.7 Discipleship and Martyrdom ............................................................. 193 5.8 Delayed Parousia in Luke ................................................................. 195 5.9 Literary Form .................................................................................... 198 5.10 The Source ........................................................................................ 201 5.11 The Newness of the Teaching ........................................................... 201 5.12 Some Theological Concerns of Luke ................................................ 206 5.13 Jesus’ Vision of a New Society ......................................................... 209 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 212 Hermeneutical Reflections and the General Conclusion ................................. 215 Introduction ................................................................................................ 215 6.1 The Existential Reality of the Church Today .................................... 218 6.2 Trust in Providence ........................................................................... 219 6.3 Fight or Flight? .................................................................................. 220 6.4 Self or Communal-defence ............................................................... 221 6.5 Marga of Ahimsa and Satyagraha ..................................................... 222 6.6 Symbolic Relevance .......................................................................... 223 6.7 Psychological Relevance ................................................................... 224 6.8 The Strategic Relevance .................................................................... 225 Bibliography ................................................................................................... 231

X

General Introduction

The twentieth century has given many martyrs to the Church. The spread of the message of the Gospel to those parts of the world far from the milieu of Jesus opened the Gospel message to a wide range of witnessing possibilities. The message of the Gospel was confronted with both an affirmative and annihilating impact leading to response in faith and martyrdom. One need not look for glorified imprints of those martyrs; rather, understand how the Crucified is glorified in them. One shall recognize not just the heroism of their witness but the centrality of the message left by their blood stains. It is not just martyrdom by blood that we need to acclaim; rather, there is the development of a new history of the on-going and living martyrdom many are subjected to in several parts of the world, especially where the community of believers is in remnant form or is the little flock (Lk 12:32), which is the rudimental nature of the community of believers – called to be the leaven in society. As this research was about to begin, we were confronted with the violent persecution in Kandamahal, Orissa, India. The gruesome atrocities on the hapless little flock have shocked the conscience of many beyond creed lineages. Although Kandamahal shook the conscience of many, it still needs to be justly dealt with or constructive steps have to be taken to prevent further such brutal attacks on a vulnerable people. Such individual and collective attacks wound our hearts forcing us to constructive responses that the Church needs to seek and actively engage in. Short lives write long-lasting history. Unfortunately, subaltern history is seldom written. Hence, pathos of the poor and the marginalized dissolves into the thin air of forgetfulness. The popular history is seldom recorded by the victims. The unaffected agents of the powerful choreograph history. The subaltern historical perspective, even when written, vanishes into oblivion. A few years after any carnage and its aftermath, the perpetrators are held high by 1

the sectarian beneficiaries, rather than liable and accountable. Every history is knowledge and not a belief. Every sectarian history creates false belief. Good questions are easier than convincing answers. But the enquirer is charged with history to infer answers to questions. Thus historical knowledge becomes inferential knowledge. Historical knowledge is inferred because of the fact that unmediated knowledge is generally unavailable and in most cases irrelevant. When historical knowledge is inferential what guarantees the veracity of that which is historically known? The trustworthiness of the inferred knowledge depends on the value of conditional syllogism. For the historians the questions are simply his/her own. The questions that one raises and the answers others provide become the potential date from which one must choose what one needs. Until a historian poses his or her own questions the available data remains unfocused. Unfocused availability of data cannot provide knowledge. They remain at the level of hypothesis. Therefore, these hypotheses need verification. Every hypothesis tends to intelligence and verification to reflection. For one who is involved in the process an analysis would be certainly different. There is hardly room for hypothetical questions here. For him/her the history is always present; hence there is only the actuality of happening combined with its memories of pathos. The Church in India, like anywhere else in such situations, has to take a stand. The Church cannot merely engage in subsequent relief activities of charity but evolve concerted pro-active and preventive strategies. It has to evolve strategies and engage in activities to preserve and protect the lives of the people. Here, we the Church in India remain vague. Channelizing her human and material resources for charity, here, seems marginally soothing but seldom curative. For the Church to engage in constructive actions would mean strengthening the viable victims, primarily within its preview and through them embracing all victims beyond barriers, owing to the fact that the Church is entrusted with the Good News of peace and joy to all the nations (Lk 2:10–14) through the Marian Hymnal experience of God’s preferential option for the poor (Lk 1:46ff) and God’s engagement in human history (cf. Lk 4:18–21; 7:22–23) 2

culminating in the resurrection experience. But the eschatological hope is also lived in the strategic present. Hence, it is the task of the Church to understand the teaching of Jesus with regard to mission strategy. Has Jesus a clear teaching on mission strategy? I believe that the answer is in the affirmative; then how are we to understand the mission strategy of Jesus? In relation to the practical mission strategy, the reference is often made to Luke 9 and 10 where the disciples are sent on a mission, with the instruction not to carry bag, nor purse, or any other provisions for their way. If we accept it as the norm for mission pedagogy, there remains an inherent contradiction within the Church between its principles and practice. Lk 9:2–3 and 10:3–4 belongs to the mission of Jesus’ training of his disciples towards deeply trusting in the providence of God. But, the mission strategy of Jesus for the Church has to be found certainly in Luke 22:35–38.

The Focus of the Study Lk 22:35–38 teaches us to prepare pedagogically women and men of Christ to the world. We try to understand Jesus’ mission strategy for us as his disciples today. Lk 9:2–3, 10:3–4 and 22:35–38 refer to the mission Sendings. While the first two agree on many aspects, 22:35–38 stands seemingly opposed to the previous instructions. We need to be reconciled to this hard saying of Jesus, “But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one” (Lk 22:36). In the light of the rampant violence against the Christians, there is the danger of misinterpreting these words of Jesus. Therefore, Lk 22:35–38, the final instruction of Jesus to his Apostles, before his passion and death, shall be seen as the basic instruction towards evolving a sustainable mission strategy, without in anyway contradicting the overall teaching of Jesus in the Gospel. 35

Kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ o[te avpe,steila u`ma/j a;ter ballanti,ou kai. ph,raj kai. u`podhma,twn( mh, tinoj u`sterh,sateÈ oi` de. ei=pan\ ouvqeno,jÅ 36 ei=pen de. auvtoi/j\ avlla. nu/n o` e;cwn balla,ntion avra,tw( o`moi,wj kai. ph,ran( kai. o` mh. e;cwn pwlhsa,tw to. i`ma,tion auvtou/ kai. avgorasa,tw ma,cairanÅ

3

37

le,gw ga.r u`mi/n o[ti tou/to to. gegramme,non dei/ telesqh/nai evn evmoi,( to,\ kai. meta. avno,mwn evlogi,sqh\ kai. ga.r to. peri. evmou/ te,loj e;ceiÅ 38 oi` de. ei=pan\ ku,rie( ivdou. ma,cairai w-de du,oÅ o` de. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ i`kano,n evstinÅ

The instruction starts with the recalling of the experience of the sending, followed by the new instruction in v. 36. The new instruction is confirmed with a Christological fulfilment of Isaiah in (v. 37), finally the disciples stand bewildered and at cross purposes, bringing Jesus to an abrupt end of the instructive dialogue! The bewilderment is felt even today. We undertake to unravel the dilemma of the sword. The mission of Jesus – you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth (Acts 1:8), – must be strategically executed, without ever shifting from the centrality of the Gospel. The strategy refers to the sum total of human efforts. Hence, the message, the primary task and the means to achieve it must cohere.

The Methodology In our study, we move from the general to the particular. In the First Chapter we undertake a general survey of the use of weapons in the Bible. Certainly, it would give us a glimpse, not exclusively, on the wide range of weapons that are used in the Bible. In this chapter we undertake the study of the sword in detail. The Second Chapter deals with those passages in the New Testament, where “sword” is used metaphorically. In the Third Chapter we engage in understanding the literal use of the sword in the New Testament. The Fourth Chapter deals with the Zealots, the Sicarii and other aggressive groups in Israel, and places us in the socio-political situation of Jesus and his disciples. Thus having prepared the ground, the Fifth Chapter makes the study of Lk 22:35–38. This is the central part of our study. The pericope is narratively studied. We find it right to study the Gospel of Luke as a narrative. Finally, the work is concluded with hermeneutical conclusions. We do not engage in the survey of the study of Lk 22:35–38. One of the well-known propositions is the theory of ‘double-sword.’ The eleventh century tension between the Church and the Caesar of Rome is the reason for the 4

development of such an interpretation of the pericope. As the title suggests, the pericope is not easy to explain convincingly and without stumbling on the puzzle of the sword in the Gospel according to Luke. This is our task.

A Brief History of Ancient Weapons However, before entering into the study of the weapons in the Bible, we have a bird’s eye-view of the history and classification of weapons. Human existential and developmental concerns necessitate the use of different tools and implements made of various materials like stone, wood, copper, iron and the like. They help to extend the human body in space and time. The concept of tools and weapons sprung from the human need of existential extension. Up to the latter part of the fifth millennium B.C. all tools and weapons were made of stone as a result of which we have the terms like Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic. During this period, tools and weapons were not distinguishable in their use. The later part of the fifth millennium was followed by the chalcolithic period when copper tools and weapons were introduced replacing the stone weapons, although the stone weapons remained in use as late as the Iron Age. The earliest metal tools were made of native copper even before smelting was understood. Copper was hardened later and bronze came into use. Then came the Iron Age as having greater advantage over bronze. The iron weapons were almost unbreakable and pierced even the strongest of armours.1 While the early people had used stones, clubs, axes and spears, the modern people employ complex weapons to kill.2 The Sumerians by 3,500 B.C. were already a civilized society who fought with chariots pulled by donkeys and used bows and arrows. They too used spears, axes and clubs. The Egyptian 1 2

Cf. W. S. McCullough, “Weapons and Implements of War”. Cave paintings from Spain dating from 10,000 to 5,000 B.C. show men fighting with bows. A wooden club is a surprisingly effective weapon. As early as 6,000 B.C. African cave paintings show that the people were armed with clubs. Early axes were made of wood and stone like the tomahawk of the Native Americans.

5

was equally advanced in the use of weapons. The Assyrians who lived between 900 and 612 B.C. in the Middle East created a strong empire. They were the first to use iron weapons which were superior to bronze weapons. They used a combination of chariots, cavalry, and infantry. Each chariot carried three men, a driver, an archer and a shield bearer. The cavalry fought with bows, arrows and spears. Besides these weapons, the infantry fought with swords and slings. They used battering rams inside a wooden vehicle. It was swung to smash walls and city gates. The soldiers wore sturdy boots helping them on long marches. The Greeks had developed a very strong infantry. They also used horses in battle. The Athenians had also a large navy. The catapult was a later invention by the Macedonians. It was powered by a twisted rope which was then released firing a stone at the enemy. Catapults were later on rampantly used by the Romans. The Roman military regime was one of the strongest military powers in the ancient world because of their superior weapons and war tactics. Swords and spears were the main weapons of Roman soldiers. The Roman army had both infantry and cavalry. By the 3rd century B.C. the sword was a long-pointed double-edged weapon. They also carried a dagger with an elaborately decorated sheath. The weapons among the Hebrews can be better discussed in the light of what is known of weapons in the Near East in general. The innovative development of weapons continued during the centuries using innovative technologies, introduction of stronger and harder materials and designs. It is the context that determines and distinguishes a tool from a weapon. From the view point of the purpose it can be divided roughly into: (a) Weapons of Domestic Use (a tool or an implement), (b) Weapons of War and Destruction3 and (c) weapons of defence. There can be different categories under which weapons can be classified, such as by user, by function, by their destructive capacity, and by target.4 A knife in the hand of one who engages 3 4

6

M. G. Hasel, “War, Methods, Tactics, Weapons” in NIDB, vol. 5, K. D. Sakenfeld (ed.), Abingdon Press, Nashville, 805–810: 806. Tools like knife, cutter, chopper, dagger, sickle, fire, etc. can be understood as weapons of domestic use; sword, spear, bow and arrow, dagger, fire, etc. can be weapons

in cooking food is a tool. The same knife in the hand of a brigand can be a weapon. We classify them in three categories: 1. Short-range weapons; 2. Long-range weapons and 3. Weapons of self-defence. This classification is based on the use of weapons in the warfront. Here, we have the setting for the first Chapter. Lk 22:35–38 is the task ahead for our research. We set out on our journey in good faith.

of war and destruction and shield, armour, etc. can be weapons of defence. We do not exhaust the possibility of the discussion; rather, leave it open-ended while an exhaustive study on the subject is considered beyond the scope of this research.

7

Chapter One Sword in the Bible: General Terminology of Weapons in the Bible Introduction Wars and weapons of war have always played a central role in the human history. Nations and kings rose and fell through war in which the quality of their weapons coupled with human efforts played the decisive role in every victory. Until today, a great share of human intellectual vitality is engaged in the study and development of weapons. Apart from the contextual application, weapons cannot be understood and defined. A knife in the butcher’s hand is distinguishable from the dagger of a soldier from its context and relevance. Every weapon has a pragmatic purpose, which makes a weapon different from a tool or an implement. Apart from its use, the presupposed purpose of weapon and implement cannot be understood. The context can be domestic, civilian, political, military, religious, technological, economic or other spheres of human existence. Human conditions such as geographical location, terrain, climate and natural resources play a greater role in the making of weapons.1

1.1  Weapons in the Old Testament There are more than hundred occurrences of different types of weapons in the Old Testament2 and in many cases, the meaning is not always watermarked. It

1 2

Cf. M. J. Fretz, “Weapons and Implements of War,” ABD 6, Doubleday, New York, 1992, 893. In the Old Testament weapon (singular) is used 10 times (Num 35:18; 2 Chr 23:10; Neh 4:17, 23; Job 20:24; Isa 54:16, 17; Jer 51:20; Eze 9:1, 2). Weapons (plural) is used more than 40 times (Gen 27:3; 49:5; Deut 1:41; Jdg 18:11, 16, 17; 1Sam 20:40; 21:8; 2Sam 1:27; 2Kgs 10:2; 11:8, 11; 1Chr 12:33, 37; 2Chr 23:7; 32:5; Job 39:21; Ps 7:13; 76:3; Ecc 9:18; Isa 13:5; 22:8; Jer 21:4; 22:7; 50:25; Eze 39:9, 10; Joe 2:8; Jdt

9

is not always easy to clarify the terms because of the fact that sometimes the same term was used for different weapons of size and shape in the land of Israel, Egypt and Assyria. “Taking the Bible as a point of reference, it is apparent that the weapons mentioned there are not unique to the political entities and religious communities which compiled the Bible. Ancient Near Eastern civilizations developed weapons long before the nation of Israel was formed; these were utilized in battles with enemies, never in isolation from other people.”3 Although the indirect use of a weapon4 can be proposed in Gen 4:8, however Cain could have used other means to kill his brother Abel. The first use of a weapon is mentioned in Gen 22:10 (ma,caira), where Abraham uses a knife for the offering, which he carried along with other things for the same (Gen 22:6). 1Sam 13:22 mentions that in the war against the Philistines the Israelites were almost bereft of swords or iron weapons. Only Saul and Jonathan among the Israelites had weapons with them. The Philistines were advanced in the use of iron and the Israelites depended on the Philistines for the manufacture and the repair of agricultural instruments at considerable expense. From the Book of Genesis to the Book of Revelation, military language fills the pages of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, lending greater resource for further reflection. Eventually, throughout Scripture, weapons play a major role. In the service of God’s cosmological battle against the powers of evil and its narrations, human weapons play an impressive role to which case the battle of David and Goliath provides an impressive example, without minimizing the relevance of other battle narratives in the Bible.5 The professional soldiers of

3 4

5

10

7:5; 14:2;11; 1Mac 6:2; 9:39; 14:42; 15:7; 16:16; 2Mac 3:25; 10:30; 11:8; 4Mac 4:10; cf. Jn 18;3; 2 Cor 6:7; 10:4). M. J. Fretz, “Weapons and Implements of Warfare,” ABD 6, Doubleday, New York (1992) 893–895, 893. ma,caira here cannot be understood as sword, but it is certainly a bigger knife used to kill animals. However, the shepherds to guard, guide and protect the sheep used stones and sticks. Our main source of information about it is archeological studies in and around Israel. cf. Kurt Hennig (ed.), “Waffen,” in Jerusalemer Bibel Lexikon, Deut. Ausgabe by Hänssler-Verlag Neuhausen, Stuttgart, (1990) 919. Cf. L. Ryken, (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, InterVarsity, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1998, 934.

the Philistines are portrayed as armed with the most advanced and destructive weapons available at that time, such as bronze helmet, coat of scale, armour of bronze weighing five thousand shekels, bronze greaves worn on legs, and bronze javelin slung on one’s back. The spear shaft was like a weaver’s beam and its iron point weighed six hundred shekels. The shield bearers went ahead of the army of the Philistines (1 Sam 17:5–7). Young David stood on the other side. The contrast is aggravated by the fact that David was not a professional soldier at all and was totally unarmed in comparison with the soldiers of the Philistines. He was of such a small stature that he could not wear armour and he carried a simple slingshot into the combat! The use of weapons in this story has literal and theological significance in the light of David’s prefight speech in 1 Sam 17:45–47. Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin; but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down, and cut off your head; and I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the LORD saves not with sword and spear; for the battle is the LORD’S and he will give you into our hand.

The slingshot, which David used, is obviously a less powerful weapon than that of the Philistines. Hence, Israel could not boast in their victory over the Philistines. God’s strength was at work through human agents even in their weakness. The mighty hand of God protects the weak when they accept YHWH as the only God, providing them providence and victory. When Israel turns against YHWH, He uses the pagan armies to defeat them. The defeat serves as a weapon in the hands of God to bring back those who stray from the Lord. The prophet Jeremiah uses similar language when he refers to Babylon as God’s “hammer and weapon of war” with which He shatters nations (Jer 51:20). The weapons of God are not just restricted to human weapons. He has the whole powers within creation as weapon. Against the Egyptians at the Red Sea, God uses the wind to part the sea for the Israelites to cross over and the same wind to let the army of 11

the Pharaoh to be devoured by the sea (Ex 14). God hurls hailstones down on the enemy in a battle against a coalition of southern Canaanite kings and allows greater destruction and killing by making the sun and moon to stand still (Josh 10:9–15). There are different types of weapons mentioned in the Bible. They are:6 Short Range weapons

Long Range weapons

Weapons of selfdefence

Spear Sword, swords Dagger Clubs Hammers Axe Battering-bow Dart Jaw-bone Knife Fire

Catapult Javelin Bow and arrow Sling Mace Stone Ox-goad

Shields Helmet Armour Rod and staff Goad

Though the use of weapons is rampantly referred in the Old Testament we notice on the contrary in the New Testament that weapons are seldom used or even when used, often rather metaphorically than literally. There are a few references to the literal use of a weapon in the New Testament, which forms the central focus of our research.

6

12

The list of names of the weapons can be different according to different languages and translations. We have taken Revised Standard Version (RSV) for the reference here. The Hebrew and the Greek terms are avoided because of the fact that detailed study of each of the weapons here is not intended. The detailed study is made only about the “sword” because of the focus of our exegetical study refers to the sword.

1.2  Weapons in the New Testament In the New Testament, we see a significant transition point in God’s warfare in the narration of the arrest of Jesus. When the mob rushed to arrest Jesus, when Peter (cf. Jn 18:10), one of the Twelve (Mt 26:51; 14:47; Lk 22:50) in the Synoptics, severed the ear of one of the servants, Jesus responds disapprovingly. The cross of Jesus is seen as a weapon to defeat the power of Satan and death, not by killing but by dying (Col 2:13–15). In the New Testament, the transition from physical warfare to the spiritual takes place, eventually, effecting a significant theological shift. Eph 6:10–20 is the most evident example of this transition in the New Testament. Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take the whole armour of God that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the equipment of the Gospel of peace; besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication.

Other comparable New Testament passages can be found in Rom 13:12; 2 Cor 6:7; 10:4 and 1 Thess 5:8. Weapons have a significant role in the concluding scenes in the history of human redemption in the Bible. The final judgment against human and spiritual forces of evil is described as a great battle. In the Book of Revelation, the most extensive description of the final battle is found. Weapons are tools of God and His servants (cf. Rev 19:11–16).7

7

Cf. L. Ryken (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, InterVarsity, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1998, 935.

