The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Two Swords are Enough


Well I’m not sure what I said, but your use of ‘mischievously’ is an interesting point.

Look, you do not like the Idea that I think that Christ atoned all sin. ‘No’?



Motorcycle fast. Zombies slow. :laughing:



:laughing: :laughing: You are de man :wink:



LCC, one cannot read far into the writings of Moses, in order to see that he depicted Yahweh (or “Jehovah”) as a violent warrior God who killed not only Israel’s enemies but Israelites themselves if they did wrong or stepped out of line. Moses himself wrote these things about God’s violent actions and so He must have understood God in the way he depicted Him:

Quotes below are from Darby’s translation:

It is recorded in 1 Chronicles (supposedly written by Ezra) that Jehovah slew even his own people for trivial reasons. The oxen that was pulling the cart carrying the ark of the covenant, stumbled. Uzza put out his hand to steady the ark so that it wouldn’t tip over. Jehovah didn’t like that so He killed him.

Consider Ezekiel 9:4-9 concerning the ways of Jehovah:

The list is endless. Then the commandments that Yahweh supposedly gave to his people. A young man who was disrespectful to his parent was to be stoned to death.

If a woman saw her husband fighting with another man, and if her husband was getting the worst of it, and if she tried to protect her husband by grabbing the genitals of his opponent, she was to have her hand cut off, with no mercy whatever shown to her.

Jesus never described His Father in this way. Nor did Jesus ever kill anyone or command His disciples to kill anyone.



So how do you explain and tell people today who the God of the OT is?



I think the OT (read chronologically–which btw is VERY important) is the story of the Jewish people and their collective journey of discovery concerning God–who He is, who they were/are, what He demands of them, what their relationship with him looks like and means and so on. If you read chronologically (insomuch as it is possible to figure out what came when), you’ll see this clearly. In earlier years they saw Him as a warrior god who protected HIS people and was at war against all others. Through the centuries, this view changed, clear up until we have Jesus telling His Jewish audience to LOVE their enemies.

Please, for the love of reason, stop expecting the Bible to be the perfect word of God. THAT position is well-filled by Jesus Christ. The Bible is a collection of writings of Jewish people in the OT and disciples of Christ in the NT. A bunch of church leaders got together much later and decided which writings ought to be included. The Eastern Orthodox had different ideas what ought to be in there than the Roman Catholics, and Luther had other ideas besides. The Bible is a HUMAN book, written by humans inspired by the Spirit to write. God did not dictate to them and have them write down His exact words. They wrote whatever they felt inspired to write and collected whatever writings they felt inspired to collect, and a bunch of old guys decided what ought to be considered sacred and what ought to be considered good and what ought to be left out. This book is not a God. Sorry folks, but as good and great and wonderful as the Bible is (and I mean that,) we still have to have a relationship with the Spirit on our own and trust God to reveal Himself to us. If we get things wrong (and we will), God will correct us.



I kind of agree, and yet conversely in a similar vein it could likewise be stated… Please, for the love of reason, stop expecting Yahweh to be the perfect image of God we bring to the text. IOW… man was made in God’s image… stop making God in our image, i.e., the image we bring to the text in terms of a kindly old grandfather who wouldn’t hurt a fly — there are texts where His actions are quite brutal — do WE always have the full perspective of His greater purposes as they unfolded in the OT?… seemingly not.



Paidion, MM,

The New Testament writers use graphic language as well. Jesus is speaking in the following verses

Matt.13:41 “The Son of Man will send out His angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that offend and those who practice lawlessness and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be a wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

Matt. 18:34-35 “And his master was angry and delivered him to torturers… S my heavenly Father also will do to you.”

“And whoever falls on this stone will be broken, but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

Rev. 2:23 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation unless they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death."

As far as the book of Revelation goes, the Lamb is the one taking the scrolls and opening the seals, bringing death, plagues and destruction on everyone.