13

1.3  Sword (ma,caira) Having mentioned the different weapons mentioned both in the Old and the New Testaments, we study in detail the “Sword,” which is one of the most important words in our exegetical study of the pericope. In order to understand the teaching of Jesus in Lk 22:35–38, a detailed consideration of “sword” is imperative. Therefore, we concentrate, leaving aside other weapons named in the Bible, on the “sword.” From the time of Homer, ‘sword’ seemed to be related in meaning to ma,comai, which meant a knife that would have been used at sacrifice, slaughter or even for cooking. It came to mean later times as a means of weapon “small sword,” which is different from r`omfai,a which meant “dagger”. Nevertheless, the meaning changes and to a certain extent, interchangeably meaning the same in later periods. In the world of Judah and Israel ma,caira and r`omfai,a were different.8 ma,caira has a warlike and terrible nature in Jewish history. The term r`omfai,a was normally used to refer to a large sword used both for cutting and piercing, while ma,caira was used for a short sword or a dagger (the somewhat arbitrary rule of thumb for archaeologists is that the latter is sixteen inches or shorter. The Roman legionary carried a gladius, a straight sword. The Hebrew term br,x, is used in the OT for both the two-edged and long sword (Josh 6:21).9

The common Hebrew word for “sword” is br,x,. In the Early Bronze Age, sword was almost like a dagger and was short and straight. The word qr’B’ literally means “a flashing,” hence “lightning.” In Job 20:25 it is rendered as “the glittering sword,” in KJV. Since v. 24 refers to the bronze arrow striking one through it is rightly rendered in RSV as “glittering point” of the arrow. hr’kem. in Gen 49:5 is certainly a hapax legomenon but RSV renders it as “sword,” although this can be debated. xc;r, in Ps 42:10 is incorrectly rendered in KJV as “sword” while it has the root meaning “to murder or to kill.” It could probably mean a fatal wound inflicted by the enemy or even a fatal disease. xl;v, which

8 9

14

The usual Hebrew equivalent for ma,caira is br,x, which is more commonly rendered r`omfai,a. E. D. Aune, Revelation 1–5, WBC 52, Word Books Publishers Dallas, Texas, 1997, 98.

could mean a missile, or a javelin or dart is translated as “sword” in Job 33:18 and 36:12 in RSV. tAxtiP. In Ps 55:21 is translated as a drawn sword or dagger. ht’P’ means “to open.” In the Middle Bronze Age, the sword became broader and longer. Half of the use of sword occurs in the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel to announce God’s imminent judgment on Israel or Judah or the nations (cf. Jer 25:27, 31, Ez 23:25, 47). Sword may also connote “guarding” (Gen 3:24) or be used figuratively to describe violence generally (Gen 27:40; 49:5). In the Psalms ‘Sword’ is used twenty times, always as part of outcries to God to save.10 The biblical use of military imagery for God is often considered metaphorical and human use of the sword is descriptive. Hence, Scripture’s violent imagery does not endorse human use of the sword or violence.11 The sword is one of the most commonly mentioned weapons in the Bible. r`omfai,a and ma,caira are used for sword both in the Old and the New Testament, however, ma,caira is frequently used. ma,caira is also used by Homer meaning knife used in slaughter or in offering. It also would mean the knife of a hunter. Later, as a weapon, it meant a small sword; later it meant a large sword used synonymously with r`omfai,a. ma,caira has very rarely the meaning of a knife but often a weapon, or sword. br,h, is seldom distinguishable from ma,caira12 or r`omfai,a. r`omfai,a can be traced back to the Thracians.13 10 For example cf. to save from the sword (22:20), to deliver from (17:13), or destroy the wicked by the sword (7:12), the wicked that live by the sword will die by the sword (37:14–15). 11 Cf. W. M. Swartley, “Sword” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5, (ed.) K. D. Sakenfeld, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 2000, 409–410. 12 There are 424 appearances in singular and 24 times in plural. 13 The first historical record about the Thracians is found in the Iliad in allegiance with the Trojans in the Trojan War against the Greeks. The ethnonym Thracian comes from Qra,x (pl. Qrakej) or Qrako,ς. Thrax was one of the reputed sons of the god Ares. In the absence of written historical records, the origin of the Thracians remains obscure. It is proposed that the Thracians were indigenous Indo-Europeans from the time of the early Bronze Age around 1500 B.C. They inhabited parts of the ancient provinces of Thrace, Moesia, Macedonia, Dacia, Scythia Minor, Sarmatia, Bithynia, Mysia, Pannonia and other regions of the Balkans and Anatolia. The first Greek colonies in Thrace were founded in the eighth C. B.C. By the 5th century B.C., the Thracians

15

The most ethically significant sword texts in the OT are Is 2:1–4 (ma,caira); Mic 4:1–5 (r`omfai,a) and Joel 4:10 (r`omfai,a) (Heb 4:12 ma,caira). Isaiah’s and Micah’s call to “beat swords into plowshares” echoes numerous psalms in which YHWH destroys the weapons of war (Ps 20:7; 33:16; 44:3–6; 46:6– 9; 76:3; 147:10). The prophetic oracles permeate similar emphasis, anticipating the messianic reign of peace (Is 9:4–7; 11:4; 31:1–3; Hos 14:3; Zech 9:9–10). While faith reflection upon Israel’s conquest magnifies YHWH’s miraculous deliverance, it depreciates the emphasis on sword (Ex 14:14; Josh 24:12; Judg 7; 1 Sam 17). These are eschatological prophecies. The sword was the most important weapon for warfare in the Ancient Near East and in the Greco-Roman world. “Near Eastern swords were basically of two types: the straight, thrusting sword, and the bent (or sickle) sword.”14 “Archaeologists arbitrarily distinguish swords from daggers by length, forty centimeters being the point of division.”15 A straight sword had usually a triangular blade out of bronze or iron, usually with a tang extending beyond the shoulder, which was inserted into a shaft made of wood, bone, or ivory. The Egyptian sword was usually under a meter in length. It was a pointed and double-edged. It could be used for slashing or thrusting. As early as 1800 B.C., the sickle sword has been found. It was found mainly in the Near East and gradually entered Egypt from Syria. It was a favourite weapon of the Pharaohs.

were numerous enough that Herodotus considered them the second most numerous people in the part of the world known to him. Before the expansion of the kingdom of Macedonia, Thrace was divided into three camps (East, Central and West) after the withdrawal of the Persians. The Thracians were rural-based agrarian groups with Seuthopolis as their only city. During the Macedonian Wars, conflict between Rome and Thracia was unavoidable. In 168 B.C. the governance of Thracia passed to Rome against the wish of the Macedonians and the Thracians and there were several revolts during this period of transition. The revolt of Andriscus in 149 B.C. was one of them, though finally Thracia had to accept Roman authority. Cf. “Thrace,” in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 11, 15th Edition, 1988, 733–734. 14 J. W. Wevers, “Sword,” in IDB 4, G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1962, 469–470, 470. Straight swords have been found in Palestine from as early as the end of the Middle Bronze period. 15 Ibid., 470.

16

The straight-bladed sword is the only one recognized in the Old Testament, which was used to thrust and slash opponents in armed conflict.16 There are over four hundred occurrences of the term in the Bible, which can be understood literally but sword also came to acquire a set of figurative meanings.17 Since it commonly occurs in narratives describing battle, “sword” received the symbol of warfare; “putting a city to the sword” (cf. Jer 19:7). Hosea proclaims, “I will abolish the bow, the sword and war from the land; and I will make you lie down in safety” (Hos 2:18). Isaiah speaks of it as a time when “they shall beat their swords into plowshares” and “nation shall not lift up sword against nation” (Is 2:4). The br,x, is commonly used in Scripture as a symbol for violence and oppression. Both ma,caira and r`omfai,a are used literally as weapons for warfare (Mt 26:47, 55; Mk 14:43, 48; Lk 22:52; Rev 6:4, 8; 13:10; 19:21). It was sheathed (Mt 26:52; Jn 18:11) and could be drawn out at need (Mt 26:51; Mk 14:47; Acts 16:27). It was used to strike and kill (Lk 22:49; Acts 12:2; Heb 11:37) or wound (Rev 13:14). There are also references to a double-edged sword (Heb 4:12; Rev 1:16; 2:12). There are also references in the Scripture where “sword” is used metaphorically. We will discuss them at length in the second chapter. It is a symbol of dissension, violence and war (Mt 10:34). It symbolizes divine judgment (Rev 1:16). It is also symbolic of political authority (Rom 13:4). It stands also for the anguish of a mother (Lk 2:35). The spiritual sword is identified as the word of God (cf. Heb 4:12; Rev 1:16; 2:16; 19:15). The Psalmist says, “If one does not repent, God will whet his sword” (Ps 7:12). God’s judgment is also referred as “the sword of the Lord.” Isaiah says, in the outpouring of the wrath of God on the day of vengeance, that, “the sword of the Lord is bathed in blood” (Is 34:6). Jeremiah speaks of the unavoidability and the inevitability of God’s judgment and says, “The sword of the Lord devours from one end of the land to the other, no one shall be safe” (Jer 12:12). 16 Cf. Ibid., 470. 17 Cf. L. Ryken (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, InterVarsity, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1998, 835.

17

The New Testament uses two words ma,caira and r`omfai,a. xi,foj occurs only in the LXX (cf. Jos 10:28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39; 11:12, 14; Wis 18:15; 2Mac 14:41, etc.). The exact difference between ma,caira and r`omfai,a is not clear. Originally r`omfai,a was a large, broad-bladed sword which was used mainly by the Thracians.18 In the New Testament we find references where Jesus is pictured as bearing a sharp, two-edged sword in his mouth (Rev 1:16), which He will use “to strike down the nations” (Rev 19:15) at the consummation of time. The power of the civic authority to punish and execute violators of law is depicted by the image of the sword. Paul says that the governing authority “does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoers” (Rom 13:4). The passage speaks about the divinely granted role of local government to punish those who violate public laws. The sword stands, because of its capacity to inflict wounds, for anything that can cause harm and injury to the other. The Psalmist says of his enemies that their “tongues are sharp swords” (Ps 57:4) and “Rash words are like sword thrusts” (Prov 12:18). A woman of ill repute wounds those allured and taken in by her: “In the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword” (Prov 5:4). A false witness is similar to a sword because of the harm it can cause to the person (Prov 25:18). The exploiters of the poor for their own gain are said to have teeth that are swords (Prov 30:14). We find, however, certain references that can be positively understood – the word of God as sword, because of its ability to pierce and penetrate human life. Isaiah says that God would make the mouth of the Servant of the Lord “Like a sharp sword” (Is 49:2). His message has greater impact on humanity. Paul pictures the word of God as a sword that functions as part of their protective armour, of believers’ continued struggle with the evil forces (Eph 6:17). Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the

18 Cf. J. W. Wevers, “Sword,” in IDB 4, G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1962, 469–470.

18

thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb 4:12). “God’s Word can reach into the deepest recesses of our being and have transformative effect on our lives.”19 Other than the context of warfare, the sword represents bloodshed and strife. Nathan announces to David “the sword shall never depart from your house” (2 Sam 12:10). It indicates that there would be discord and violence among the members of the Davidic family in the succeeding generations. The saying of Jesus, ouvk h=lqon balei/n eivrh,nhn avlla. ma,cairan (I have not come to bring peace, but a sword Mt 10:34), stands in relation to Rev 6:4 and is put in antithesis to eivrh,nh and can hardly refer to war or military activities. It can be better understood figuratively, meaning: those who are closely related to Jesus or those who decide for Jesus must be prepared not for peace, rather enmity (cf. Mt 10:35; Lk 12:51). Therefore, the saying in Matthew cannot be understood as related to the Jewish concept of the day of the Messiah, a time of the sword and so it does not contradict the sayings where Jesus is pictured as one who brings peace.20 Joel addresses the oracle to Tyre and Sidon and the regions of Philistia (v. 4). The sarcastic call to arms is aimed at the nations round about, which will be judged so that Judah’s fortunes can be restored (3:1–3, 16:21).21 The texts call humans to trust in the power of YHWH for defence (Is 7:3–9; 30:15) and the sword is regarded negatively in all three texts. In the Old Testament the straight-bladed sword is the only one found, unless the hr’kem. of Gen 49:5 should mean “sickle-sword.” The purpose of the sword can be for slashing or cutting (1 Sam 17:51; cf. Ezek 5:1), or for thrusting (1 Sam 31:4–5). Therefore, one could “fall on the sword”. It was double-edged and consisted of a hilt and a blade and was worn in a leather sheath which was tied to the girdle (2 Sam 20:8), on the left side of the body (cf Jd 3:15–16, 21). Nowhere in N.T. does ma,caira mean a knife. In the Jewish-Israelite cultural world, too, ma,caira and r`omfai,a are used almost always synonymously. In LXX one-third of appearances of ma,caira are 19 L. Ryken, (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1998, 836. 20 Cf. W. M. Swartley, “Sword,” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible 5, K. D. Sakenfeld (ed.), Abingdon Press, Nashville, 2000, 410. 21 Cf. Ibid., 410.

19

in Jeremiah.22 The theological meanings and symbolisms will be dealt with in the exegetical part in the fifth chapter.

Conclusion Wars are fought in history. Therefore, weapons play a big role in history. We have made a brief survey of the origin of weapons in different periods in the history of human developmental evolution up to the New Testamental times. We have categorized the weapon into three types, depending on the purpose for which a weapon is put in use, generally considered as domestic use and use in warfare. Those, which are put to use domestically, would be implements and weapons would be those which are used in assault, defence or warfare. There cannot be any stringent line of difference, here. Those put in use domestically would be implements or utensils whereas weapons would be those which are put to use in assault, defence and war. This analysis gives us a general picture of the history of weapons. An overview of the weapons listed above gives us a picture of the variety of weapons mentioned in Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, mainly in relation to the history of the Jews and the narration of wars and assaults. We are aware of the fact that the Old Testament is not merely narration of various events, rather, many of these narrations are a theologizing of the Jewish history from the centrality of their understanding of God and of themselves as “a chosen people.” The history of the Jews, for that matter of any people, is narrated with the Jews as the central people in relation to other nations. Various literary forms are employed by various authors throughout the Old Testamental period with the focus on “YHWH and His Chosen People” and all other facts and figures falling in perspective.

22 “In der LXX kommt ma,caira über 180mal vor (ein Drittel der Stellen bei Jer). Im Hbr etspricht ganz überwiegend br,h, , das jedoch noch haufiger durch r`omfai,a wiedergegeben wird, sehr viel seltener durch xi,foς.” W. Michaelis, “ma,caira” in G. Kittel, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 4, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1942, 530–533, 530.

20

Jewish history is full of wars fought; many won and some lost. For the Jews, with YHWH on their side, every success of war is counted as blessing and loss as punishment from YHWH, calling the people to turn back to Him or perish. It is YHWH who is their protector and the mighty warrior. Therefore, Isaiah says, He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (Isa 2:4). The same thought is shared also by Prophet Joel 4:10. In the eschatological warfare, YHWH stands on the side of His people as the warrior. The people need not wage war any more. Both the Old and the New Testaments refer extensively to weapons. The meaning, therefore, has to be determined from the context, which certainly is our undertaking in relation to Luke 22:35–38, which forms the focus of our study. Therefore, having considered generally the history and the classification of weapon an overview in both the Testaments logically take us concretely to a detailed study of “the sword,” owing to the fact that in our exegetical research it occurs as part of Jesus’ instruction to the disciples to buy one. To arrive at a clear understanding of the meaning of the teaching of Jesus in Lk 22:35–38, where He seemingly contradicts his previous mission strategy and, more so, where the new teaching runs, at the outset, counter to his moral teachings on love of neighbour, peace and forgiveness, we undertake in the coming two chapters to determine the metaphorical and literal use of weapons in the New Testament.

1

21

2

Chapter Two Comparative Study of Some Texts in the NT: Mt 10:34; Lk 2:34–35; Eph 6:17; Heb 4:12; Rev 1:16, 2:12, 2:16 Introduction After the general survey of the various weapons mentioned in the Bible, we proceed to a concentrated study of some of the texts in the New Testament, where weapon, in our particular context “sword,” is used metaphorically. Our concentration only on “sword” would help us to sharpen our understanding of the meaning and implications of our exegetical study in chapter five. Our procedure, from metaphorical, in this chapter, to literal in chapter three, will assist us to comprehend the symbolic meaning of Jesus’ teaching in Lk 22:35–38 in the perspective of the mission entrusted to the Apostles and today to the Church, without any contradiction to the sum total of the Gospel message. There are certain texts in the New Testament where the ma,caira is referred to and which call our attention to our understanding of our central theme of the new teaching of Jesus in the Lukan Gospel. These texts and their meanings would help us to understand the meaning of the teaching of Jesus in Lk  22:35–38, where He instructs his disciples to buy a sword. Understanding the use of “sword” in the New Testament would help us both to distinguish the use and arrive at the meaning of the new teaching. Certainly there are passages where “sword” is used metaphorically and literally in the Old Testament. However, we concentrate on “sword” in the New Testament. We study the passages in Mt 10:34; Lk 2:34–35; Eph 6:17; Heb 4:12; Rev 1:16; 2:12 and 2:16. We consider both ma,caira and r`omfai,a because of the fact that most of the translations use “sword” for both. “Sword” is used metaphorically in all these passages and we will have an overview of all these passages below. We undertake to study each of the above passages below. 23

2.1  Matthew 10:34 This verse, along with the following, which Matthew must have taken from Q, forms an indissoluble part that faithfully preserves words of Jesus.23 Matthew 10:34 Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν· οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν.

Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

Lk 12:51a has the same message communicated in different wording: dokei/ te o[ti eivrh,nhn paregeno,mhn dou/nai evn th/| gh/|. evpi. th.n gh/n in Matthew would mean ‘on the earth’ which in the intent of Jesus would have been ‘on the land’ (of Israel). ouvk h=lqon balei/n eivrh,nhn avlla. ma,cairan (which Luke changes with diamerismo,n division) has reference to the eschatological affliction.24 It entails strife and persecution and embraces the thought of martyrdom. 10:34 is about the proper interpretation of the present, and the main point is this: the time of Jesus and his Church is not, despite the presence of the kingdom of God, the messianic era of peace. Jesus has not come ‘to turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers’ (Mal 4:6). With the coming of Jesus, the age of ultimate and lasting peace has not yet dawned. Instead, the last struggle has broken out. It is not stated in what way the struggle is to be carried on. But more than before the time of confrontation has decisively begun. ‘Sword’ with its antithesis ‘peace’ denotes every aspect that is against peace.

23 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Vol. II, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1991, 217. 24 Cf. Is 66:16; Wis 5:20; Eccl 39:30; Jub 9:15; Ps 15:7; Bar 27:5; 40:1; Lk 21:24; Rev 6:4. In the case of the change of words from ‘sword’ in Matthew to ‘division’ in Luke, we cannot for certitude decide whether Matthew has increased the parallelism (cf. 5:17) or whether Luke has changed the sentence structure. But Matthew has certainly reference to the eschatological affliction, which seems to have been the central point of Jesus’ teaching here.

24

In other words, the advent of the kingdom must not lead to a utopian view of the here and now: the enthusiastic extremes of ‘over-realized eschatology’ must be avoided, for all has not yet come to pass. Tribulation is still the believer’s lot.25

Paul states in 1 Cor 4:8–13 that the present time is not the time to be filled with riches; it is not a time to seek strength or honour. Rather it is the time for suffering, for hunger, for homelessness, for being reviled. Do not think (mh. nomi,shte): guards off any possibility of misunderstanding.26 His message and personal assertion must take the controlling place. “Jesus’ real aim was not to bring a sword; it was to reconcile men to God and to each other. However, while to make God’s claim supreme may reconcile family members (cf. Mal 4:6), it may divide families (cf. Mic 7:6), and disciples must not yield to family opposition. For Jesus the family has a basic role in society, but it is what God means it to be only when loyal to God.”27 This verse has been the subject of much academic and homiletic controversy. In Matthew until here there are some comforting and challenging teachings. The 25 W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Vol. II, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1991, 219. 26 Mt 10:34–36 have their parallel in Lk 12:51–53. Luke puts it as a question dokei/te (Do you think) while Matthew makes it a command (Do not think). Matthew achieves with it the affirmation that Jesus is the Coming One. Cf. R. H. Gundry, Matthew, A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982, 199. Mh. nomi,shte (also Mt 5:17) probably is a response to an error which was circulating about Jesus and his relation to the teaching. Such a possibility of error was real in the light of the pressure exerted by Judaism on the early disciples since the tradition describes Jesus as setting aside and transgressing particular commandments of the Law (5:31–42; 12:1–14; 15:1–20). It is then selfevident that the Jewish authority accuses Jesus as a law breaker and the disciples of Jesus claim that Jesus is the one who fulfils the Law and brings about lasting peace on earth. The tension between Jesus and the Jewish authority, which was gradually building up as Jesus moved on preaching was seen by the followers perhaps as situational and a stepping stone to the victory that Jesus would win over the Chosen People. In the process of bringing back the true Israel to God, the present tension was seen as inevitable but not really within the mission of Jesus. cf. R. E. Menninger, Israel and the Church in the Gospel of Matthew, Peter Lang, New York, 1994, 104–105. 27 F. V. Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, Adam & Charles Black, London, 1971, 134.

25

Evangelist also presents many kind actions of Jesus of healing of those afflicted in various ways. The previous verse was a warning to those who fail to accept Jesus and certainly was not sweet to hear and v. 34 and the following make this point even clearer that the lives of those who follow Jesus, are not at all going to be sweet. “I have come,” is an incidental revelation of the person of Christ because it is not a normal expression that would be used for anyone else’s coming into the world.28 His coming into the world is to bring about peace; peace, that is not external conformism but “war with evil and accordingly hostility against those who support the ways of wrong. So it is that Jesus says that, far from peace, he comes to bring a sword, that is, conflict.”29 After the Beatitude on the peacemakers (Mt 5:9) and the call to love one’s enemies (6:44), Matthew presents this saying of Jesus. This Schwertwort as Ulrich Luz comments is difficult to explain away. The context and its extension can be explosively dangerous. The intent of the saying certainly would hardly fit in literally with the whole teaching of Jesus. Mit dem Friedensgruß, den die Jünger in die Häuser tragen sollen (10:13), und mit den Jüngern als Friedensstiftern (5:9, vgl. Mk 9:50) passt es nicht recht zusammen, eher schon mit dem Christus der Apokalypse, der das Schwert im Mund trägt (1:16; 2:12.16; 19:15.21). Kam hier Jesus in Widerspruch zu sich selbst, weil er selbst >>seine extreme Ethik nicht verwirklichen>an dem man anstößtüber den man strauchelt>kostbarer Eckstein auf festester GrundlageWer da glaubt, soll nicht weichen> der kritischen Schärfe des Wortes Gottes>Verbrecherfundamentally religious>> waren; doch lagen seines Erachtens Jesus und die Zeloten inhaltlich weniger weit voneinander entfernt,”181 to establish God’s sovereign rule over his people. But Roland Deines expressed his view as follows, Abgelehnt wird ferner, dass die Zeloten eine messianische Bewegung gewesen seien, ebenso dass es prophetische Zeloten gegeben habe. Zudem war der Krieg gegen Rom kein Heiliger Krieg, da die Römer nicht die jüdische Religion unterdrückt hätten, sondern den Kampf um nationale Unabhängigkeit.182

Hengel writes again: Two factors indicate clearly that the Jewish rebels can be understood not only from their chaotic state of internal division (Josephus’ perspective), but also – at least as a working hypothesis – from the standpoint of a relative ‘ideological unity’. The first 180 Cf. M. Bohrmann, Flavius Josephus, the Zealots and Yavne. Towards a Rereading of The War of the Jews, (trs.) Janet Lloyd, Peter Lang, Bern, 1993, 195–196. The author writes that the Messiah will appear in a generation that is either altogether perfect of totally corrupt: in either case, his coming will be accompanied by violence. Accordingly, as Jews see it, every period of violence may be the one that heralds the Messianic times. 181 R. Deines, „Gab es eine jüdische Freiheitsbewegung? Martin Hengels >>Zeloten>Freiheit blickt, wie V. 37 zeigt, zunächst auf Jesu beispielhaftes Martyrium, das als Leiden eines Unschuldigen um der Erfüllung der Schrift willen geschehen muss (Jes. 53, 12; vgl. Mark. 14,49b) – ein für Lukas typischer Gedanke (9,22; 17,25; 24,7.26.44.46); damit kommt Jesu Sache (24,19.27) zum Ziel. Dies ist zugleich das der Verfolgungen zu Zeit des Lukas, wie die Beobachtung zeigt, dass Lukas in V. 35 vor allem auf die Aussendung der Siebzig (Heiden!-)Missionare zurückgreift (10.4). Jetzt ist die Gemeinde aus der Gemeinschaft der Menschen ausgestoßen; niemand hilft ihr. Die Christen sind auf das angewiesen, was in ihren eigenen Geldbeuteln und Rucksäcken ist (V. 36a), eine Aussage, die auch in den Rahmen der lukanischen Armenfrömmigkeit gehört: die verfolgten und enteigneten Christen sind aufeinander angewiesen.286

286 W. Schmithals, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1980, 213.

161

Hence, “now” can be understood not just as historical presence in the time of its saying, rather as a symbolic presentation of the future of the disciples and that of the Church as seen by Jesus as Lord and Master. The “now” of the persecution begins with the arrest, passion and death of their Master. Thereafter, in imitation of their Master and Lord begins a new time; as the Lord is counted among the lawless, His disciples after His death would also face not hospitality but rather hostility from the people. The “now” of the Lord would become the future of the disciples and hence He calls the disciples to tread cautiously from now on. Those who did not lack anything, when they were sent previously, must now be equipped differently. For a number of commentators the crisis that is in the offing is to be restricted to “the passion of Jesus” (thus P. S. Minear, “A Note”). Obviously, that is part of the immediate reference of “but now.” However, in the total complex of the Lukan writings it cannot be limited to that alone. What happens to the kingdom-preacher in the ensuing episodes of the Lukan story is but a symbol of the experience that the witnesses to the word are going to have in Luke’s second volume.287

balla,ntion 288 Only the command concerning a bag is mentioned in Luke 9:3, but in 10:4 and here it is not just the bag but more objects are referred to. In 10:4 and here we have the same order of the three elements. balla,ntion refers to a bag that is used for carrying money, as is evident from 12:33. It refers to a

287 J. A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), AB 28A, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1985, 1430. 288 The spelling of this word varies in ancient times. In so far as ba,llein is the basic word, bala,ntion is the more correct. Yet balla,ntion is the better attested. Textually the two forms occur alongside, e.g., in Teleclides, 41 (CAF, I, 219), Job 14:17. In addition, the three New Testament passages (Lk. 10:4; 12:33; 22:35 f.) where the older and more important witnesses (including ABD) favour balla,ntion. The term, first used in Epicharmus, 10 (fifth cent. B.C.), always means “pocket” or “purse,” and esp. a “purse for money,” whether with (Aristoph. Eq., 1197: avrgu,rion balla,ntia) or without the explanatory addition (Telecl., 41: evk ballanti,ou etc.). In later Judaism, the term became the usual word for a money-bag. Materially Jesus’ exhortation to the seventy Luke 10:4 mh. basta,zete balla,ntion( is the same as that to the twelve, which reads in Mt. 10:9 Mh. kth,shsqe cruso.n mhde. a;rguron mhde. calko.n eivj ta.j zw,naj u`mw/n (Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts), whereas in this case Lk. (9:3) simply has: mh,te avrgu,rion.

162

small moneybag or purse to carry money. Purse is an inevitable part of a traveller. The possession of a purse suggests the economic capacity to buy things as and when required. While Luke uses balla,ntion in other parts of the Bible we have the word marsi,ppion used, which means a small sack which is hung often around the waist or tucked into the girdle of a traveller or any mature Jew. This would not only be used for money but for any other small valuables that are in one’s possession. In the case of both the previous Sendings, the disciples were advised not to carry money or purse. The point is that the disciples are not to rely on greater or smaller sums of money, which travellers usually carry to meet their needs. Matthew (10:9) and Mark (6:8), however, think of the native custom of tying coins into the girdle, while in Luke, it means the possession of a special purse and He is thus thinking in terms of the disciples possessing a greater amount. It is possible, however, that Luke mentions the purse because it was part of the contingent of the well-to-do townsmen and travellers. If the disciples were not to carry it, this would imply renunciation of the financial security of civic society. The passage where Jesus advises His disciples to sell all their possessions and give arms and to provide themselves with the purse that does not grow old (12:33), is certainly relevant in this connection, while the third (22:35f.) refers back to 10:4, though regard is now had to the changing situation of the disciples with the approaching death of their Master.289 ph,ra is a bag (either a traveller’s bag or a beggar’s bag) which every traveler carried besides the moneybag or purse, either, which was used to carry other materials, which were needed for the journey. ph,ra does not have the specific sense of a beggar’s sack; it may be used for any open sack made of leather and carried at the left hip by a strap over the right shoulder. The farmers used a sack of this kind to take fowls or carry small lambs to market. Sometimes the hunters too used a similar sack for their gear. Shepherds and travellers used a similar kind of sack to carry their provisions on their way. It was also

289 Cf. W. Michaelis, ph,ra In G. Kittel, G. Friedrich (ed.), TDNT 6, W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000, 1964.

163

noticed that the wandering Greek philosophers especially Cynics always carried a similar bag. It was not in fact to carry their possessions, on the contrary to show their freedom from needs.290 ph,ra in Luke and its parallels in the Synoptics is certainly an unavoidable part of the equipment of a traveller. The fact that in Lk 10:4 ph,ra comes after balla,ntion (purse) suggests that both cannot be understood as equivalent in meaning. The command in Lk 9:3 and 10:4 shows that the Apostles were to put their whole trust in God’s generous providence. In Lk 22:35 although ph,ra has the same sense, the command to carry it along clearly points to the changing situation of the disciples when their Master would no longer be with them. The Greek Old Testament uses different words including o` ma,rsippoj( bag or sack or to. ka,dion( bag.291 the Apostles and the disciples were sent out earlier without any provisions. They were instructed to enter into houses and eat of what they were provided with and rely totally on the generous provisions of the villagers wherever they enter in and rely also on the providence of God, they were advised not to carry a beggar’s bag in order to carry back home what the villagers offered. In the previous sendings, the disciples depended on the generosity of the people and on the providence of God because Jesus sent them out with such an assurance that they would be provided with what they needed. Here Jesus advises the Apostles to carry

290 Cf. ibid. ph,ra is used by Hom. in Od., 13, 437; 17, 197, 357, 411, 466; 18, 108 for the “knapsack” which Odysseus carries on a strap (13, 438; 17, 198) over his shoulder (17, 197; 18, 108) when dressed as a wandering beggar. ph,ra occurs in the LXX only at Jdt. 10:5; 13:10, 15. On her way to the Assyrian camp, Judith has her slave carry (10:5) a skin of wine, a jug of oil and a phvra with barley bread, fig-cakes and pure bread as food for several days. In the New Testament ph,ra is used in Lk. 9:3 (par. Mk. 6:8; Mt. 10:10) and in Lk. 10:4; 22:35 f. The disciples are forbidden to take a ph,ra along with them. 291 ma,rsippoj( bag, sack is found in Deut 25:13; Mic 6: 11; ka,dion( &ou( to,; bag is found in 1 Sam 17:40; 17:49; balla,ntion, ou purse in Job 14:17; ph,ra, aj f bag (either a traveller’s bag or a beggar’s bag) Jdt 10:5; 13:10; 13:15; Mt 10:10; Mar 6:8; Lk 9:3; 10:4; 22:35; 22:36.

164

purse and bag along because the time is different and the generous provision by the people would be missing and their Master would no longer be with them like before. o` e;cwn – o` mh. e;cwn

The meaning of it may seem ambiguous. o` e;cwn balla,ntion avra,tw( o`moi,wj kai. ph,ran( kai. o` mh. e;cwn pwlhsa,tw to. i`ma,tion auvtou/ kai. avgorasa,tw ma,cairanÅ “him who has” and “him who has not” must be understood here as both having the same object, purse. Ambiguity may occur from the fact that mh. e;cwn can be understood as ‘He who has no purse’ or ‘he who has no sword’. “He, who has no purse, let him sell his garment and buy a sword” is one of the possible meanings and the other would be anticipating ma,cairan ‘He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one’. RSV and other versions give the translation as, And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. This translation seems to be anticipating the object ‘sword’ to the verb ‘have’. The sword in the text stands not as the object of the verb ‘have’ (e;cw) as object of the verb ‘buy’ (avgora,zw). Entweder ist zu o` e;cwn und o` mh. e;cwn ein Objekt zu ergänzen: Wer Geldbeutel oder Brotsack hat, lasse sie nun nicht zu Hause, sondern nehme sie mit, und wer kein Schwert hat, kaufe eines, selbst wenn er sein Obergewand dafür drangeben muss, denn Mittel zur Versorgung und zum Schutz des Lebens vor möglichen Anschlägen sind jetzt notwendig. Oder die beiden Worte o` e;cwn und mh. e;cwn sind objektlos und meinen den Besitzenden und den Nichtbesitzenden: Der eine soll seinen Besitz bei sich tragen, der andere sich auf alle Fälle ein Schwert verschaffen. Die Aufforderung scheint an die apokalyptische Vorstellung des messianischen Endkampfs zu erinnern. Jedoch ruft sie die Jünger nicht zum Gerbrauch des Schwertes auf (vgl. V. 38) und rückt sie damit nicht an die Seite der Zeloten, vielmehr dient sie zur Charakteristik der bevorstehenden drangvollen Zeit.292

However, it is reasonably justifiable to understand o` mh. e;cwn not without the presence of an object, while in the first place we have the use of the participle (o` e;cwn) with the direct object balla,ntion followed by the command avra,tw followed by the addition of the object ph,ran, which was prohibited 292 W. Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Berlin, 1988, 376.

165

in the previous sending in Luke. Jesus takes it for granted that they have all that is required for the mission including a sword for their protection on their way. Jesus wants them to be fully equipped with all that they need to face the struggles in their future mission after the empowering by the Spirit. There are differences of opinion regarding v. 36. I would graphically underline the meaning of this verse in the context of this pericope. v. 36 ei=pen de. auvtoi/j\

avlla. nu/n

v. 36 ei=pen de. auvtoi/j\ avlla. nu/n

o` e;cwn

balla,ntion

avra,tw( o`moi,wj

kai.

ph,ran(

kai. o` mh. e;cwn

………. (no object is given)

pwlhsa,tw avgorasa,tw

166

to. i`ma,tion auvtou/ ma,cairanÅ

kai.

Hence the verse can be read as: And he said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse, take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has not, (…….) sell his mantle and buy a sword.”293 The German Einheitsübersetzung reads: Da sagte er: Jetzt aber soll der, der einen Geldbeutel hat, ihn mitnehmen, und ebenso die Tasche. Wer aber kein Geld hat, soll seinen Mantel verkaufen und sich dafür ein Schwert kaufen. 293 There are several ways of interpreting this verse especially the second half of it: kai. o` mh. e;cwn pwlhsa,tw to. i`ma,tion auvtou/ kai. avgorasa,tw ma,cairanÅ The translations vary and the interpretations differ because of the ambiguity of the expression o` mh. e;cwn which could be understood differently. The subject suggests only the third person masculine singular with the attribute mh. e;cwn “not having” – “he who does not have” or “he who has not.” Herein lies the problem of interpretation. The object of “not having” is disputed. There are different ways of looking at it. 1. Let the person (him) who has no purse, shall sell his cloak and buy one (a sword). This seems logical from the first part of the verse: ei=pen de. auvtoi/j\ avlla. nu/n o` e;cwn balla,ntion avra,tw( o`moi,wj kai. ph,ran( the attributive object of e;cwn is “purse”: carrying money which is necessary to buy a sword. Therefore, the attributive objects of mh. e;cwn which is not specifically mentioned here can certainly have the object of the first part since the first and the second part of the verse carry the same verb, one in the affirmative and the second in the negative. 2. Let the person (him) who has no sword, shall sell his cloak and buy one (a sword). Many translations like RSV, NIV, NASB, NEB carry this meaning. I consider this rendering too far-fetched basically because of two reasons: a) until this verse “sword” is not referred. “Sword” appears only at the end of the verse as to what the disciples would buy after having sold their cloak, which is only in case when they have no purse to take along with. When they have a purse with sufficient money in it to buy a sword, they shall not sell their cloak, which is an essential part of a wandering traveler. Since the first part of the verse refers to “purse” as the object of “have,” the second part shall automatically mean “purse” as the object of “does not have,” although it is left out in the verse. It can well be understood to avoid monotonous tautology. Therefore, to assume “sword” as the attributive object of the verb “does not have” is very much far-fetched. Those who consider “sword” as the object of “does not have” makes the mistake of “pre-posing” the idea of “sword” and overlooking the meaning of the saying of Jesus. “Sword” is the object of the verb avgora,zw that is at the end of the verse. To transpose this idea to the verb “does not have” does not do justice to the verse because at the end of the verse as the object of the verb “buy” a pronoun (it) is placed instead of “sword”. Although, it may be noted that many of the scholars like Fitzmyer holds this rendering as the most probable interpretation. Therefore, this rendering of the verse may not be the right rendering.

167

This translation does justice to the original Greek text although it gives the content (Geld) of the purse (Geldbeutel) as the attributive object of the verb mh. e;cwn although lacking in the Greek text. By attributing “money” as the object o` mh. e;cwn, Die Eiheitsübersetzung der Heiligen Schrift edits the original text of Lk 22:36. However, it clearly states the intention and the meaning of the original without borrowing the object “sword” (as done by RSV version), which in the verse is the object of the verb in the imperative avgorasa,tw. When one has a purse or money in it, one does not have to sell one’s mantle to buy for oneself a sword. Only the one who has no money would sell the most necessary part of the garments, the mantle i`ma,tion, to buy a sword. Jesus advises them to take along their purse. In addition, when they have their purse with money in it, they need not sell their mantle to buy a sword, which is essential to them. Only those who have no purse or money need to think of giving up the essential part of their garments to buy a sword, which according to Jesus becomes more essential than the mantle itself.294 Fitzmyer states: It is difficult to be sure, which sense is preferable; something can be said in favour of each possibility. No matter which is preferred, instead of the threesome, purse, knapsack, and sandals, a different threesome appears, purse, knapsack, and sword. The introduction of the “sword” signals the difference in the periods; the Period of the Church will be marked with persecution, as the later Lukan story makes clear.295

o` e;cwn can have “purse” and “bag” as the direct object. Contextually understood there is also an extension of o` e;cwn: that is, i`ma,tion. Only when one is in possession of a “mantle” can one sell it in order to buy a “sword”. However, “mantle” is to be taken for granted as everyone had to have it as part of their essential clothing. Since “mantle” is an essential part of the dress code of Jesus’ time, even when it is taken for granted and not referred to in the first place; it is evident that one is in possession of a “mantle” and when in dire

294 Cf. A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1910, 505–506. 295 J. A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV), AB 28A, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1985, 1432.

168

need one can even sell one’s “mantle” to meet the need. Selling of the “mantle” to buy something reveals that the need is greater so that one has to sell one’s essential part of clothing in order to buy the other. Therefore Lk 22:36 shall better be read as: And He said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no purse sell his mantle and buy a sword.” Jesus brings to their mind the importance of the time ahead; it will be a dangerous time. From now on, the question is not just of their possessions but also of their survival and self-preservation. 296 Although the interpretation of the verse is uncertain, it is evident that Jesus foresees a new situation. Soon enough the disciples would encounter stringent opposition and persecution that make self-equipping inevitable for the disciples (cf. Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). Jesus’ instruction to the disciples to buy a sword is strangely hard to understand. “Attempts to interpret this literally as a Zealot-like call to arms, however, are misguided and come to grief over the saying’s very ‘strangeness’. Understood as a call to arms, this saying not only does not fit Jesus’ other teachings but radically conflicts with them.”297 This holds true to the message of the teachings of Jesus, that they cannot be taken and interpreted in isolation, rather against the background of the total teaching of Jesus. When taken in itself v. 36 stands to be misinterpreted and thus misunderstood as the teaching of Jesus to arm oneself to fight the hostile forces

296 J. Nolland holds the opinion that one should not hold the idea of parallelism of form o` e;cwn (lit. “the one having”) and o` mh. e;cwn (lit. “the one not having”). He opines that the object of the verb is sword. However, in this case one is forced to supply an object to the verb ‘buy’ (in RSV the object is supplied with the word ‘one’ which in effect is a duplication and this does not really fit in to the first part of the verse;. when we understand the second part of the verse as following from the first part then the object of the verb mh. e;cwn certainly has to be purse rather than sword. It is obvious that one would be forced to sell the essential, here the mantle, to buy something more essential, here a sword, only when one does not have money to buy one (purse). Therefore, the object of the verb mh. e;cwn can be better understood as purse. Cf. J. Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, WBC 35c, Word Books Publisher, Dallas, Texas, 1998. 297 R. H. Stein, Luke, The New American Commentary 24, Broadman Press, Nashville, 1992, 555.

169

in order to spread His message. We cannot, therefore, understand v. 36 in a Zealot-like manner. That not only does this verse have no Zealot tendency but it reveals no awareness of Jewish-Christian strife in or around Jerusalem.298 Fitzmyer says, Jesus’ words about equipping oneself with purse, knapsack, and sword have to be taken in a symbolic sense, even if one may not read into it the sense of spiritual armour of Eph 6:11–17. The symbolic sense of his counsel is derived from the reaction that he gives to the literal interpretation of his words in v. 38.299

R. H. Stein holds the view that the sword is best understood in some metaphorical sense as indicating being spiritually armed and prepared for battle against the spiritual foes. That the desperate need to be ‘armed’ for these future events is evident by the command to sell one’s mantle, for this garment was essential to keep warm at night. Stein seems to contradict himself here while taking the saying about the sword as metaphorical and in the later part garment as literal. When the desperate need to be armed for the future and when the garment and its necessity is taken as real how can only the ‘sword’ be taken as metaphorical? If “sword” is taken metaphorically, “purse,” “bag,” and “garment” should also be metaphorically understood. It would water-down the realistic and the intense opposition and the persecution, which the disciples would face in the impending absence of their Lord. There seems to be an apologetical tendency to defend the teaching of Jesus against misinterpretation in line with the Zealots. One need not fear feasible misinterpretation and fail to render the meaning at its best. Jesus and His teachings would always stand to be misunderstood even from His own time until now! J. Nolland is of the opinion that in v. 36 “None of the language here is significantly Lukan. Despite the parallelism of form, it is unlikely that we should treat in parallel o` e;cwn (lit. “the one having”) and o` mh. e;cwn (lit. “the one not having”). Rather we should reach to the end of the sentence for the understood

298 Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV), AB 28A, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1985, 1432. 299 Ibid., 1432.

170

object of mh. e;cwn, to get the sense “the one not have one (i.e., a sword).”300 This observation seems farfetched from the very literal form and its meaning as noted above in the graph and in the text. Precisely because of the use of the verb avgora,zw which requires a direct object “sword” cannot be preposited as the object of the verb mh. e;cwn. The verb e;cw in the first place carries direct objects and in its second appearance in the negative must certainly carry the same objects in the same sentence unless specifically stated. Since the repeated occurrence of the verb e;cw does not have a direct object in the sentence and it stands in negation of what is already affirmed before, the same objects shall be seen as negated or absent in the second case. To carry the “sword” as the object of mh. e;cwn forces one to give another noun or a pronoun as the object of avgorasa,tw. The translators are, therefore, forced to introduce the pronoun “it” which does not do justice to the Greek text, which has ma,cairan as the object of the verb avgorasa,tw. to. i`ma,tion generally means clothing, apparel or any garment (Mt 9:16; Mk 2:21; 5:27; Lk 5:36, 8:27; Heb 1:11f; Ps 101:27). It can also mean outer wear, cloak or robe (Mt 9:20f; 23:5; 24:18; Mk 5:27; 6:56; 10:50; 13:16; Lk 8:44; 22:36; Rev 19:16). In Mt 5:40 the situation is that of a lawsuit, in which the defendant is advised to give up not only the indispensable citw,n (coat or garment worn next to the skin – could, therefore, mean shirt in the present understanding) demanded by the opponent, but the i`ma,tion as well. The Lk 6:29 sequence suggests highway robbery, in which the robber first deprives a victim of the outer garment. In Acts 7:58 at the scene of stoning Stephen the Jews laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul; it was meant to give them free movement of arms in order to throw stones at Stephen (cf. Acts 22:20, 23). Before flogging anyone the mantle was removed from the one flogged (Acts 16:22).301 A mantle is the sign of dignity and respectability. It could also symbolize power and status. In the story of Elijah casting his mantle upon Elisha (1 Kg 300 J. Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:52, WBC 35c, Word Books Publisher, Dallas, Texas, 1993, 1076. 301 Cf. F. W. Danker (ed.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2000, 474–475.

171

19:19), the mantle symbolizes passing on the power of prophetic succession with all the rights and powers that entail. The instruction of Jesus would mean that a disciple should sell his mantle that which externally symbolizes respect, dignity and status in order to buy a sword for himself on His mission journey. ma,caira – Sword

‘Sword’ is already discussed in detail in the first chapter. The Lord tells the disciples to have a ma,caira for their future. It is rather not to be understood as Jesus advising the disciples to increase their number of weapons, but in view of the foreseen dangers, which await the mission of the disciples, Jesus advises them to prepare for any eventuality. The disciples needed the courage to face their dire future. Consequently, the saying would imply that in future times the disciples should gather courage, which regards the possession of a sword as more necessary than their tunic. They shall surrender their necessary possessions but cannot give up the fight for the cause of the Kingdom to which they are called, chosen and destined. Therefore, it is evident that Jesus calls His disciples then and now not to aggressive use of weapons for survival or spread of the Kingdom, but only for self-defence. Although Jesus’ attitude to the use of weapons is one of disapproval, He demands His disciples an unequivocal preparedness for self-sacrifice for the sake of the Kingdom. The new instruction was pertinent to the mission in those times. Without negating the earlier mission charges, the new teaching adds the new dimension stated above. However, it is not without intent in our times too. The hermeneutical application of this new instruction of Jesus will be dealt with at a later point. The teaching to buy a sword deserves to be seen in connection with having purse, bag and sandals and not as having any connection to the ideal linking with the Zealots or even as sympathizing with the goals and means of the Zealots or the Sicarii. Although the Zealots waged war against the Romans, to establish the Jewish kingdom, Jesus instructs the disciples that they would neither be part of nor be sympathizers to the cause of the Zealots. On the contrary, Jesus instructs them to be prepared for their mission ahead. A sword is part of self-sufficiency of a traveller in the Roman world, Jesus could have

172

meant the sense of security and protection one has in the case of the possession of a sword. It wards of robbers and aggressors on the way and gives a certain self-courage for one to go further. It enables one to guard oneself against wild animals on the way through unknown and unfriendly regions. The possession of a sword gives one a certain level of dignity and security. In order to move towards unknown regions and unfriendly people through unknown circumstances besides purse, bag and sandals the sword ensures a certain physical and psychological security. Josephus gives us a possibility to justify the fact that the disciples carried a sword even in the Upper Room and then later to the Mount of Olives (Ant xiv, 63). The Essenes carried weapons when travelling because of highway robbers (Bell ii, 125). In the border areas like Galilee, sword carrying would be as important as clothes. Although the pious Jews were forbidden to carry any weapon on the day of the Passover, which was to the Jews as important, if not more, than the Sabbath, Josephus says that the Jews carried weapons for self-defence even on those days. The metaphorical use of “sword” is studied in the third chapter and we have seen how metaphorically “sword” is used in Ephesians, Hebrews, and Revelation besides other texts. Although many consider the term “sword” as metaphorical, the context indicates a literal meaning (cf. 6:29; 12:51; 22:49).302 The context of the instruction distinguishes two periods in the life of the disciples. One is the period of Jesus, another the period of the Church. Though Jesus remains central to both the periods, the first is marked by the physical presence of Jesus with His disciples as He moved around doing good (Acts 10:38) and instructing the disciples on the way. The second period is the time after the resurrection experience of the Lord and the time when the disciples went about preaching Christ. The instruction is explicitly literal in its meaning as much as the suffering and death of Jesus was real and the persecution of the disciples after the death of Jesus, as foretold by Jesus, was real. With its double meaning of “now” as now of Jesus’ passion and death and the scattering of the disciples (cf. Mk 14:27) and the “now” of the time of the disciples after the

302 Cf. E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, The Century Bible, Nelson, Edinburgh, 1966, 256.

173

death of their Master the saying about the sword cannot be just metaphorical. As much as the mission and the mission sending are literal, so much real is the preparedness for the mission when their Master is taken away from them. The hospitality the disciples experienced in the previous Sendings was vibrantly real in their unanimous one-word expression “nothing.” In the same way, the unfriendliness and hostility shown to the disciples would be real after the passion and death of Jesus. Hence, there is sufficient reason to hold the saying on “sword” not merely as a concrete one but having a vivid symbolic meaning. A sword in its literal sense is a weapon to fight the enemy and defend oneself in the context of war or aggression. Jesus, in His new teaching does not deny the possibility of His disciples facing such situation. Jesus seems to be aware that the disciples will face even violent opposition, which might even endanger their lives. Hence, He means “sword” literally. However, it is more than literal. Jesus wants the disciples to face even such dangerous future. “Sword,” therefore, stands for all that can physically protect them in their dangerous future mission. It is, therefore, symbolic, which does not in any way deny the literal meaning – on the contrary affirms it – but rather extends it to a level of meaning more than the literal. The idea is not that everyone should have a sword and that those who do not should sell even the clothes they have to get one. Rather, everyone should be prepared, e.g., by having the very thing that previously they did not need, such as a purse and bag. Those who do not have such necessary preparations for a journey (or flight) should sell even a valuable piece of clothing and buy a sword. All this is in the light of the completion of God’s plan concerning Jesus, including his forthcoming crucifixion.303

Jesus certainly did not mean that everyone who is sent must inevitablily be equipped with a sword, like soldiers. In the same way, not every one need sell his mantle to buy a sword. Only those without the monetary means to buy a sword, in case that it is felt as required in their mission endeavour will sell their mantle to buy and own a sword for their mission. Nevertheless, Raymond

303 R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah. A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, Vol. 1, Yale University Press, London, 1994, 270.

174

E. Brown, although he rightly understands the meaning of the saying of Jesus, he understands the meaning of the instruction of Jesus only in the light of the fulfilment of God’s plan in Jesus until His crucifixion. The prophecy of Jesus has another dimension too, that which will be later fulfilled in the lives of the Apostles, inasmuch as the instruction is for the mission the prophecy has a farreaching effect in the lives of the missionary. The details are less significant than the point about the changed circumstances for their work. They are entering into the same context of rejection being experienced by the Prophet; as his prophetic successors, they will experience such rejection directly. Luke consistently uses possessions to symbolize the larger patterns in the story of the Prophet and the people.304

However, comparison with the Prophet is not directly referring to the disciples but to Jesus, who is the Suffering Servant like in Isaiah. Jesus would experience the rejection and as a result of which His disciples would face similar experience in the future. The disciples are not directly to be prophetic successors of the Prophets of the OT, but they are the successors of the Suffering Servant Jesus. As their Lord and Master, Jesus fulfils the prophecy and they, as disciples of the One fulfilling the prophecy, would face a hostile and inhospitable future ahead, unlike their experiences in the past Sendings. Vv. 35/36 and v. 37 are closely connected because of the fact that the reckoning with the transgressors depends on the fact that the men around Jesus were found to be with swords, a concrete symbol of aggression and preparedness for violence at least in the eyes of those who stand against these men. The leadership of Israel is about to present Jesus before the Roman authorities as lawbreaker and outlaw, a revolutionary who (23:2) revolts against the Roman might. Through the violation of the custom of the temple, He has antagonized the religious establishment (5:8–11, 27–32, 6:11; 7:49; 11:53–54). On His trial, He is identified as a greater threat than Barabbas is (23:25) and finally is hanged between two brigands (23:33). Peter due to 304 L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, Sacra Pagina Series 3, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1991, 346.

175

fear of being caught denies him, claiming to have no association with him (22:54–62). Peter together with other disciples would later be subjected to control by the police (cf. Acts 4:1–3; 9:1–2). V. 37 le,gw ga.r u`mi/n o[ti tou/to to. gegramme,non dei/ telesqh/nai evn evmoi,( to,\ kai. meta. avno,mwn evlogi,sqh\ kai. ga.r to. peri. evmou/ te,loj e;ceiÅ Luke alone uses the word a;nomoj meaning lawless, outside the law, criminal. One outside the Jewish law is a Gentile. They do not know the Law of Moses. By using this again in the first proclamation of Peter in Acts 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men, Luke brings out the contrast and the irony of the killing of Jesus. The Messiah of the Jews is handed over to the “lawless” (a;nomoj), the Romans who are not under the Law of Moses, to be killed as a “transgressor” (a;nomoj). The Evangelist brings out the irony of the betrayal, trial and killing of Jesus. le,gw ga.r u`mi/n: it is evident that in the New Testament when Jesus speaks, “for I tell you” expresses an eschatological dimension. This expression carries a futuristic orientation.305 In Jesus would all the prophecies be fulfilled and in His new teaching to the disciples, He fulfils the prophecy of the prophet Isaiah. Jesus is aware that His new instruction seemingly contradicts His own very previous instruction or it can be misunderstood to be contradictory. This is a proof for the severity of the effect of the future events on the disciples. He instructs them, nonetheless, knowing well that it can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. He, being misunderstood, does not come into play of His instructions to the disciples. kai. ga,r at the second part of the verse can be paralleled with le,gw ga,r at the beginning of the verse. In Jesus is the fulfilment of all the Law and the Prophets (Lk 24:44). The Lukan language tou/to to. gegramme,non (“this that stands written,”) and dei/ telesqh/nai evn evmoi,( (“must be fulfilled in me,” Lk 22:37) has a specific Lukan touch. The quote from Is 53:12 is remarkably brief. It differs from the Septuagint in having meta, “with”. However, meta, may simply reflect yet another

305 Cf. Mt 3:9; 5:20; 18:10;23:39; Lk 3:8; 10:24; 14:24; 22:16; 22:18; 22:37; Rom 15:8.

176

reading in place of  evn toi/j (“among them”) as used in the LXX, but otherwise this quote is the LXX of Isaiah 53:12. The full text of the LXX reads, “On this account he will inherit many and will share in the goods of the powerful ones, because his life was handed over (paredothe) to death, and He was reckoned among the lawless. But He Himself bore the sins of many and on account of their sins he was handed over.” (dia. tou/to auvto.j klhronomh,sei pollou.j kai. tw/n ivscurw/n meriei/ sku/la avnqV w-n paredo,qh eivj qa,naton h` yuch. auvtou/ kai. evn toi/j avno,moij evlogi,sqh kai. auvto.j a`marti,aj pollw/n avnh,negken kai. dia. ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/n paredo,qh). The Suffering Servant song of Isaiah plays a significant role in the interpretation of Jesus by Luke (cf. Acts 8:32–35). Here, the citation has three functions: a) Jesus’ death is seen as the fulfilment of God’s plan foretold by the Prophets in the OT, rather than any human will or decision; b) Jesus’ suffering and death is interpreted as having its vicarious effect for the lawless and the sinners although Jesus himself is innocent; c) it shows that the world and the powers outside would consider Jesus and His movement as a lawless act and He would be counted as one among the lawless leading to His killing.306 The extent of Lukan language becomes rather more notable here (tou/to to. gegramme,non, “this that stands written,” to. peri. evmou/, “what concerns me,” may be Lukan, but Luke uses the phrase elsewhere in the plural Îta, rather than to,Ð)…The introduction of the quotation with to, (lit. “the”) may be a Lukan touch: in Luke it only occurs here to introduce a quotation, but Luke is fond of introducing indirect speech (and esp. questions) in this way.307

The brief citation from Is 53:12 is very noteworthy. It is different from the Septuagint in having meta, “with,” which corresponds more closely with the MT –ta. “Despite the elaborate attempts that have been made to show that the disciples (with their swords) fulfil the part of the “lawless people,” or that this role falls to the two thieves, it seems best to take the quotation as 306 Cf. L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, Sacra Pagina Series 3, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1991, 347. 307 J. Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, WBC 35c, Word Books Publisher, Dallas, Texas, 1998, p. 1076. Cf Lk 9:22; 18:31, the introduction of a quotation with to. (lit. “the”) may be a Lukan touch. The introduction of a quotation with to. in Luke occurs only here.

177

concerned only to evoke more generally the prospect of the violent fate anticipated for the figure in Isa 52–53.”308 J. Nolland further says, The level of Lukan language and the fact that in the Gospel tradition this is the only place where Jesus quotes, rather than alludes to, Isa 53 makes it hard to resist the suggestion that Luke is responsible for the material here: he has probably drawn on the early church’s growing use of Isa 53, in order to cast light (F. Lampe, “Two Swords,” 340–41) on the rather cryptic “what concerns me is coming to an end (cf. Mark 3:26).309

We would discuss the authenticity of the source later. Nevertheless, J. Nolland is right in assuming that Luke has not invented the quote, although, perhaps, he edits the quote for his own theological reasons. Dieser Ernst der Lage wird durch Jesu Tod bestimmt. In ihm geschieht, was die Schrift ankündigt und deshalb nach Gottes feststehendem Willen (δεῖ) zur Vollendung kommt (τελεσθῆναι). Das ausdrückliche Zitat – die einzige Stelle in den Synoptikern, in der Jesu Tod durch Jes. 53 interpretiert wird – weist Jesus als Gottesknecht aus. Es bezieht sich auf die negative Seite seines Sterbens, indem es hervorhebt, dass der Knecht Gottes mit den Gesetzlosen auf eine Stufe gestellt wird. Lukas, dessen Handschrift vor allem die Einfügung des Zitats verrät, hat wohl an die Übeltäter 23:39–43 gedacht. Der letzte Satz begründet nicht das Zitat, sondern den Hinweis auf die notwendige Erfüllung der Schrift, deren Stunde da ist. Die Sache Jesu kommt an ihr Ende und damit zugleich an ihr Ziel.310

This prophecy refers, as can commonly be thought, not merely to Jesus being crucified between the thieves in Lk 23: 32–33. It must be noted that Luke never mentions that the two crucified beside Jesus are the a;nomoi in 22:37. The prophecy certainly refers also to the impending events there, where the arrest of Jesus would take place and there the disciples would be found with weapons and Jesus, their Master, among them. Therefore, it is clear that the prophecy refers not only to Jesus being crucified between two kakou/rgoi, but also to Jesus being found among men who can be identified as transgressors (a;nomoi). However, Luke uses a;nomoi at the scene of the arrest and at the scene of the crufixion kakou,rgouj (adj. kakou/rgoj), which means criminals. 308 J. Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, WBC 35c, Word Books Publisher, Dallas, Texas, 1998, 1076–1077. 309 Ibid., 1077. 310 W. Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Berlin, 1988, 376.

178

The view that the Apostles would be seen as “the lawless” (a;nomoj) because they were found in possession of two swords and eventually the Master would be counted among “the lawless” would also be less probable. Jesus stand accused before Pilate as “the lawless” not because He associated with those who had swords. The Jews accuse him before Pilate not just as “the lawless” but as one who rebelled against the emperor, a serious political crime against the Romans, and claiming himself the Messiah, a religious crime worthy of nothing less than death. As against these serious claims, the Apostles with two swords can be neglected. Jesus would be counted as “the lawless” in fulfilment of the prophecy. The mounting tension between the Jewish authority and Jesus would have urged the disciples to carry swords, however not sufficient enough for attack or to defend Jesus and themselves. Hence, the fact that the disciples were having two swords is a minor factor whereby Jesus was numbered among “the lawless.” The reference to “the lawless” then can be ascribed to the fact of crucifixion where Jesus was crucified between two criminals (kakou/rgoi). The crucifixion fulfils the prophecy and it categorically showed that the Jews and the Romans considered Jesus as criminal in which case crucifixion deemed the right punishment. At the trial scene neither Pilate nor Herod found any fault with Jesus (Lk 23:14–15; 22), Pilate let Jesus be crucified between two criminals. Pilate found in Jesus neither any religious nor political crime, which compelled the Roman law to such a punishment. Why did Jesus speak something like this at the Last Supper in the Upper Room? What was it that prompted Jesus to speak thus to the disciples before He moves to the Mount of Olives where He would be arrested and later subjected to be trialed and put to death? The fact that this teaching is the last of this kind in Luke needs special consideration and explanation. Since it is the last teaching in the Last Supper scene, it has its specific significance. In the context of Luke-Acts, we could well argue that the instruction of Jesus does not stop with His forthcoming crucifixion as understood by Christopher M. Hays and others.311 It is interesting to read his thought,

311 Cf. C. M. Hays, Luke’s Wealth Ethics. A Study in their Coherence and Character, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2010, 97–100.

179

The disciples go out in Luke 10 completely dependent upon God’s provision; in their sparse gear, they embody the defenselessness of sheep among wolves. But that fateful night in Gethsemane, the disciples must appear like brigands. Rather than being sheep among wolves, they become sheep in wolves’ clothing, putting on bag, a purse, and to top it off, wielding a sword. That night they are to act as if they are not pacific heralds of the Kingdom, but violent, lawless men attempting to bring it about by force, a role, which they are only too eager to adopt. In so doing, they fulfil the prophecy that Jesus be counted among the lawless.312

If his argument has to be taken true, then Jesus’ reference to the previous mission Sendings in Chapters 9 and 10 would be ironic. Jesus’ use of emphatic avlla. nu/n (26:36) with reference to the previous sending proves the fact that Jesus meant not just what is to happen on the Mount of Olives and the instruction was just for the fulfilment of the prophecy. To limit it to this scene and the fulfilment of the prophecy in Jesus in His arrest as one meta. avno,mwn would be to follow the mission of the Lord till the Mount of Olives and nothing more. Jesus has certainly more to teach than meets the eyes. Equipping themselves with swords would no way contradict the previous teachings of Jesus about nonviolence. The fact that the Apostles would be found with a sword would be sufficient for the hostile powers, Jews and the Romans, at the arrest of Jesus to accuse Jesus as “lawless.” That is not the crux of the message of the new teaching of Jesus. The new teaching of Jesus is towards mission pedagogy. The new mission pedagogy requires a realistic reading of the signs of the time (cf. Lk 12:54–56) and taking pragmatic steps for the same. This pericope provides an abrupt closure of the Last Supper narrative in Luke without special reference to what precedes. The Meal closes with an instruction of the Master about the future of the Apostles and their mission. Reaffirmation of the reason – For what is written about me has its fulfilment. (kai. ga.r to. peri. evmou/ te,loj e;ceiÅ) peri. evmou/ affirms Jesus’ self-awareness as the Messiah. He is the one proclaimed by the prophets of old (cf. Mt 5:17). He is fully aware of his end 312 Ibid., 99–100. Although he sounds very reasonable, that cannot be the reason.

180

(12:50). All the prophecies will be fulfilled in Him (18:31) and therefore He has to go to Jerusalem the city of God where the Son of Man will be handed over to the “lawless” to be killed, counting Him one among the “lawless.” Here, by affirming that the coming suffering and death as His goal, Jesus claims to be fulfilling the function of the Suffering Servant of God (Is 53:12). Luke narrates in Acts 8:26–40 the significance of all that happened here.313 The Greek text is very cryptic: “for that about me has a telos.” telos can mean “goal or “end.” However, in connection with the previous verse, where telos is used to mean “fulfilment,” it should be understood as fulfilment. It can also be understood as the fulfilment of the goal for which Jesus has come, namely to fulfil the end of the Prophets. Luke is convinced that all the Scripture points to the suffering and glory of the Messiah (Lk 24:27, 44; Acts 1:16). It can be argued here in the text the prediction by the prophet Isaiah that the Suffering Servant of YHWH would be counted among the lawless is being fulfilled in Jesus and that He is crucified between two thieves (23:32). Moreover, in this instruction Jesus does not refer to His crucifixion between the two thieves alone. In His arrest on the Mount of Olives is the promise fulfilled and further in the lives of the disciples. The “lawbreakers” referred to here are the Apostles and Jesus among them at the time of the arrest. The Romans who crucify Jesus would signify it by crucifying Him between two lawbreakers. That is only the further illustration of a fulfilled promise; to show the world that He is the fulfilment of the prophecy.314 This being the only place in Luke where Jesus quotes Isaiah 53 makes us understand that the author is responsible for arranging the specific material towards the end of the ministry of Jesus. “The use of te,loj, (end), here should, at least in the Lukan frame, be related to that of teleiou/mai (I am finished), in

313 Cf. F. W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age. A commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1988, 352–353. 314 Cf. C. M. Hays, Luke’s Wealth Ethics. A Study in their Coherence and Character, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2010, 96.

181

13:32.”315 However, the immediate context can be understood as the impending death of Jesus. The prospect of the death of Jesus in the immediate future is brought forth forcefully in v. 37. Therefore, the disciples must now be ready for the worst because their Master would soon face the worst in His life. Narrator: and they said (oi` de. ei=pan) The focus now is turned on to the Apostles with their aroused curiosity and perhaps perplexed mind after having heard their Master saying something new and unexpected. In addition, their response to their Master is interestingly important. Apostles’ Response: Look, Lord, here are two swords. (ku,rie( ivdou. ma,cairai w-de du,oÅ) In spite of the teaching of Jesus to be bearers of peace and love, how are the Apostles found to be with two swords? This is certainly not Jesus’ way. It contradicts the very teaching of Jesus and the nature of the reign of God. Having moved with and instructed by Jesus how can we understand the fact that at the Last Supper the Apostles were found to be with two swords? Jesus’ instruction is misunderstood by the Apostles. It shows how unprepared the Apostles are to follow Jesus’ suffering and death. We see even after the instruction, which is certainly misunderstood by the Apostles (cf. 9:45), the sword is put to use in the scene of Jesus’ arrest (22:50) in a futile effort to defend Jesus and His disciples. The response of Jesus in this scene (22:51) emphatically reveals that Jesus was not inviting His disciples to equipping themselves with arms for the future to propagate and defend the Gospel, rather He intends more than what meets the eye. Taking the words of Jesus seriously, they respond correctly, saying that they are in possession of two swords at least for the time until they buy more for self-defence. They are prepared to defend Jesus and themselves from the enemies and present what they have before their Master hoping to equip 315 J. Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, WBC 35c, Word Books Publisher, Dallas, Texas, 1998, 1077. (teleiou/mai v.ind.pr.pas. 1st per. sing. from teleio,w meaning: complete, finish, accomplish, bring to its goal, perfect).

182

themselves with more at the earliest possibilities. The humanly right response misses the divine mark and the response of Jesus makes this point clear. The Apostles took Jesus literally, having rightly thought that they need to defend their Master and fight for Him against His enemies and are ready to do their might. Taking Jesus literally the Apostles fail to perceive their Master and therefore, Jesus abruptly stops any furthering of the dialogue. Luke shows here what the disposition of the disciples would be in the passion of Jesus. Jesus has to face His destiny alone. The passion of Jesus is God’s plan as foretold by the prophet. But the disciples are least aware or open to the messianic significance of God’s plan in Jesus’ suffering. This will again prove true in the scene of the arrest where one of the disciples uses the sword and credits the rebuke of Jesus (Lk 22:51). Jesus affirms that He moves up to the cross of His own will and not at the will of any human powers. He fulfils the messianic purpose.316 The Apostles draw some sympathetic attention here. It does not do justice to the Apostles to hold the view that they have failed to understand Jesus or failed to accept the teachings of Jesus. The Apostles loved the Lord and followed His teachings. They were aware of the growing opposition to Jesus. It was not imaginary. The mounting opposition to Jesus was perceivably stressful on them and it could not be just brushed aside as trivial, rather it was causing them great concern. The Apostles would certainly see Jesus in this context responding to the real and mounting opposition to them and responding to it through this instruction. There would not have been hardly any room to take him not literally in the context of the mounting opposition to Jesus. Moreover, to take him not literally would certainly mean to be inhuman on their part. The Apostles were among the ordinary folk and hence, failed to understand the depth of His teachings (cf. Lk 8:8; 9:44–45; 12:41; 18:34). There were many things that they had understood well as Jesus spoke to them (Mt 13:51). It is natural that the disciples could not perceive the depth dimension of Jesus’ teachings. Jesus expresses His exasperation, as evident from His response here: “it is enough.” The disciples’ failure to understand some of Jesus’

316 Cf. M. Gonsalves, The Passion of Jesus According to Luke. A Narrative Critical Study of Luke 22:39–23:49, Pontificia Universitas Urbaniana, Rome, 2001, 62.

183

sayings and instruction is not to be counted as their lack of fidelity to or love of the Lord. It is evidently because Jesus spoke a language which symbolizes realities beyond the perception of the ordinary folk and in which case they needed further clarification, which certainly is the case after the Resurrection experience. When Jesus spoke things which were beyond their temporal understanding, the disciples failed to understand or understood Him literally, as their response shows, “Look Lord, here are two swords.” If their Master wants them to defend him, they are ready for it, however with the meagre resources available to them. They are ready to die fighting like brave men for Him. Their failure to understand the depth dimension of the Lord’s teaching is due to the simplicity of their thinking and perceptive power. They hate the thought that Jesus would be brought to such a hateful and shameful end. Narrator: And He said to them (o` de. ei=pen auvtoi/j)

The narrator makes the final intervention in the scene. He is aware that He is leading the scene to its climax. Nevertheless, he leaves the whole impact to the dramatis personae to that surprising climax. The narrator has the role only to introduce the character and the speakers on the scene. He stands outside of the periphery of action. It is, therefore, interesting to see that the narrator intervenes each time without being part of the dramatic emotive effects. His interventions to introduce the actors, is like the light effect in the modern theatre, where the light focuses on the characters on stage. Now the narrator changes the focus for the final time to Jesus, who will take the scene to its climactic end, leaving all bewildered. Jesus’ concluding response: It is enough. (i`kano,n evstinÅ)

The word “enough” (i`kanou,sqw soi) appears in Deut 3:26 where a clear annoyance at the meaninglessness of the matter is expressed. The anger of the Lord is reported whereby the command of God is “Let it suffice you; speak no more to me of this matter.” The command tone is evident here. What is forthcoming here is that Moses reports an explicit fear of evoking any further the anger of the Lord. Jesus’ response to the Apostles i`kano,n evstin in the same way can be seen as a command. However, this command has to be understood in its context 184

of a dialogue abruptly brought to an end with no more of a chance for further discussion or clarification, leaving the readers of Luke today in ambivalence as to the intended meaning by Jesus here. There is no unanimity among the scholars about the meaning of this expression in the context. Diese Antwort ist auch vom Zusammenhang aus nicht eindeutig, und darum besteht über ihre Deutung keine Einmütigkeit. Wollte Jesus sagen, dass die beiden Schwerter für das, was bevorsteht, ausreichen? Oder aber enthält sein Wort statt einer Beruhigung einen Tadel, weil seine Jünger ihn ganz missverstanden haben und das Gleichnis in V. 36 für einen wörtlich gemeinten Befehl halten, auf den sie mit dem Vorweisen vorhandener Waffen antworten? Selbst wenn man das annimmt, so bleibt noch eine dreifache Möglichkeit des Verständnisse, je nachdem man den Tadel mehr gegen das Unverständnis der Jünger als solches gerichtet sein lässt, mehr gegen das in diesem Falle vorliegende Missverständnis oder mehr gegen ihre Sorglosigkeit, in der sie sich allerdings nicht nur auf die beiden vorgewiesenen Schwerter, sondern überhaupt auf Waffen und damit auf die eigene Kraft verlassen.317

The misunderstanding on the part of the Apostles of the content of the new instruction in reference to the old mission-training-sendings certainly generates a sense of exasperation on the part of Jesus, who knows well that there is much less time now for further instructions or clarifications. His new instruction is based on their previous experience of God’s providence. Having taught on the providence of God, Jesus instructs them for their mission after him. He therefore sets forth guidelines for the mission in the future to the ends of the world. The providence of God then has to be combined with human resources as far as it is essential to the success of the mission. While God’s providence is assured, what the disciples are not assured of is the pro-active community of listeners. Jesus, therefore, instructs them to look for the basic needs for the mission. Nevertheless, the Apostles have missed the mark. The Apostles fall back on their concept of a Messiah, like every other Jew, who would inaugurate the eruption of the Kingdom through revolt. “The phrase would thus indicate Jesus’ 317 K. H. Rengstorf, “i`kano,,j,” in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Band III, by Gerhard Kittel, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1938, 294–297, 296.

185

frustration with the disciples’ eagerness for violence or misunderstanding of His saying.”318 The disciples not having understood the objective in Jesus’ words take His remark literally that He actually meant that they acquire swords for themselves. i`kano,n evstin can hardly refer to the swords. Two swords would not be sufficient to protect themselves and their Master. Linguistically if “it is enough” should refer to “two swords,” then it would have been in the plural (“they are enough”). “More probably we have here a Semitic idiom analogous to our ‘That will do’ to put a stop to a conversation.”319 It is also the meaning in Deut 3:26. The response “It is enough” is then to put an end to the conversation. Jesus intended no furthering of the topic. The abrupt closure of the topic is therefore intended that Jesus meant no armed resistance as the disciples misunderstood him. Jesus would play His part to the tragic end. To fight against the goal of Jesus is to defy the Will of God as foretold by the Prophets. It is to reject Jesus’ mission. Now the real actor behind the scene is God. For the Apostles it is imperative to submit to the Will of God by resisting with arms as they have understood the discourse. Die Antwort der Jünger – vielfach als lukanische Redaktion (Vorausverweis auf V. 49f.) eingeordnet – soll erkennen lassen, dass diese allein den Hinweis Jesu auf die Notwendigkeit des Schwertes gehört haben und nun die beiden Schwerter vorzeigen, die sie in ihrem Besitz haben. Jesus bricht den Dialog ab, der im Zeichen des Mißverstehens endet. Die Jünger denken an einen bevorstehenden Kampf, Jesus an die anbrechende Zeit der Verfolgung und des Maryriums.320

Not having been able to grasp Jesus comprehensively, the disciples think that their Master speaks of the realities in their realm. They seem to reassure Jesus that He need not worry because they are in control and possession of what He 318 C. M. Hays, Luke’s Wealth Ethics. A Study in their Coherence and Character, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2010, 97. 319 H. D. A. Major, T. W. Manson and C. J Wright, The Mission and Message of Jesus. An Exposition of the Gospels in the Light of Modern Research, E. P. Dutton and Co., New York, 1998, 634. 320 W. Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Berlin, 1988, 376.

186

just intends them to possess and would be in control of affairs as the need be. They seem to have understood that their Master seeks that they protect Him from the coming danger, to which they are prepared with two swords according to their Master’s intent. In the sword dialogue, as we have already mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, Jesus has control over the things that are happening. It could also mean the fact that the disciples’ having two swords is enough for the fulfilment of the prophecy in Jesus.321 Another meaning that can be derived from this saying is the dyad of irony. The twin irony can be understood from the point of view of Jesus and from that of the Apostles. i`kano,n evstin although well intended in their answer that they are in possession of two swords, the meaning of the Saying of Jesus stands beyond their perception. Hence, Jesus would not proceed any further with the matter and would like to close the case in question. Jesus neither rebukes the Apostles nor corrects their misunderstanding. He would stop the discourse and would not intend to go further with the theme. “The words ‘It is enough’ can scarcely refer to the swords. Two swords would not be enough. More probably we have here a Semitic idiom analogous to our ‘That will do’ to put a stop to a conversation.”322 Jesus puts a closure to any further talk about armed resistance. Jesus must fulfil the role of the Servant. He through His ministry has done and shown the example. “…and He will play the part through to its tragic end. To fight against it is not just attempting to defy destiny. It is rejecting what for Jesus is the revealed will of God. With that, the die is cast. Only God can now save Him from the Cross.”323 In the light of this, we can understand better Jesus’ prayer in Lk 22:42 and the total surrender when dying on the cross in Lk 23:46. The introductory words of the Saying about the Sword suggest no connection with what precedes. The time now and the time ahead would need precautions and equipments. Precautionary actions and equipping themselves has hindered the disciples’ trust in the providence of God before. What was only 321 Cf. P. S. Minear, “A Note on Luke xxii 36,” NovT 7 (1964/65) 128–134, 131. 322 T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1957, 342. 323 Ibid., 342.

187

a hindrance in a peaceful time becomes a requirement now and in the time to come. Therefore, Jesus now enjoins what was prohibited before. Jesus turns at the end of His discourse in the Upper Room to the Apostles with a short dialogue, the interpretation and meaning of which can shadow the Gospel message. The scene of the Last Supper in the Upper Room ends with the instructive saying of Jesus anticipating the time of crisis, which would come about not just to him alone but to all His closest disciples and perhaps extending to the larger circle of His followers. This instruction in Luke is the last of Jesus’ teaching to His disciples before He enters into His suffering, death and resurrection. All through His public ministry, Jesus instructs His disciples and the larger following for a new way of being. Having called His disciples in (Lk 5:10, 27) they are initiated through His teachings into this new way of being and here with the last of these teachings in the Upper Room. Having given this last instruction, inclusive of an interactive dialogue with His disciples, Jesus with His disciples moves to the Mount of Olives. The sermon on the plain (on a level ground Lk 6:17–7:1) and thereafter the continued instruction about the new way of being enables the twelve to be ready for the sending in 9:1–6. The twelve move throughout the villages preaching the good news and curing diseases. This was not just the only sending in Luke. The process of training in the new mission of Jesus entails yet another sending. In the second sending, it is the twelve with many others who followed Jesus, who were sent for a second time to the plentiful harvest field as labourers therein. The second sending specifically suggests the attitudinal peculiarities: they were sent out like lambs among wolves (cf. Lk 10:3). The most significant aspect of this sending is the pedagogical instruction that they should carry no purse, no bag and no sandals. They were further instructed not to greet anyone on the road. They were wishers of peace to every house they entered. They were peace-bearers. Jesus as the risen Lord greets with peace when He encounters His disciples. The disciples are sent out with the instruction to greet with peace every home they enter. These missionaries, who are prohibited from carrying any provisions for their sustenance are instructed to sustain themselves from the generosity of the people. The 188

people would provide them food and shelter. They were expected to throw themselves into the hands of God in trust (Lk 10:16). J. Nolland raises the problem whether Luke has provided this verse as a bridge to vv. 49–51. He holds an opinion to the contrary. Against this possibility, however, must be set the unlikelihood of Luke, against his clear tendency, actually creating material here that is critical for the disciples, and also the fact that Luke’s intrusion into v. 37 obscures rather than enhances the thought follows on into v. 38. The wording of v. 36 has assumed that some will already have swords. Here the assumption is seen to have been true. The concern has, however, never really been with the acquiring of swords (or purse or knapsacks), but with the need for the disciples to cope with hitherto unexperienced and therefore yet unexpected difficulty. The Apostles seem to settle for the detail (having swords) without any real readiness to grapple with what the call to have swords means for them.324

This narration presents two crucial factors in the passion narrative: a) the foreknowledge of Jesus about His passion and the charges the Jews would make against him (23:2; 23:33); b) Jesus’ foreknowledge that the disciples after His death would meet such violent future in their mission (Lk 21:12). Jesus was aware that the only way to follow Jesus is by taking up one’s cross and following him (9:23; 14:27). The discipleship of Jesus demands suffering in the name of the Lord and Master. If the Jews’ rejection of Jesus and the eruption of the Kingdom meant that Jesus had to announce the inauguration of the Kingdom in the privacy of the Upper Room, it did not mean the end of vigorous and active mission of the disciples (cf. 9:1–6; 10:1–16). On the contrary, instead of being confined to Israel, the disciples would be sent to the ends of the earth (24:47). They would be sent to the strange and hostile world of the Gentiles. Nevertheless, the fact that the Master and their Lord Himself would be counted among the lawless and would be killed by the lawless should not hamper the enthusiasm of the disciples. Far from it, they need to go into the new situation and meet the demands and challenges of the mission in a new way.

324 J. Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, WBC 35c, Word Books Publisher, Dallas, Texas, 1998, 1077.

189

It is farfetched to attribute an apologetical purpose to this pericope:325 the appearance and use of the sword in the scene of the arrest, one of the disciples strikes the ear of the servant of the high priest with a sword. If at all the Evangelist had an apologetical purpose the scene and the positioning of such a teaching is certainly unlike the Lukan skill of writing; in which case a skilled author like Luke would have found a much better occasion and scope to incorporate the teaching of the Lord in a better fitting manner. However, the potential doubt about the positioning of this teaching in Luke stands to be dealt with. The potential doubt is justifiable from the fact that no other Evangelist refers to this teaching and that the placing and the timing of this new teaching can be wrongly interpreted or subjected to doubt. While doubting not the authenticity of the source of this discourse, one must propose no such purposes to the text. Superimposing such purposes on the text would do no justice to the skill of the author and the purpose of the Gospel according to Luke as stated at the beginning of the Gospel (1:3). After the prediction of Peter’s denial, which certainly shocks and saddens Peter and the others, some sort of consolation is assured to Peter (22:32). Jesus instructs them that He Himself would soon be led away and nailed among the “lawless.” After the killing of their Master, they need to be prepared for the worse. Here we cannot justify an apologetical purpose in this instruction.326 Moreover the reference 325 Cf. D. L. Tiede, Luke, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament, Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, 1988, 389. 326 G. W. H. Lampe in his article, “The Two Swords (Luke 22:35–38),” makes a detailed study of the pericope and holds the view that the pericope is apologetical in its intent. He goes on to explain the pericope in relation to the scene of arrest, where the disciples are found to be with swords and one of them using it to cut the ear of the servant of the high priest. He views that the disciples, who are in procession of swords and who put them to violent use, are “the lawless” among whom Jesus is counted as one. The disciples are the lawbreakers and Jesus is to be numbered as one among them. The disciples are “the lawless” – one of them betrays the Lord, one to deny him, they quarrel about which of them would be greater and some of them are armed and use their arms. The author accepts that the prophecy has eschatological material. However, when it is applied to the disciples of the Lord in the Upper Room or in the Garden the eschatological intent is reduced and thus the prophecy loses its relevance and meaning. If the prophecy is seen to be fulfilled just because of the fact that the

190

to the previous sending and the emphasis on the new teaching “avlla, nu/n” do not justify an apologetic accent but rather emphatically states that the saying of Jesus is a new teaching intending the time to come.

5.6  Luke and the Use of Scripture The use of OT Scripture in Luke 22:37 brings with it certain problems. In the Gospel according to Luke, the use of Scripture is by allusion rather than direct citation. However, v. 37 makes a direct citation, although not completely, which causes further editorial problems. Therefore, we must analyze: a) from which books of the Old Testament do the author’s allusion come from. b) Whether Luke uses the LXX or the Hebrew Text as the source of his allusion? and c) the theological purpose of Luke in the use of the Old Testament Scripture. F. Bovon says, It is our opinion that the solutions to these problems have theological repercussions. The origin of the quotations reveals Luke’s scriptural preferences and the traditions he uses. The form of the text allows us to situate Luke and by that his theology, in the stream of primitive Christianity. Then, the nature of the scriptural argument specifies the logic of Lukan faith.327

Luke uses the Scripture freely with the possibility of modification. This liberty is shown not only in the choice of the citations but also in delimiting them. Luke quotes here Isaiah 53. However, he limits his quote to achieve his theological intent – that the fact of the disciples owning a sword would be sufficient for the Jews and the Romans to count him among “lawless” and

disciples were found to be with swords then the instruction to buy a sword, which is according to the teaching of Jesus, is of highest priority, is irrelevant and mismatching. If the prophecy is fulfilled just because of the fact that the disciples are with two swords and one of them uses the sword to cut the ear of the servant of the high priest the new teaching that is of vital importance “avlla. nu/n” loses its importance. 327 F. Bovon, Luke the Theologian. Thirty-Three Years of Research (1950–1983), Pickwick Publications, Allison Park, Pennsylvania, 1987, 83.

191

thus for Jesus to fulfil the Prophets. Luke, while accepting the importance of the Torah, the Prophets and the Books of the Holy Writings of the Old Testament, takes them as a message which permits and points to Jesus and helps to interpret and understand the person and message and mission of Jesus. Luke has, therefore, a clear Christological intent in using the Old Testament Scriptures.328 The primary motive of Luke’s reference to the Jewish Scripture is to point to Jesus as the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets. This aspect comes emphatically clear in the section on Jesus in Jerusalem. Ps 118:22 plays a great role in the parable of the vineyard (Lk 20:17). Both Matthew and Mark give the same parable. F. Bovon opines that “Luke uses the Septuagint and seems to be unaware of the Hebrew text.”329 However, it could be that in order to emphasize and modify certain points Luke adapts his text. Most of the Lukan quotations have a Christological significance. The partly cited quote from Isaiah shows that Jesus is the fulfilment of the scripture as the Suffering Servant of YHWH. When we understand that Luke is the only Evangelist who uses this text and has modified it from the LXX, we can understand that Luke has a clear purpose in 328 Lk 2:30 refers to Is 40:5 and says “my eyes have seen the salvation”; concerning John the Baptist Lk cites Is 40:3–5 and says, “all flesh will see the salvation of God” (Lk 3:6); Peter citing Joel 3, “whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21); etc. 329 F. Bovon, Luke the Theologian. Thirty-Three Years of Research (1950–1983), Pickwick Publications, Allison Park, Pennsylvania, 1987, 85. The author goes on to say that Luke’s preference for the Minor Prophets, Isaiah and the Psalms was already known. He refers to Holtz and states that Luke had no text of the Pentateuch and had no interest in the laws of the OT or the narratives of Genesis or Exodus. The quotations of the Pentateuch which he passes on must not be from his pen. Luke may have taken them from the Jewish or Christian tradition which must have constituted a series of small collections of Testimonia (Cf. Acts 3:22–25 = Deut 18:25; Lev 23:29; Gen 22:18; Acts 13:33–35 = Ps2:7; Is 55:3; Ps 16:10). Luke would have Christianized the speech of Stephen, originally Jewish, with the redactional vv. 35 and 37, and the addition of a conclusion, vv. 51–53. He may have taken this perhaps from another source. Luke does not often cite the quotes directly and makes only allusions. It can be because he did not have the Torah, the Prophets and the Historical Books in hand.

192

editing and presenting the citation to show that Jesus is the fulfilment of the Christological prophecies. The typology of the Suffering Servant of YHWH and Jesus before He moves on to His suffering shows that Jesus is fully aware of His identity and mission and He is in command of even His impending trial and killing. Jesus knows that the Scripture is to be fulfilled in him and He enlightens the disciples beforehand that when it takes place they would not be caught unaware of the happenings. In the Christological testimonial, the hermeneutical thrust of the mission of the Church is not absent. The citation focusses on “Christic” or “Messianic” reality. The “Christic” reality is pregnant with the mission. Christ is the one who is sent and He sends the disciples on mission and hence mission is by Christ, from Christ and in Christ. Mission is Christo-centric. The veracity of the saying is proven by the authority of the Lord (cf. Lk 4:32, 36; Mk 1:27). As the Lord and Master, Jesus teaches them with authority and His authority comes from the Father (Jn 12:49). Luke also attempts to show that the disciples have their share in Jesus being the fulfilment of the Prophets. But the purpose of Luke is not to prove that the disciples of Jesus were a “lawless people,” but rather Jesus as the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophet, while the disciples were found to be possessing sword, would fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah. Certainly, the disciples have their share in it. The Suffering Servant figure in Is 52–53 portrays the violent fate which in Jesus comes to fulfilment.

5.7  Discipleship and Martyrdom The death of Jesus is seen by Luke as martyrdom. It is the unjust murder of an innocent man by the established Roman powers owing to undue pressure of the Jewish leadership. Jesus is innocent of the charges against Him (Lk 23:4, 14, 15, 22, 41, 47). He is also delivered by the Jewish chief priests and the scribes into the hands of the Roman authority (Lk 22:66; 23:1–2, 10, 13, 18, 21, 23, 24; cf. Acts 5:27, 30; 13:27). Jesus is executed by the Gentiles (Lk 23:34; Acts 4:27). The death of Jesus is parallel to the 193

death of many of the prophets of old in the hands of the Jews (Lk 13:33; Acts 7:52). Therefore, Jesus stands at the end of the long Jewish line of prophet martyrs.330 This martyrdom of Jesus can be seen as a model and preeminent foreshadowing for His disciples. Evidently, one can see the parallel of the martyrdom of Stephen and that of Jesus. Both are arrested and tried by the Sanhedrin (Lk 22:66f.; Acts 6:12f.). Both die a martyr’s death. The cry of Stephen in Acts 7:59 corresponds to the cry of Jesus in Lk 23:46. Acts 7:60 where Stephen prays not to hold this sin against them echoes Lk 23:34. Both events contain a “Son of Man” saying (cf. Lk 23:69; Acts 7:56).331 Both the death of Jesus and the death of Stephen are portrayed as martyrdom by Luke intending that the future of the disciples of Jesus would be in imitation of the fate of their Master. That which has happened to Jesus stands as a model and goal for the future of the disciples. to. gegramme,non dei/ telesqh/nai can be understood in combination with to. peri. evmou/ te,loj e;cei messianic or Christological. What the Prophets have foretold must be fulfilled in the Messiah. Jesus is the Messiah about whom the Prophets have spoken. However, the perception of Jesus concerning His messianic mission corresponds to the Suffering Servant of YHWH as announced by Isaiah. Jesus is the Christ, who would suffer and be killed not in accordance with a human mandate but according to the Will of God. As the Will of God, suffering becomes vicarious because He suffered for the sins of many (Is 53:12); hence His death is not a fatal failure of Jesus’ mission but rather the fulfilment of His mission. The Scripture, what is written about me, must come to its fulfilment in Christ and Jesus affirms here His identity as the Messiah, the Christ. Jesus is fully aware of His identity as the Messiah, the Son of Man (cf. 22:48), whom Judas betrays with a kiss. 330 Cf. C. H. Talbert, Reading Luke. A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel, Crossroad, New York, 1986, 212–213. 331 Acts 7:56 is remarkable because here is the only occurrence of the title “Son of Man” outside the Gospels. All the other “Son of Man” sayings are by Jesus Himself. This is the only place, where other than Jesus, Stephen, speaks of having seen the heaven opened and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.

194

The focal point of this citation can well be seen as Christological: that in Jesus, the prophecies are being fulfilled and He is the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets. The saying of Simeon in 2:34 can also be seen as being fulfilled. Jesus is a sign of contradiction and cause of the rise and fall of many in Israel. The Jewish authority considers Him as a blasphemer and a political criminal. In His trial, He stands accused as a blasphemer for the Jews (Lk 22:71) and a political criminal to the Romans (Lk 23:2). He hangs on the cross in the midst of two criminals (Lk 23:33). Thus, He stands to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah.

5.8 Delayed Parousia in Luke Did the author of Luke-Acts suggest a belief in an imminent End? The clear answer is negative. Luke as an Evangelist who tries to give an orderly account (Lk 1:3) of the message of the Master and Lord tries to reconcile it with the newly confronted fact of the delayed eschatology. His two volumes are the best example to claim that Luke tries to solve this problem for the first century Christians. The change of attitude to eschatology has far-reaching impact on the Lukan narration.332 According to Hans Conzelmann, Luke like other Evangelists admits the extended post-ascension Christian era. Not just that Luke admits it but it becomes one of the guiding forces in his narration of the message of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. Luke reflects on God’s saving action in the history of Israel in the old covenant, the fulfilment of God’s promise to Israel in Jesus and the praxis of faith of the Church. Thus, according to Hans Conzelmann, Luke clearly states three stages of the salvation history: 1. Period of Israel 2. The period of Jesus and His ministry 3. Period of the Church or the Period of the Spirit

332 Cf. H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1960, 98.

195

The first stage, the period of Israel, needs here no further discussion owing to the fact that it can take us away from our focus. We could have an overview of the second and the third periods. The period of Jesus and His ministry was limited to the time from the birth to the death and resurrection of Jesus. The four Evangelists with various perspectives have presented details about the time of Jesus. In Jesus, the period of salvation comes to an end and the period of the Church begins.333 Until this moment, the disciples were dependent on God’s providence and were immune to temptations and they are now vulnerable. At this point, certain teachings of Jesus are “explicitly annulled” and no longer exert their authority over the Apostles or the Church.334 The increase in the distance between avrch, and parousi,a demands virtue of prepared patience on the part of the Apostles. The temper of imminent eschatology has dissipated. The new situation purported by avlla. nu/n continues to the time of Luke and he foresees it to continue further. “Everything began with history and eschatology.”335 The Jesus event in history must be reconciled with the hope of the coming of the end. After the Ascension, the disciples and the early believers had to be reconciled with the delay factor in the coming of the end. “From the beginning, eschatology or rather eschatological conscience had to seek for temporary and contingent forms of expressions.”336 Narrating the Jesus event and the event of the early Church in Luke-Acts the Evangelist makes his stand clearer on the delayed parousia. Settled in the Roman Empire, which for some was peaceful and for others, dangerous, Luke would have lived according to a gospel, which had become a holy and ideal evangelical story and as well as a hope in a distant resurrection from the dead. Associated with a certain but as yet remote return of the Son of Man, absent because

333 Ibid., 150. 334 H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1960, 98. Ibid., 13. 335 F. Bovon, Luke the Theologian. Fifty-five Years of Research (1950–2005), Baylor University Press, Waco, Texas, 22006, 11. 336 Ibid., 11.

196

of the Ascension, this hope could no longer nurture, except in an ethical manner, an existence whose origin was more ecclesiastical than Christological.337

For the first generation believers Jesus Christ stood for the end of time and history. They believed the coming of the end in their own time. They encountered the immediacy of spreading the word. The idea of the period of the Church could not easily be reconciled with their optimism and hope of the end of time. “The stages of salvation history necessarily project backward into the past the eternal present of the Word, which still holds true. Moreover, the idea of a Church history contradicts the conviction of the first Christians for whom Jesus Christ was the end of history.”338 Luke-Acts do not end there. Acts takes us to the third stage: the period of the Spirit. This period is inaugurated with the anointing of the Spirit and the kerygmatic activities of the Apostles. Here Christ becomes the first to be restored to God from death by resurrection and the first to revise the Spirit (Acts 2:31–32), which He then bestows on others.339 “Jesus’s sending of His Spirit incorporates people into the true end-time Israel, and this is the beginning of the fulfilment of the restoration promises for people in Acts 2 and then throughout Acts.”340 337 Ibid., 11. 338 Ibid., 11. Luke, the author of the double works, faced this reality of delayed Parousia and was inevitably forced to help the Christians reconcile with this fact. As a good narrator the author recollects in the life of Jesus and his disciples teachings that reconciles with the empirical and existential doubts of the Christians. The continuity of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the spread of the Word is the mission of the Apostles and the Christians to come. The experience of the delay of the second coming of the Son of Man causes existential concerns among the first generation Christians and the spread of the Word of God. The Ascension of Jesus Christ brings about the presence of the physical absence of Jesus, their Master, along with them to move and to assure their security. 339 Jesus sending the Spirit identifies Him with God. Joel 2:28 says that He will send the Spirit upon Israel. Joel foresaw a time when all in Israel would be given the Spirit. Jesus is also identified at times as the true Israel. However, as the one who sends the Spirit upon others, we cannot make that identification here. 340 G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2011, 577.

197

The beginning of reconstituting a new Israel with Jesus, with Him as its head is expressed in Lk 6:12–13. He goes up to the mountain and chooses twelve disciples from among a larger group of disciples. Going up to the mountain reflects the new Mount Sinai, where Jesus begins the history of new Israel, which constitutes the beginning stage of the people of God. Thus, the Israel’s restoration prophecies begin their fulfilment in Jesus and extend to the newly constituted Israel, the early Christian Church.341 In the newly constituted Israel, the inaugurated eschatology spreads to the whole of creation. This can be well concluded with the words of G. K. Beale, Jesus’s life, trials, death for sinners, and especially resurrection by the Spirit have launched the fulfilment of the eschatological already-not yet new-creational reign, bestowed by grace through faith and resulting in worldwide commission to the faithful to advance this new-creational reign and resulting in judgment for the unbelieving, unto the triune God’s glory.342

5.9  Literary Form Luke, unlike the other synoptic writers, combines the Last Supper with a farewell discourse. John’s narration has a long farewell discourse and a mere mention of the Last Supper (Jn 13–17). Luke presents Jesus at table with the Pharisees (14:7–24) where Jesus appropriates the Hellenistic literary conversations of the symposium, with its traditions of philosophic discourse. This literary genre began with Plato and Xenophon and later found its way into Jewish literature too. Luke uses in the Last Supper such literary style in imitation of the Greek literature. Luke uses Jesus’ “farewell discourse” or “testament” at the Last Supper to instruct Jesus’ disciples for the final time, when He was physically with them. The literary genre, “farewell discourse” or “testament”, is not uncommon even

341 Cf. Ibid., 681–683. 342 Ibid., 694.

198

in the Hellenistic and Jewish literature.343 Since Luke consistently portrayed Jesus as prophet and philosopher, a prophet like Moses, it is fitting that Luke uses the testamentary tradition in his narration of the Last Supper. In using this literary form, “His capacity for concision is remarkable, for he suggests far more than he states. In twenty-three verses (22:14–37) he provides virtually all the elements of the Hellenistic farewell discourse, but with complete naturalness and apparent spontaneity.”344 The final words of a person, especially a person of standing, were considered to be of particular significance. It was considered the seal and symbol of his life. The final words of a philosopher communicated to His followers were treasured and cherished as clues to the meaning of His message in a capsule form (cf. Plato, Phaedo 117A-118A). We find Luke modifying elements from the Jesus tradition to interpret Jesus’ relationship with His closest followers. The specificity of Jesus’ relationship with His closest followers is determined largely by the nature of Jesus’ ministry. The nature of the discipleship and works of the disciples within the believing community is patterned after the image of the Suffering Messiah. How are we to understand this pattern? Three aspects of identity and work are emphasized:

343 Cf. L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, Sacra Pagina Series 3, The Liturgical Press, Collegevile, Minnesota, 1991, 348. Since Plato’s Phaedo, which describes the last moments of Socrates with his disciples, the Greek world was familiar with this literary form of “farewell discourse” or “testament.” This form would often include certain stereo-typical elements: a statement concerning one’s life; a prediction of future events; a bestowal of authority or blessing on one’s attendants. Jewish traditions were at least equally old. We find Jacob predicting the future for his sons and blessing them (Gen 49:1–28). This passage was considerably expanded in the Palestinian Targum. Moses’ words, like Jacob’s, were also literarily ornamented. The Torah portrays Moses before his death delivering a farewell discourse (Deut 31; cf. Philo, Life of Moses ii, 290–292). 344 Ibid., 348.

199

Jesus a) Jesus’ authority as king over the people of Israel. This title is politically twisted by the Jewish authority to accuse Jesus in the trial scene (23:2). Jesus communicates to His disciples that the Father has given him the Kingdom (Lk 22:29), which he shares with His own (Lk 22:30); b) Jesus presents himself “among them as the one who serves” (22:27). The most obvious proof is the scene of the Last Supper (22:17–20), where He breaks the bread and “passed it to them” with the deeper meaning of giving His life for them as a servant; c) Jesus is entering now into a time of “testing,” when He will be rejected by the leaders and He will be counted among the lawless (22:37).

The Disciples a) Jesus bestows on them the Kingdom: they are to “judge the twelve tribes of Israel,” (Acts 22:30). Acts 1–6 shows how this authority was exercised in the ministry of the Apostles in Jerusalem Church; b) Their exercise was being carried out as service to others in the community, at the service of the word. They are neither to lord over nor to be beneficiaries (22:26); in imitation of their Master they are to serve with humility; c) The disciples, sharing the fate of their Master, would be subjected to “testing” (22:28). Acts 1:15–26 says that Peter, who denied Jesus (Lk 22:34), turned out to be strengthening His brothers (Lk 22:32).

The Apostles could never again be able to rely on gifts and hospitality to supply their needs; they are entering into a period of danger that will not end soon (21:12–19). Their use of possession reflects the changed situation as foretold by Jesus (22:35–36). Luke shows that all these things are in fulfilment of the prophecy (22:37). The pericope under our study, when taken independently, can be well seen as a scene of a drama in the Upper Room. The exegetical study has clearly showed the dramatic development of the pericope, which is part of the farewell discourse of Jesus. The skilfulness of the author is evident here. Luke prepares the reader to what is about to take place, the arrest, trials and crucifixion of Jesus, which is certainly the high point of the Gospel narration.

200

5.10  The Source Lk 22:35–38 is without parallel in any of the other synoptic gospels or in John. Therefore, the question of the source is relevant. What is the source for Luke? Is it a Lukan creation or is it an interpolation by the later redactors or has it a distinctive Lukan source? The answer depends in turn on the different meaning or senses attributed to the pericope. The varying senses depend on the Lukan framework and also on considering it as an independent piece of tradition. Source judgments are tied up in turn with the varying senses that have been given to the pericope, both in its Lukan frame and as an independent piece of tradition. Based on the discussion below, it seems best to attribute to Luke only the introduction of the OT quotation. While v. 38 is likely to be pre-Lukan, there is a real possibility that it formed no original part of the episode. Instead, it may have been added at some point to make it clear that the disciples prior to the passion had found it impossible to engage seriously with Jesus’ anticipation of the passion and the prospect that they might be profoundly caught up in the associated turmoil. The basic material here will have been transmitted partly as a passion prediction of a different kind and partly as teaching relevant to the Christian mission in times of particular crisis (to be set in a dialectical tension with the teaching of Luke 10:4). This is clearly a Lukan composition.

5.11  The Newness of the Teaching Before going into a discussion of the newness of the teaching, we need to raise the question: did Jesus really say these words as recorded by Luke? Is it the original teaching of Jesus Himself? There is no conclusive answer to such a question from the fact that all what we have coming from Jesus is written by Evangelists or other New Testament writers during the Kerygmatic period of the history of the Church. As we know for sure, the Evangelists present their theology and not really a biographical sketch of Jesus, the Lord. The editorial differences are present in each writer. Therefore, it can be either Luke’s theological presentation of the teaching of Jesus or an edited work for His purpose. 201

Lk 22:35–38 stands out seemingly contradictory to the sum total of Jesus’ teaching. This passage seemingly contradicts His teaching on peace and love. This passage contradicts His earlier teachings in Luke 9:3 and 10:4. It goes against the teaching on trusting in God’s providence. It paints Jesus and His disciples as engaging in sectarian violent activities like the Zealots and the Sicarii. It is a hard saying. As far as it seemingly contradicts the message Luke wants to communicate to his readers it certainly cannot be invented by Luke or a creation of his theological narrative creativity. Luke, a scholarly writer of both the books (the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles), cannot invent a narrative that would contradict his purpose. That would be too hard for Luke himself to explain. From the fact that it is a hard saying that the disciples must sell their mantle and buy a sword, and a scholarly writer like Luke narrates it as such an important part of the life and mission of Jesus, we can, with all probability, hold that this teaching comes from Jesus Himself. He has spoken these words to the Apostles during His public life. The only doubtful question that can be raised is about the time of this teaching. Did Jesus, as Luke presents it, say this as the last teaching during His life and ministry with the Apostles? Here, we may have to agree to the editorial purpose of the author and his right to use the materials available to him. Because it is a hard saying, with regard to the veracity of this teaching going back to Jesus, we can be almost certain that these words are really the words of Jesus, reported by Luke, the Evangelist. Jesus was not a teacher whose circle of prospective members applied for admission and were selected or denied admission based on their individual merits. His disciples merited association with Jesus exclusively through His call. The call was peremptory (Mk 1:17, 20; 2:14; 10:21; Mt 8:22; Lk 9:61f; Jn 1:39, 43). Those who were called were to respond spontaneously (Lk 9:61–62; Mk 1:17–18). A total commitment to His call entailed discipleship and excluded the rootedness of a fixed abode (Mt 8:19f.; Mk 3:14) and they were called to be disciples and be with Him wherever He was. Unlike the disciples of John the Baptist, Jesus and His disciples did not take their abode in the wilderness around Judea but confronted Israel in towns and villages. Jesus made the twelve more than merely a sign of the future Israel. He gave them a share in the coming reign of God through the eschatological gathering of Israel. The 202

fate of Israel and of the nations would hinge on their response to their message. Acceptance of disciples’ teaching would bring eschatological blessing and rejection eschatological condemnation (Lk 10:10–12; Mat 10:12–15; Mk 6:11). Why should Jesus nullify His earlier instructions? P. S. Minear says, “One answer is this: the command is an artificial literary device to set the stage for the fulfilment of Scripture.”345 This answer could mean that the pericope is a redacted work of Luke and it serves an apologetical purpose. That certainly is not the fact as we have already seen. Minear comes up with a second answer, which he considers better than the one before: “The function of the command is to reveal ‘the thoughts of many heart’ (ii 35), to disclose the fact that they had already secured the swords, secretly, fearfully, disobediently. Their possession of the swords illustrates their disobedience, not obedience.”346 We cannot go by this stream of argument because it would picture Jesus in a bad coulour using such a trickery of employing indirect means of enquiring. Jesus need not refer to the previous Sendings in order to reveal the disobedience of the disciples and the scene and the immediacy of the events to happen do not demand even any redactor to place such words in the mouth of Jesus as the final words. The reasoning is far-fetched. Jesus certainly is unaware of the presence of swords in the possession of the Apostles in the Upper Room. That the Apostles are in possession of swords can lead to the fulfilment of the prophecy of Is. 53:12. Nevertheless, the instruction in 22:36 extends beyond the fulfilment of the prophecy. avlla. nu/n is not in reference to the prophecy but to the previous o[te avpe,steila u`ma/j (22:35).347 The gradation of the sequence of thoughts must be consequential. The fact that the Apostles have swords would certainly put Jesus meta. avno,mwn. Nevertheless, the reference to the previous experiences of the providence of God is towards the newness of Jesus’ teaching in v. 36. The new instruction towards mission could place the Apostles in the bad light of being seen as transgressors and Jesus among them. 345 P. S. Minear, “A Note on Luke xxii 36,” NovT 7 (1964/65) 128–134, 132. 346 P. S. Minear, “A Note on Luke xxii 36,” NovT 7 (1964/65) 128–134, 132. 347 P. S. Minear is of the opinion that avlla. nu/n and the citation in v. 37 may be construed as a summary of all four units. This is certainly far-fetched and a sign of bad authorship.

203

That is certainly the cost of discipleship and the demands of mission and its challenges. The conditions which existed when Jesus sent them forth, had changed. In the new situation, demands are different from before. The Gospels depict Jesus and His disciples as itinerant. Some of them had certainly homes and families. However, they spent a lot of time outside of their home surroundings, on the road, following Jesus and later preaching the Gospel.348 The teaching of Jesus: Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics (Lk 9:3, 10:4; Mt 10:10; Mk 6:8) needs to be reconsidered in the present times.349 Purse and bag are necessary now. That does not suffice; they need to be prepared like any other men of their time on their way equipping themselves with swords. They should expect no hospitality, instead open violence. Hence, they need to protect themselves and equip themselves with a sword. For a traveller a purse, a bag, a mantle, a staff and a sword (even a small knife) would mean sufficient provision for the journey. The instruction of Jesus informs us of the mission praxis of Jesus and His disciples. The prohibitions in the earlier mission Sendings are considered, therefore, exceptional in the process of training. Luke does not depict these prohibitions of travel gear as standard modus operandi of Jesus’ itinerant ministry. Quite the contrary, Luke states that the instructions to carry minimal provisions are exclusive to the discrete missions of the Twelve and the Seventy(-two).350

The temporal reference (o[te avpe,steila) is unique in the experience of the disciples. That which was referred to is reimposed with the new regulation. 22:36 shows that Jesus knows about the fact that many of the disciples do 348 Cf. E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin Books, London, 1993, 101. 349 Paul’ letters suggest that these conditions of provision-free itinerant mission model were observed by some of the Christian missionaries after Jesus’ death. In 1 Cor 9:14 Paul quotes the right of the missionary to his sustenance which he declined to take claim for himself. 350 C. M. Hays, Luke’s Wealth Ethics. A Study in their Coherence and Character, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2010, 93.

204

have purses, bags, garments and even swords. Therefore, the extreme frugality which Jesus proposed in Lk 9 and 10 is an exceptional training in trust in God’s providence and not a general rule for the mission. That was to be considered interim strategy. “Thus we ought to resist assertions that Luke considers exhaustive divestiture to characterize Jesus’ entire public ministry. So also, we should reject attempts to directly identify these accounts with the descriptions of the disciples leaving pa,nta to follow Jesus.”351 On the contrary, we need to understand Lk 22:35–38 as showing that when Luke describes the disciples as leaving all, He does not mean abandoning each and every life’s necessity. Those things which are essential for one’s life and more for the mission, have to be part of one’s mission strategy. In this context, there arises the need for a relevant interpretation of this teaching. Jesus knows that after the arrest and the trial the disciples would run away out of fear and would be scattered. The political and religious fundamentalist powers of His time would use power to crush the disciples of the Lord. Faced with such a situation the disciples need to be strengthened, without which it would be the end of the preaching of the Word to the ends of the earth. Jesus strengthens His disciples against this grave situation and instructs them not to be cowards and run away in such a situation, rather to stand firm and face the danger fearlessly first and foremost trusting in the providence of the Lord and trusting in their own ability and withstand fearlessly the hostility. If equipping themselves with arms would give them inner strength to withstand the forces against them in their mission, they should better equip themselves, not to use them but to assure them that they can withstand. The best and the only option offered by Jesus for them in such a situation is to encounter the enemy with complete trust and hope in the providence of God, without using human powers like swords. The disciples should never appear as cowards and run away. The path of non-violence is not the option for the weak but of the powerful, who are able to protect themselves. Non-violence does not mean disability to protect oneself. It means rather the contrary:

351 Ibid., 93.

205

having been sufficiently capable of defending oneself even with armaments, one opts not for violence to defend oneself.352 However, in any case armed resistance would be futile to Jesus, because His end had to come as foretold by the prophets. Jesus finds the meaning of His life and His mission in the fulfilment of His Father’s Will to meet His end like the Suffering Servant of YHWH (Is 53). In order to fulfil His end then He needs to be “reckoned with transgressors” (Is 53:12). He poured out His soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet He bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (Is 53:12), what is being fulfilled on the cross. The disciples do not understand this factor in Jesus’ cross.

5.12  Some Theological Concerns of Luke It calls here for caution with regard to the deeper theological concerns that Luke-Acts is preoccupied with affecting any genuine interpretation. These main concerns of Luke-Acts can be identified as: a) God of history, b) God in history, c) following Christ or discipleship of Christ, d) Christ in the Church, e) God continually active through the disciples in history until the Parousia. Luke-Acts calls for faith in God leading to Baptism and discipleship in imitation of Christ. The faith in Christ is the starting point of Christian life. This faith is a faith in God, who became man and died but was raised for us. The incarnation and resurrection of Christ give human nature a radical dignity and everlasting hope. As a result, Christ brings something radically new to human history. Humanity achieves a new image and new life through faith in Christ.353 The influence of the Old Testament on Luke was that God is the God of history. This is what makes of Luke a historian. Robert F. O’Toole writes, 352 Cf. M. M. Thomas, Crucified Jesus the Lord of the World, Luke 19–24, trs. by T. M. Philip, Contextual Theological Bible Commentary, 10, CSS Books, Thiruvalla, 2008, 84. 353 Cf. R. F. O’Toole, “Luke’s Position on Politics and Society in Luke-Acts,” in R. J. Cassidy and Ph. J. Scharper (ed.), Political Issues in Luke-Acts, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, 1983, 1–17, 3.

206

“Luke’s primary referent is that God who has worked in Israel’s history and presently works in that of Christianity (cf. Acts 13:16–43).”354 The universal mission to the Gentiles, as stressed by Luke, happens due to the will of God (cf. Lk 3:6; 24:47; Acts 1:8; 28:28). The mission is from and because of God who became man and acts in history. The God who became part of human history calls persons to discipleship and commissions them further to call for discipleship. God in Christ makes human history missionary. The final concern of Luke then turns to imitation of Christ. When Luke ascertains that God is a God of history, it also means that sociopolitical situations will serve God’s purposes (cf. Acts 4:27–28). The Apostles and the Disciples of Christ in Acts have the same fate and experience as that of Jesus Himself. There is similarity and assimilation between Jesus and His disciples. Every Christian will be like Christ. “Under the imitation of Christ come a number of considerations that will be seen to bear directly on the topic of Jesus and Christians in politics and society in Luke-Acts.”355 With this insight, we can better understand the new teaching of Jesus and the Christological testimony of Jesus in Lk 22:35–38, as focusing on mission and Christology. Jesus and His disciples would have similar experiences and sufferings. The passage, therefore, has the “now” dimension in the life of Jesus and the “then” dimension in the lives of the disciples and of the Church. The farewell conversation at the Passover meal comes to an end with a warning that the crisis that is about to engulf Jesus will bring hard times for the Apostles as well. In the time of Satanic sifting about to begin, the confident assurance about God’s provision for His messengers mirrored in Luke 10:4 will no longer be applicable in the same way. The messengers of the kingdom, the disciples of Jesus in their previous sendings, had experienced God’s amazing provision when they had been sent 354 Ibid., 3. This assertion can help the reader to understand and interpret many other themes in the Luke-Acts work. It is the work of God which makes the word grow in history; the delay of the Parousia depends on the same factor (cf. Acts 1:7; 10:47). 355 R. F. O’Toole, “Luke’s Position on Politics and Society in Luke-Acts,” in R. J. Cassidy and Ph. J. Scharper (ed.), Political Issues in Luke-Acts, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, 1983, 1–17, 4.

207

out without resources. Now they must confront a new situation. Now they are told they must take purse and bag, and if they do not have swords already, they should sell their cloaks to buy them. They had known before that they were being sent out as vulnerable sheep in the midst of ferocious wolves (Luke 10:3). Although they were then defenceless and resourceless, in the providence of God they found themselves to be in perfect safety and fully provided for. Now, however, they could no longer take for granted such a privileged providential passage. To take up ideas from the discussion of vv. 31–34, in the coming sifting by Satan it will be rather as it had been for Job, when he found himself cruelly buffeted by life as Satan probed for any weak spot. Where the behaviour called for earlier had symbolized God’s provision of all else when the disciples focussed on the kingdom of God (12:31), now they were to behave as people who should expect to make their way in life with considerable difficulty. In the first instance, the Lukan Jesus is speaking of the situation for the Apostles during the passion period, so it is unlikely that He expected any literal implementation of the new directive that He offered. Nevertheless, Christian mission takes place between the poles of providential provision and protection and Satanic sifting. Therefore, both the challenge of Luke 10:4 and the warning of 22:36 are pertinent to the mission practice of the Christian Church. For the same juxtaposition of apparently contradictory views, compare 21:16–19 and the discussion. The difficulties to confront the Apostles are in some way an extension of the difficulties that are about to confront Jesus himself. He is to fulfil in His own person the scriptural image of the rejected servant of God as foretold by Isaiah. In particular, He is to be labelled a criminal and suffer violent death of a criminal. The role of Jesus is divinely determined, and He will soon have seen it all through to the end—an end that includes His own violent death. The disciples must be ready for the worst because their Master also faces the worst. As Jesus prepares the Apostles for the way in which they will be affected as he is engulfed by his coming fate, he has little concern with purses, knapsacks, or swords as such. The Apostles, however, with an obtuseness that we have seen before, seem to settle for the detail (having swords) without any real readiness to grapple with what the call to have swords means to them. So Jesus cuts the conversation off at this point

208

and brings to an end the interchange that has marked the time spent together in this last Passover meal.356

5.13  Jesus’ Vision of a New Society Did Jesus have a vision of a new society? Did His awareness of the impending future and eschatological consciousness allow Him to have a vision of the future at all? When we consider the Gospels as the foundational source of our knowledge of the vision of Jesus, is it not also true that the Gospels are not just the records of the experience of Jesus Himself but of the faith of the Early Church, expressing not His vision alone but their concerns for the new community too? “That the Gospels do not give us immediate access to the Jesus of history or that this Jesus was a religious prophet rather than a social reformer, need not rule out the reality of this vision nor preclude the possibility of our discovering what it is.”357 Like in all traditional societies, in the Biblical world the religious realm overflows into the socio-political. Jesus’ religious proclamation included a vision of society. It is certainly His eschatological consciousness, which would have shaped this vision. Kingdom of God is an expression of Jesus, expressing and affirming His own personal consciousness of mission and His own experience of God. Although Jesus steadfastly proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom and frequently attempted to describe it obliquely in the allusive language of the parables, he nowhere tells us clearly just what the Kingdom really is. This is because the Kingdom of God is in fact a symbol, and as such impervious to conceptual definition; and also because it is a symbol that was familiar enough to his contemporaries to need no further elaboration.358

356 J. Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, WBC 35c, Dallas, Word Books Publisher, Dallas, Texas, 1998, 1078. 357 G. M. Soares-Prabhu, S. J., “The Kingdom of God. Jesus’ Vision of a New Society”, in Theology of Liberation. An Indian Biblical Perspective, Collected Writings of George M. Soares-Prabhu, S. J., Vol. 4, F. X. D’Sa (ed.), Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth Theology Series, Pune, 2001, 224. 358 Ibid., 230.

209

Jesus certainly had the knowledge of His own time and the time to come in the lives of His disciples and the future of the Kingdom movement (Mt 24:2). The Zealot nationalists of the time of Jesus opted for power or arms to bring about this Kingdom of YHWH; the Pharisees trusted in the moral power generated by their adherence to and the perfect observance of the Law. There were also the apocalyptists, who hoped for a strong display of cosmic power by God. But Jesus had rejected all such ways.359 For Him power is not the key to the Kingdom. Power really does not free, it creates only new structures of control or unfreedom. The Kingdom of God cannot be what the Zealots and the Pharisees and the apocalyptists thought it to be, the reward of human achievement through the exercise of power. Jesus proclaims the ‘doing love’ which is at the heart of His mission, when He proclaims the coming of the Kingdom. In His mission of ‘doing love’ His Abba experience remains central. The Kingdom of God for Jesus then, as He proclaims it, is ultimately His revelation of the unconditional love of the Father. Therefore, the Kingdom is totally a gift (Lk 17:7–10; Mk 4:26–29). George Soares-Prabhu says, Yet this gift is not ‘cheap grace’, supplying for an absence of human initiative and endeavour. Rather like any offer of love it puts us on the spot, breaking into our lives as a challenge that summons us to decision (Lk 16:1–10). The Kingdom of God is thus both gift and challenge. The offer of God’s love that the Kingdom symbolizes demands from us a response. This response has been defined by Jesus as ‘repentance’.360

The Kingdom brings freedom inasmuch as it liberates each individual from one’s own weakness, inadequacies and obsessions that shackle one. It fosters fellowship because it helps and empowers the individual to manifest concern 359 Through the parable of the Sower in Lk 8:4–15 and its parallels in Mt 13:1–9 and Mk 4:1–9 Jesus puts forth the theory of the way how the Kingdom of God is to be really active in the world. 360 G. M. Soares-Prabhu, S. J., “The Kingdom of God. Jesus’ Vision of a New Society”, in Theology of Liberation. An Indian Biblical Perspective, Collected Writings of George M. Soares-Prabhu, S. J., Vol. 4, F. X. D’Sa (ed.), Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth Theology Series, Pune, 2001, 237.

210

for each other within and outside the periphery of the Kingdom community. Founded on the Abba-experience, it creates a just society based on fraternal love, which is an activity in one’s day-to-day life and not a theory. This short dialogue throws a brilliant light on the tragedy of the Ministry. It goes with the Q lamentation over Jerusalem (Lk 13:34f.; Mt 23:37–39); and, like that elegy, it is full of bitter disillusionment. The grim irony of v. 36 is the utterance of a broken heart. Jesus looks back on the earlier days when He sent the disciples out on the Mission journey. Then they could rely on the goodwill to the people. Now they cannot. Then they could expect hospitality and a friendly welcome. Now nobody will give them a crust or a copper, and he who kills them will think he does God a service. The ‘friend of publicans and sinners’ will be ‘reckoned with transgressors’ and His life will end in defeat and ignominy. Jesus Himself has already accepted this necessity and found its meaning in the prophecies concerning the Servant of Jehovah. With His faith in God’s will, there is only one way left of making sense of it all; and that is that the suffering and death of God’s Servant will accomplish what His life of devoted service has failed to accomplish; that those who could not recognize the Anointed of God as He went about doing good will recognize Him on the Cross.361

The disciples cannot visualize this. They are certainly aware of the growing hostility of the Jews. However, they are lost at the moment in the irony of Jesus’ instruction of buying swords. They understand the saying of Jesus perhaps in line with many Jews who dreamed of deliverance from the Romans even through armed resistance and to achieve that end Jesus is calling them to be prepared for armed resistance. They understand that Jesus is going to rouse himself to armed resistance for the deliverance of Israel and thus reveals himself as the Messiah. If Jesus is for armed fighting for the deliverance of Israel, they are with him. They have already two swords and they have understood the saying that they have to arm themselves further for the fight. They are ready to die like brave men fighting for and with the Messiah. They have failed to remember that Jesus would be the lamb that is led to the slaughter (Is 53:7). Jesus and the Apostles are at cross-purposes. Jesus abruptly breaks off His conversation. 361 T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1957, 343.

211

Conclusion We have studied the pericope Lk 22:35–38 narratively with the perspective of the dramatic unfolding of the final scene in the Upper Room. Through the detailed analysis of “sword”, we can conclude that the new teaching is not to be understood metaphorically, neither is It merely to be interpreted literally. Understanding it literally can entail insurmountable difficulties. Therefore, as we have already mentioned earlier, it has to be understood symbolically; by symbolic we do not deny the literal meaning, rather ascertain a higher realm of realistic implications in the teaching of Jesus. It is much more than literal, which means that a sword is meant for assault, defence or warfare. The development of the scene, concretely situating itself on the experiential facts of their previous sending leads to further demands and commands for the actual mission ahead of the disciples of the Risen Christ. The urgency of such a new teaching, although not rightly understood by the disciples, comes from Jesus’ self-knowledge of His impending end, which the disciples fail to, in the first place, rightly perceive and then fail to accept as the will of God. If then, at the sending for training, the disciples had not to worry about the external life’s factors like food, clothing, accommodation and unfriendly environment, now with the time change it requires requires a change of strategy or mode of operation. Then they were provided with food, now the disciples will have to look for means for it; then they lived in the houses where the people were friendly and hospitable; now the people may not receive them and will be hostile. The new teaching of Jesus is symbolic. The symbolic nature of the teaching does not deny in any way the literal meaning, on the contrary affirms it and attaches lofty meanings than what is normally understood. Then the roads in and around Judea for Jesus and His disciples were familiar and well trodden. Now the way to the ends of the earth is unknown and dangers are foreseeable. The disciples need to ensure their security. There will be unfriendly, hostile and life-threatening robbers and attackers; they need to have means for selfdefence; at least the minimum to make them able to stand courageously in such encounters; or at least to ward off such elements on their way. All these

212

are required because of the mission that they have received from their Master and Lord to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. The new teaching sets no contradiction to the content of the message of the preaching – the sum total of Jesus’ teaching, because the new challenging instruction, is not referred to the content of the Gospel to be preached; but to the pedagogy the preachers must resort to, without failing to trust in the providence of God, which was experienced already in their training sessions in Lk 9 and 10. Therefore, there is no contradiction in the new instruction.

6

213

Hermeneutical Reflections and the General Conclusion Introduction American motivational speaker Denis Waitley said, “There are two primary choices in life: to accept conditions as they exist, or accept responsibility for changing them.” To accept conditions as they exist would mean to stand for the status-quo, in which case “to be” would mean, “to be what is set forth.” In the long run, it raises discomfort because of human individuality and personal identity. The capacity to respond to life is as multifaceted as life itself. The Temple rulers convince us that Jesus refused to accept the conditions of the corruption of Judaism. He also refused to accept the brutality of the Roman occupation. In these refusals, He accepted the responsibility to try to change those conditions for the better and especially for the benefit of the poor and the exploited. In this process, Rabbi Jesus set His face to go to Jerusalem. Once again, I am convinced that Jesus acted out of deep sacrificial compassion. Rabbi Jesus went to Jerusalem attempting both to reform the Judaism of His day, and to confront the political and religious leaders with the choices that He had made: and His choices were to live by the Kingdom values of compassion and loving one’s neighbour [and that included the Roman enemy] and not to live by keeping strictly to the letter of the Jewish Law. Jesus came from Galilee – a hot soil of revolution. Even though the crowds had welcomed Him on Palm Sunday, expecting Him to lead the people in rebellion against Rome, Rabbi Jesus chose to reject the way of violence and desired instead the way of non-violent civil disobedience. Jesus had disclosed that the power of love was eternal; the love of power was transitory and passing. In this, Jesus had found something in life that was worth dying for. His way was not that of the sword. In addition, when the people realized that His intention was not to attempt to defeat Rome by the sword, they turned

215

against Him. Instead, according to the Gospel stories, the crowd wanted Barabbas released – Barabbas the notorious rebel and rioter! As Jesus ventured daily into Jerusalem during that last week of His life, He had to make a dreadful choice. Either He had to continue down this path that could end up in crucifixion, the Roman punishment for attempting to challenge the authority or might of Rome, or He could choose to go back to Nazareth and settle down into backwater obscurity. To see the possibility of a Zealot uprising behind the passion story is surely, however, to read too much into such scraps of evidence; and, in any case, the bearing of weapons for defensive purpose, in a land where violent attack might be expected in any situation, is that the evidence at Luke 22:35 needs to imply. Self-defence neither implies embracing Zealotism nor does it mean activities like those of the Sicarii. It is for their defence from real enemies and the life threatening dangers that they are to be equipped with swords. If we regard the saying as a genuine (and I hold it impossible to assail its authenticity), then we must consequently take this command seriously. Even so, I do not believe we may draw the conclusion that Jesus really embraced Zealotism here, even for a moment. He reckons with eventualities in which, for the sake of the proclamation of the Gospel, defensive sword-bearing may become a necessity for the disciples. avlla. nu/n as we have seen marks the newness of the teaching. Jesus refers to the previous Sendings of the disciples. The previous Sendings are to be understood in the context of training while Jesus was still with them and now the real mission ahead. There the new teaching is to be taken as the basic requirement in the field of mission. The mission training then was a training in trusting in God’s providence. The real mission now envisages preparedness and demands provisions and the missionary must be sufficiently equipped before venturing into the mission. Certainly one is trained in trusting in God’s providence, which does not negate personal efforts towards preparedness for the entrusted mission. Therefore, the newness of teaching does not in any way contradict the demand to trust in God or disown God’s sovereignty. It can be well justified with the practical examples of the mission of the Church. Theological disagreement comes from the misunderstanding or fixation to the old 216

cozy experiences where God alone is solely responsible for both the failure and success of the mission. Theological fixation to the old training Sendings would force us to ignore the new teaching in Lk 22:35–38 for the mission. When ideologically fixed, practically every mission is the realization of this new teaching of Jesus. The mission of the Church after the Pentecost event, with exception of individual cases, has been certainly guided by the new teaching of Jesus in Lk 22:35–38. A denial of this empirical reality of the mission would only suggest a lack of the maturing process of the missionary. The newness of Jesus’ teaching is the pedagogy of the mission. Evermore today, the missionary attempts are the fulfilment of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus certainly does not wish, those He sends, to be in penury; rather, as it is always the practice, they are sufficiently equipped for the success of the mission. This is no sign of lack of trust in divine providence, but maturing of mission, which is from and because of Jesus. The new teaching in Lk 22:35–38 is being fulfilled in the mission of the Church from Pentecost until today and will be fulfilled as long as the Church exists. There are different interpretations given to this discourse. However varied the interpretations are, the sayings of Jesus must find their relevance to the present Church and discipleship. The disciples of the Lord face a crucial and critical situation today. Although the modernization of the world has secular values of equality and mutual respect to others, the believers are threatened and the mission is endangered in various parts of the world. If in the U.S.A, Europe and other developed countries it is a sort of apathy and a feeling of irrelevance to the call of Christ and the Gospel, what threatens the disciples in countries like India is the growing fundamentalism and rampant persecutions. India while on the one hand witnesses deeper seeking for the Gospel, on the other acceptance of the message and discipleship is made legally punishable with the enactment of the “Anti-conversion Law.” The political and judicial power is institutionally used against the disciples to crush them systematically; however, the history proves that such efforts do not always bear fruits. Jesus was numbered among the “lawless.” Through the enactment of laws like The “Anti-conversion Law,” the fundamentalist powers use their political 217

might and literally count the disciples as lawbreakers, hence punishable before the law of the land. The Roman imperialism is transposed to modern fundamentalism, which masterminds the law of the land. High-handedness of the powerful forces of the religious fundamentalists masterminds the enactment of the law of the land, which binds the judicial conscience in doing justice to the Christian community in several parts of India. The violence is interpreted as a heroic act of defending one’s faith and the perpetrators of violence as heroes and defenders of their faith. Nonetheless, the message of the Gospel is seen as a national threat and the preachers as monstrous criminals and antinational elements.

6.1  The Existential Reality of the Church Today From the history of the early Church those who were sent to preach and those who were preached to had faced problems. There were social, linguistic, cultural, political, economic problems. The history of the cross continues. Peter and John were arrested already in Acts 4:1–4; the priests, the commander of the Temple and the Sadducees laid hands on them and arrested them. From Stephen (Acts 7–8) onwards, the Church has faced persecution.362 The Church cannot run away from the reality of persecution of its faithful in countries where they are a minority or socially from the lower strata. I can narrate instances of persecution, stray and organized, and have faced its tension in my own experience as a priest. The vulnerable Christians have often succumbed to foray, without having any option of self-defence or flight. Some face it with courageous faith, some as fate. The often-raised question is how can one withstand recurrence of persecution. This is certainly no theological doubt or there is no diluting of faith convictions. This question is an empirical question on pragmatic strategy of the mission. In regions where the members are socially and economically

362 Cf. J. Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, AB 31, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1967, 31–32; 58–71. Cf. also L. T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina Series 5, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1992, 75–79: 138–144.

218

powerful and have political influence, persecution is a third-party story. The affected community seeks for pedagogic answers pertinent to day-to-day life. Knowing and having faithfully lived the fundamentals of faith, they rightly seek strategic preventive pedagogy, without the doubt that in spite of all effective strategies, true Christian living entails the experience of the cross.

6.2  Trust in Providence Do such questions arise from a dearth of one’s trust in the providence of God? The providence of God is experiential beyond doubt in the Church. In the Mission Sendings in Lk 9 and 10, as we have earlier discussed, the providence of God was the over-arching experience, which the Apostles recalled gladly with one accord in Lk 22:35. The Acts of the Apostles narrates already from the very beginning how God is providential to the Apostles (Act 5:18–20). Acts 12 narrates the killing of James, the brother of John, and the imprisonment of Peter by King Herod (12:1ff.). The angel of the Lord sets Peter free. Certainly Peter did everything so mechanically that he could not himself believe what was going on with him and thought that he was seeing a vision (Acts 12:9). The iron gate leading to the city opened for them of its own accord. As the angel left leaving Peter along a lane, He realized that the Lord has sent His angels and rescued him from the hands of His enemies. Acts 16 narrates Paul and Silas in prison in Philippi. Philippi was a leading city of Macedonia and was a Roman colony. Paul set free the slave-girl from the possession of the spirit, which infuriated the owner of the slave-girl. Paul and Silas were brought before the magistrate with the charge of advocating anti-Roman customs and observances. At night as these men were praying the earth quaked violently. The doors were opened and their chains unfastened. Although they did not walk out of the prison until morning all, including the non-believers, experienced the providence of God over these men. Saul, the persecutor, transformed to Paul, the preacher, faces persecution (cf. 21:30ff) from His own people in Jerusalem. The Jews plotted to kill Paul (23:12) and persecuted many of the saints by putting them in prison (Acts 26:10). The most exciting experience of God’s providence in the life and mission of Paul 219

is narrated in Acts 27. The story of the shipwreck and Paul in Malta (Ch. 28) before His arrival at Rome is fascinating in its narration. There need be no doubt about the assured, ever-active providence of God. Therefore questions as raised above, are not to the content of one’s faith; they are addressed to the mission strategy and so are purely pedagogical. They seek answers as to how mission can be effectively carried out in lands where, like the early preachers of the word of God, face hostile circumstances. It refers to what it means to be prepared in accordance with the teaching of the Lord. Our study of Luke 22:35–38 helps to find an answer toward the strategic question of mission pedagogy.

6.3  Fight or Flight? What will the Church do when she is targeted for persecution by the government or by powerful extremists’ groups? What will the Christians do when the State does not come to their aid? For example, the organized persecution of the Christians in some parts of India or in Nigeria or Sudan or other Islamic countries likes Pakistan. Can Christians defend themselves, because the State does not give them protection or justice is denied to them? James M. Arlandson discussing the subject puts forth two options, fight or flight.363 The Church cannot justify fighting wars, as she had engaged herself in the Middle Ages, owing to the factional conflicts and more so due to the aggressive Islamic invasion, in the name of religion. Fighting wars contradicts the 363 http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/pacifism8.htm ; as on 25.08.2012. The author, as an addendum to his series of internet articles (in 8 parts) on his homepage: http://www.answering-islam.org/index.html, discusses the problem of a persecuted Church in the modern world and theologically analyses the problem and proposes the questionable option, “But I would urge all churches to follow the clear teaching of the New Testament, particularly the separation of the Church and the State, if they are forced, as a last resort, to form armed organizations for self-defence and for the protection of the oppressed living under anarchy and widespread and extreme persecution.” There can be a wide-range discussion on this issue. But his final suggestion is not matter for theological or biblical discussion; rather a pedagogical strategy of survival.

220

theological fundamentals of Jesus’ teachings. Fight is certainly no theological option, although, it can be the last resort for physical survival. Fight as the only last resort for survival needs no theological scrutiny, because it is an existential imperative of any living being. Therefore, the option to fight is theologically anti-witnessing. During the recent wide-spread persecution in Kandamahal, in Orissa, India, the Christian civilians, because of the organized violence against their lives and their property, in fear of death flew to jungles and forests.364 They lost their relatives, houses and other belongings. Immediate help was almost impossible, neither from the State nor from other quarters, to hope for and they fled to the forests trying to save at least their lives. In such an outbreak of persecution, even the non-extremist government takes time to restore peace and freedom. In organized and State sponsored persecution there is nothing much to expect even from the State. There is a “between-time” when the hapless Christians drastically look for means to save their lives. Many take refuge in safer homes or flee to forests and jungles, hoping to return or with the hope that some would come to help them out. No theological questions and discussions are of greater relevance in such situations. No Scriptural references are required at this point of danger, still Jesus puts forward flight as the preferable option than fight (Mt 10:23; Lk 21:20–22). Jesus has foretold such experiences in the lives of His disciples, the believers today.

6.4  Self or Communal-defence We must note that the concept of self-defence without resorting to violence was not very strange to the Jews, who certainly knew their history. Josephus detailed such a story in Jewish Antiquities x, 1ff. Self-defence is within the natural law of the universe for survival. All social, religious, moral and theological discussion will end here seeking answers. There can be no further

364 I have written an article, “Märtyrer des Gottvertauens,” in Jesuiten, 2008/4, 2–4, emphasizing the amazing level of trust of the persecuted in God’s providence. Their suffering is highly witnessing.

221

judicial discussions, when the ultimate question is of self-defence as the last resort for survival. The Church has its responsibility not only to preach the word of God but also to take care of the people of God. Hence, the Church, especially in those regions where its people are politically unprotected, socially and economically vulnerable, has the undeniable responsibility to ensure the all-round well-being and protection of its people and deliberate together and develop concerted pedagogical designs for the well-being of the fold and in and through the integral well-being of all.

6.5 Marga365 of Ahimsa and Satyagraha Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Indian Nation and the great Indian icon of world peace and freedom, through his struggle for the freedom of India witnessed to our times the strength and power of nonviolence. His struggle against the heavily armed British power in India opened up the new horizon of resistance through Satyagraha. The word ‘Satya’ (truth) comes from ‘Sat’ which means being. In reality, nothing is or exists except Truth and God is Truth. Single-minded devotion to Truth should become the breath of our life. According to Mahatma Gandhi, there should be Truth in thought, Truth in speech and Truth in action.366 A Satyagrahi is the one who desires or seeks the Truth. One who seeks the Truth will be guided by the principle of love. Mahatma Gandhi was a seeker of Truth and nonviolence was his path to realize his dream of freedom for India from the clutches of British powers in India. Speaking about tolerance, Mahatma Gandhi said, I did not like this word, but could not think of a better one. Tolerance implies a gratuitous assumption of the inferiority of other faiths to one’s own, whereas ahimsa teaches us to entertain the same respect for the religious faiths of others as we accord

365 The Sanskrit word means the way or the path. Here it connotes the moral principles set forth by Mahatma Gandhi in his pursuit for freedom for India from the occupation of the British. 366 Cf. R Duncan (ed.), Gandhi. Selected Writings, Harper and Row Publishers, London, 1971, 41–43.

222

to our own, thus admitting the imperfection of the latter. This admission will be readily made by a seeker of Truth, who follows the law of Love.367

As a practical idealist, Mahatma Gandhi believed that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence and forgiveness more manly than punishment. However, he holds the view that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, violence would be preferable.368 Strength is not just a physical capacity rather it springs from an indomitable will. Non-violence is not meek submission to the mighty. At the same time, it involves conscious suffering. Ahimsa369 (non-violence) is a principle of total detachment or dissociating oneself from almost every one of the activities one is engaged in. There is inner freedom in ahimsa. This inner freedom is attained not mechanically but through slow and painful stages of intelligent action in a detached manner. “Ahimsa is not the way of the timid or the cowardly. It is the way of the brave ready to face death.”370 For Mahatma Gandhi Ahimsa was the means and Truth remained the end. Jesus in his new teaching in Lk 22:35–38 pedagogically illustrates the principle of ahimsa.

6.6  Symbolic Relevance At least symbolically, Jesus’ words suggest the coming final armed conflict. Such views can lead to the suspicion of susceptible zealotic inspiration to the

367 R. Duncan (ed.), Gandhi. Selected Writings, Harper and Row Publishers, London, 1971, 45. Although Gandhi speaks of tolerance in relation to religious faiths and their coexistence, one can understand that he does not restrict his idea of tolerance not just to religious tolerance alone but it embraces cultural and other factors as well. According to him tolerance does not ignore the distinction between right and wrong or good and evil. 368 Cf. Ibid., 48. 369 Ahimsa means avoiding injury to anything on earth, in thought, word, and deed. It includes the renunciation of the will to kill or damage. Cf. M. W. Sonnleitner, Gandhian Nonviolence Levels of Satyagraha, Abhinav Publications, 1985, 16–35. 370 R. Duncan (edt.), Gandhi. Selected Writings, Harper and Row Publishers, London, 1971, 58.

223

teaching of Jesus. Can we rightly say that Jesus shared in the Qumran expectation of the holy war of the last day, which was sure to come followed by the last judgment? If we understand the saying in connection with the use of the sword at Gethsemane in Mt 26:52–53 as an authentic saying of Jesus, it is abundantly clear that Jesus dissociated Himself from the Zealot ideology (cf. Lk 22:51; Mt 26:52–53; Jn 17:11). Can Jesus be claimed as an apocalyptic Zealot, who proclaims a final impending war in which case the sword would be a symbolic prelude of the war the legions in heaven would fight against evil and thus can mean the wrath of God executed by the armies of heaven? Certainly not! If we mean to understand so then Luke’s reference to the previous sendings, which was empirically actual and alive in the memories of the disciples, would seem an irrelevant endeavour. The final judgment of God on the earth will be by fire and sword, which certainly is a spiritual warfare, an apocalyptic imagery, which has no relevance here in the context.

6.7  Psychological Relevance There can be another practical and empirical reason to be thought about in relation to the teaching of Jesus. When Jesus was with the disciples on their journey of three, He was their strength. The Lord was their security, protection and strength. He provided them in their needs and gave them authority, which otherwise they would never have. He fed them; He was their total security. They knew no fear when their Master was there to protect them. They underwent training to be missionaries. The Master trained them to be leaders. After the Resurrection the focus changes, the then disciples become now leaders, teachers and preachers. The security which they experienced when the Lord was physically present with them, would not be any more the same. Although they experience the abiding presence of the Lord, they experience the physical absence of their Master. They have to be decision-makers. They have to be strategists. Into the unknown horizon of their mission, they are sent forth. The sense of being equipped gives in such cases psychic security and strength. On their mission journey, they may face all sorts of hardships. However, the fact that they 224

are well equipped to face the unforeseen, boosts their level of confidence and adds to their strength. The fact that one is equipped gives one added strength to face come what may. In strange lands, through strange regions, to strange people, friendly or unfriendly, such inner strength is a motivational addition. The knowledge that one is well equipped wards off an enemy to a certain extent. The enemy is intimidated by the knowledge that the other is even armed. It prevents the unwarranted.

6.8  The Strategic Relevance The textual context, as we have studied already, reveals at least two truths. First, Jesus contrasts His ministry before His arrival in Jerusalem with the impending violent future awaiting him there, where the Jewish authority were seeking to arrest and kill him. Second, Jesus says that He would be arrested and tried as a criminal, as the Prophet Isaiah 53:12 predicted. Does the fulfilment of the Prophet Isaiah mean that the disciples must have swords with them? The plot to kill Jesus is already ripe, with only the question of time and method to be known. Hence, the presence of the sword with the Apostles is certainly not inevitable, in order that Jesus may be counted among the lawless. It is one of the external factors. Nevertheless, the Jews have already arrived at their decision. Then the sword has an implication more than the scene of the arrest and the cutting of the ear of the servant of the high priest. The selling of the outer garment, a garment that was part of Hebrew dress code, especially for a traveller, and the purchasing of a sword instead, is symbolically underlying the gravity and danger of the time the disciples were to face ahead in their mission. It emphasizes the imminence and the intensity of the hardship that the preachers would face after the Resurrection. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:30–37) suggests clearly the situation of travellers at the time of Jesus. There were wayside robbers and it was life-endangering to travel without means of security. Jesus will send His men out to strange people through strange paths to preach the word to all. Could it not be unintelligible on the part of Jesus not to have taken note of the social 225

problems of His time and send His men out without basic strategic means of security? Certainly, an intelligent leader cannot fail in His strategy. The disciples need money, bag to carry their provisions, sandals to tread unknown strange and difficult paths, their basic needs include their mantle, which also is a social symbol of respect of a man and protection from wind, cold and rain and cover for sleepy nights. Above all Jesus is concerned about the life-endangering threats, like that which has happened to the traveller in the parable of the Good Samaritan, which could also happen to His disciples on their mission journey. Hence, He advises them to be equipped with even a sword for their protection. Then why did Jesus rebuke the one who used a sword at the scene of arrest? The answer is clearly suggested in the exegetical part of our study: Jesus, as Lord and Master, does not need to be protected by His disciples. He is powerful even to call on His Father to send legions of angels to defend him. However, in order that the Will of God may be fulfilled He lets Himself into the hands of the hostile crowd. In order that the Scripture may be fulfilled in Him, He gives Himself to be arrested like a “lawless” person. As Lord, He needs no defence from His disciples; the Saviour needs not be saved. Jesus is beyond human powers; therefore, requires no human effort to protect him from His enemies. Therefore, He tells the one who used his sword seemingly to defend Jesus “No more of this!” Jesus needs no protection from the disciples; the Lord is His defender. Does that suggest in any way the use of violence in pursuit of the mission, for which the disciples were sent? Does that suggest today that in order to preach the Gospel, when need be, the preacher or the community of believers can resort to violent means? Origen writes, “No longer do we take the sword against any nation, nor do we learn war any more, since we have become sons of peace through Jesus.” (Contra Celsum 5.33). Origen is right in disowning war and sword, in line with the teaching of Jesus. Lk 22:35–25 does not refer to the disciples indulging in warfare for the mission. It does not mean that the disciples must resort to the use of “sword” for the mission. Jesus tells Peter (Mt 26:52) “Put your sword back into its place;” meaning back into its scabbard or sheath fastened 226

to Peter’s belt. Jesus does not tell him to get rid of it or to throw it away. Certainly then the teaching of Jesus is intended for the forth-coming mission, which the disciples are to undertake to the unknown horizons of both the Jews and the Gentiles. The strategic instruction does not negate the message of the mission. Justin wrote in his Apology (1.39): But when the prophetic spirits speaks, as foretelling what is going to happen, His words are the following: ‘For the law shall come forth from Sion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge the Gentiles, and rebuke many people; and they shall turn their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into sickles; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they be exercised more in war.’ That this prophecy, too, was verified you can readily believe, for twelve illiterate men, unskilled in the art of speaking, went out from Jerusalem into the world, and by the power of God they announced to the men of every nation that they were sent by Christ to teach everyone the word of God; and we, who once killed one another, (now) not only do not wage war against our enemies, but, in order to avoid lying or deceiving our examiners, we even meet death cheerfully, confessing Christ.

Justin rightly affirms that the means and the method must comply in order that the message of Jesus will be self-witnessing. There shall not be any inherent contradiction of the Gospel message and the preacher. The message must be self-witnessing. History records several self-contradictory and violent attempts by the Church during the dark periods of her history. One can always find examples to prove the self-contradictory means and methods used, which are certainly unacceptable anti-witnesses. Justin (Dialogue 10.2) summarizes the hermeneutical principle as follows: As far as Christ is concerned, two concepts of Parousia are to be distinguished: His first coming in weakness and His second coming in power from heaven. A portion of the Old Testament prophecies relates to His first coming in lowliness, but a second part pertains exclusively to His appearance in power and glory. The ancient Church had no centralized structures and strategies for systematic missionary activities, although the apostles refer to the brothers in Jerusalem with respect and return to them for advice and guidance. The Apostles preached the Gospel and established a number of local churches. 227

This marks the pedagogy of the mission of the Apostles then. The communities established by the Apostles existed as the sign of the truth of the Gospel. The central theme that united them was their faith in the Lord Jesus and His message. The present-day Christian living is confronted, as we have mentioned in the beginning of this section, with believers being persecuted and the preachers being prohibited, charged with false accusations and even killed. In regions where the Christians are vulnerably powerless and numerically immaterial, their security is heavily at stake. The preachers of the word can neither ignore the command of the Lord nor fail to be rudent about the signs of the time. Athenagoras (Supplications for the Christians 11) wrote: But amongst us you might find simple folk, artisans and old women, who, if they are unable to furnish in words the assistance they derive from our doctrine, yet show in their deeds the advantage to others that accrues from their resolution. They do not rehearse words but show forth good deeds; struck, they do not strike back, plundered, they do not prosecute; to them that ask they give, and they love their neighbours as themselves.371

Clement writes in one of his early Christian homilies, which cannot be dated precisely, that the true worship of God consists in the right praxis, not in beautiful words (13.2–3) of denying God through evil actions. He says that the deeds of the false Christians will certainly lead non-believers to assume that the Christian doctrine is merely deception and human invention: For the Lord says, “My name is continually blasphemed among all the Gentiles” (Is 52:5), and again, “Woe to him through whom my name is blasphemed.” In what is it blasphemed? In your failure to do what I desire.3 For when they hear from our lips the oracles of God, they marvel at their beauty and greatness. But then when they

371 Athenagoras, Embassy for The Christians the Resurrection of the Dead, J. H. Crehan (Trs.), The Newman Press, London, 1956, 42. Athenagoras of Athens lived ca. 133–190. He was a Father of the Church, a Proto-orthodox Christian apologist in the second half of the second century. He is said to be a philosopher converted to Christianity. His writings witness his erudition and culture. His powerful rhetoric was used in dealing with the powerful opponents of his religion.

228

observe that our actions are unworthy of the words we utter, they turn to blasphemy, saying that it is a myth and a deception.372

There shall not be any contradiction in the Christian message and the method, as there was not any in Jesus. However, the path of discipleship is not a broad and easy way; on the contrary, it is narrow and overexposed. The cross of Jesus was the result of His active love. Without doubt, it has its implications on the lives of His disciples, the Church today. The believers are highly vulnerable in some way as their Master, who accepted the violent death on the cross. His cross was the way of life. This miracle of the cross is the greatest assurance of a Christian, even when faced with unforeseen difficulties in life. Therefore, there cannot be any contradiction between the message and the method. The message remains unchanged; the method embellishes and makes the message strategically effective. We conclude with the story of a snake in the karna-parampara – oral tradition – in India (it is expected that the story will be understood without dwelling on to its details). It is said that the ancient sages were able to talk and exercise power over creatures and other things in nature. As a sage passed through a village, the people complained to him about a dangerous snake in the outskirts of their village under a tree. The snake was venomous and would attack and kill anybody who dared to come its way. But it was the tree around which the children played and the shepherds took their shelter from the scorching sun. The people wanted the sage to advise the snake not to sting the people. Moved by their fear, the sage went and met the snake and advised it no more to sting and told him of the great value of ahimsa (non-violence) to attain nirvana (eternal bliss). The snake was moved by the advice and tried to live and practise all as the sage had told it. It stung no one any more. It came to pass that those who were once frightened of the snake began to stone it and wound it. The poor snake bore all the wounds and waited for the sage to come that way.

372 R. M. Grant and H. H. Graham (Trs.), The Apostolic Fathers. A New Translation and Commentary, Vol. 2, Thomas Nelson & Sons, New York, 1965, 124.

229

On seeing the sage again, the snake, wounded and worn out because of the harm the people done to it, the sage enquired what had happened in the meantime as he was away. The snake wriggling in pain explained all that had happened to it. The sage retorted; “I told you not to sting and kill; but I did not tell you not to hiss.”

230

Bibliography

Alberi, M., “The Sword Which You Hold in Your Hand. Alcuin’s Exegesis of the Two Swords and the Lay Miles Christi”, in The Study of the Bible in the Carolingian Era. Medieval Church Studies 3, C. Chazelle, B V. N. Edwards (ed.) Brepols, Turnhout, 2003, 117–131. Albright, W. F. and C. S. Mann, Matthew. Introduction, translation and notes, AB 26, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1971. André, T., Jesus and the Nonviolent Revolution, Herald Press, Scottadale, Pennsylvania, 1971. Arnold, C. E., Ephesians: Power and Magic. The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of its Historical Setting, SNTSMS 63, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, 1989. Athenagoras, Embassy for The Christians the Resurrection of the Dead, J. H. Crehan (trs.), The Newman Press, London, 1956. Aune, E. D., Revelation 1–5, WBC 52, Word Books Publishers, Dallas, Texas, 1997. ———, (ed.) The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Literature and Rhetoric, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 2003. Bacon, B. W., The Gospel of the Hellenists, Holt, New York, 1933. Ball, T. B., “Gethsemane”, in The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ, R. N. Holzapfel (ed.), Desert Books, Salt Lake City, 2003, 138–164. Bammel, E., “Jesus as a Political Agent in a Version of the Josippon”, in E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (ed.), Jesus and the Politics of His Day, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984, 197–209. ———, “The Poor and the Zealots”, in E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (ed.), Jesus and the Politics of His Day, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984, 109–128. ———, “The Trial Before Pilate”, in E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (ed.), Jesus and the Politics of His Day, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984, 415–451. Barnes, W. E., “Helmet”, in A Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, J. Hastings (ed.), T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1906, 347. ———, “Shield”, A Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. IV, J. Hastings (ed.), T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1905, 497–498.

231

Barnett, P. W., “Under Tiberius All was Quiet”, NTS 21 (1974–74) 564–571. Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St. John. An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, Second Edition, SPCK, London, 1978. Barth, M., Ephesians. Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4–6, AB 34A, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1974. Bartsch, H. W., “Jesu Schwertwort: Lukas xxii. 35–38. Überlieferungsgeschicht­ liche Studie”, NTS 20 (1973–1974) 190–203. Beale, G. K., A New Testament Biblical Theology, The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2011. ———, The Book of Revelation. A Commentary on the Greek Text, W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1999. Beasley-Murray, G. R., John, WBC 36, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, second edition 1999. Beck, B. E., Christian Character in the Gospel of Luke, Epworth Press, London, 1989. ———, Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament. Studies presented to G. Styler, W. Horbury and B. McNeil, (ed.), Cambridge, 1981. Berger, K., Jesus, Weltbild, Augsburg, 2004. Bernard, J. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, A. H. McNeile (ed.), Vol. II, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1928. Best, E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1998. ———, Essays on Ephesians, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1997. Bevans, S. B. and R. P. Schroeder, Constants in Context. A Theology of Mission for Today, Claretian Publications, Bangalore, 2005. Bischinger, M., Die Zwei-Schwerter-Theorie, Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades an der Universität Wien, 1971. Black, M., “‘Not Peace but a Sword’. Matt 10:34ff; Luke 12:51ff”, in E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (ed.), Jesus and the Politics of His Day, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984, 287–294. Bode, F. J., Heute erfüllt sich das Wort. Die Botschaft des Lukasevangeliums, Herder, Freiburg, 2005. Bohrmann, M., Flavius Josephus, the Zealots and Yavne. Towards a Rereading of The War of the Jews, (trs.) Janet Lloyd, Peter Lang, Berne, 1993. Bovon, F., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, EKKNT III/4, Neukirchener Verlag, Patmos Verlag, Düsseldorf, 2009. ———, Luke 1. A commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50, Hermeneia, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN, 2002.

232

———, Luke the Theologian. Fifty-five Years of Research (1950–2005), Baylor University Press, Waco, Texas, 2006. ———, Luke the Theologian. Thirty-Three Years of Research (1950–1983), Pickwick Publications, Allison Park, Pennsylvania, 1987. Brandon, S. G. F., Jesus and the Zealots. A study on the political factor in primitive Christianity, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1967. Brawley, L. R., Luke-Acts and the Jews. Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation, SBLMS 33, Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1987. Brent, K., Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem In the Context of Lukan Theology and the Politics of His Day, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1995. Bright, J., A History of Israel, Westminster John Knox Press, Philadelphia, 2000. Brighton, M. A., The Sicarii in Josephus’ Judean War. Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations, SBL, Atlanta, 2009. Brown, R. E., An Introduction to New Testament Christology, Paulist Press, New York, 1994. ———, New Testament Essays, Image Books, New York, 1965. ———, The Death of the Messiah. A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, Vol. 1, Yale University Press, London, 1994. ———, The Gospel According to John (xiii–xxi), AB 29A, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1970. ———, The Gospel and Epistles of John, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1988. Brown, S. K., “The Arrest”, in The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ, R. N. Holzapfel (ed.), Desert Books, Salt Lake City, 2003, 165–209. Bruce, F. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews, W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1964. Buck, S. P., Der Engel mit dem Schwert, Rowohlt, Reinbek, 1959. Burton S. E., The Gospel According to St. Luke, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1926. Burton, W. L., The Murder of the Prophets and Other Themes in Luke/Acts, Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, Rome, 1998. Cadbury, H. J., The Style and Literary Method of Luke, Harvard Theological Studies 6, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1920. Campbell, D. B. J., The Synoptic Gospels, Cox & Wyman, London, 1966. Cassidy, R. J. and Ph. J. Scharper (ed.), Political Issues in Luke-Acts, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, 1983. Cassidy, R. J., “Luke’s Audience, the Chief Priests, and the Motive of Jesus’ Death”, in Political Issues in Luke-Acts, R. J. Cassidy and Ph. J. Scharper (ed.), Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, 1983, 146–167.

233

Catchpole, D. R., “The ‘Triumphal’ Entry”, in E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (ed.), Jesus and the Politics of His Day, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984, 319–334. Clayton, J. N., The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1989. Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St. Luke, Harper & Row Publishers, New York 1960. Correns, D. Die Mischna, ins Deutsche übertragen, mit einer Einleitung und Anmerkungen, Marixverlag, Wiesbaden, 2005. Cullmann, O., Jesus and the Revolutionaries, G. Putnam (trs.), Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1970. ———, The Christology of the New Testament, SCM Press, Norwich, 1963. ———, The State in the New Testament, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1956. Dahl, N. A., Studies in Ephesians, D. Hellholm, V. Blomkvist, and T. Fornberg (ed.), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2000. Danker, F. W. (ed.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2000. ———, Jesus and the New Age. A commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1988. Davidson, A. B., The Epistle to the Hebrews, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1882. Davies, W. D. and D. C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Vol. II, ICC, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1991. ———, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Vol. III, ICC, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1997. Decock, P. B., Isaiah in Luke – Acts, Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, Rome, 2001. Deines, R., „Gab es eine jüdische Freiheitsbewegung? Martin Hengels >>Zeloten