As I mentioned before, as it says in Malachi, God gave Levi a covenant of LIFE and PEACE.
Deut. 31:9 'Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders." Jesus revealed to us what that covenant was. He interpreted the Old Testament, explaining what the writers actually meant when they spoke about things like the manna from heaven, the Rock, circumcision etc. etc.

I agree with Cindy in that the Bible is pieced together by a lot of different writers. I don’t think it was always Moses himself writing and saying things.



The Calvinists seem to like this idea. Though in Calvinism “all sin” = only the sins of some people, the lucky few.



steve7150 wrote:
Maybe i’m missing something but didn’t Jesus explain this incident “For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in me” “And he was numbered with the transgressors” For the things concerning me have an end" Isa 53.12 (Luke 22.37)

In other words Peter was given a sword so he could ultimately slice the ear off the soldier arresting Jesus and so Peter became a transgressor, fulfilling Isa 53.12

Steve, Peter was rebuked for cutting off the soldier’s ear.

Yes but Peter was fulfilling prophecy because he had a sword! If Peter didn’t have a sword Isa 53.12 was not going to be fulfilled, Jesus had said all prophecy must be fulfilled.



I appreciate your view, Cindy, concerning the progressive revelation of God culminating in Jesus, the Anointed Son of God, who expressed the Father as He really is!

I recommend the following book:
[ C.S. Cowles taking one of the four views. You can probably guess which one.

You can also download this second book into kindle, or open it up at Amazon and read some parts of it.**WHO IS GOD? His Character Revealed in the Christ **SHOW THEM NO MERCY. 4 views on God and Canaanite Genocide](



I thought of a couple reasons - for two swords. Jesus wants folks, to get the POINT. To stay SHARP. And be on the CUTTING EDGE of spirituality. :laughing:



Well, I used to be a fairly committed Calvinist, I even bought John Calvin’s institutes. Cost me a bit of money :laughing:

You seem to want to haggle with any and everyone.

Have at it. :sunglasses:



Cindy said:


I agree, You went on to say:





Yes but Peter was fulfilling prophecy because he had a sword! If Peter didn’t have a sword Isa 53.12 was not going to be fulfilled, Jesus had said all prophecy must be fulfilled.

It would be delightful if we stuck to the thread topic and start new threads for new topics, wouldn’t it? :bulb:



Why couldn’t Isaiah 53:12 not be fulfilled if Peter hadn’t had a sword? Couldn’t Jesus have been arrested in any other way?



**It wasn’t “Peter” who was fulfilling prophecy but Jesus… **

Isaiah’s… “the transgressors” among whom Jesus “was numberedWAS ISRAEL! Jesus came to bear their sin, i.e., to take it away… as per the numerous texts that say this very thing.

As to Jesus’… “it is enough!” — this is NOTHING MORE than Jesus saying “cease and desist” or, “IF THAT (swords) were the point (pun) My Father could unleash 12 legions of angels” or, “enough of this kind of talk” etc, etc, etc. It was Jesus’ way of dismissing an interaction wherein the disciples were hopelessly afield and astray — NOTHING MORE, nothing less.



If I’m understanding correctly, the idea being put forth is that PETER will be allotted a portion with the great, etc. That prophecy isn’t about Peter at all. That prophecy is clearly about Jesus. The sword has nothing to do with any of it. Peter was supposed to have a sword to defend himself (I absolutely believe it was that mundane). Peter was NOT supposed to take on the government with his sword in order to defend Jesus.



And just by way of background information to the above…

The root word — <ἱκανός> ikanos is in the ‘vocative’ case = “enough!



From what I understand, this verse is not talking about Jesus in particular. Isaiah was speaking about the righteous servants of God, including himself.

The Bible does not show a progressive revelation of God, culminating in Jesus. It tells of a people who had the knowledge of God, but many were not following or teaching their children the way.

As far as the two swords are concerned, the sword of truth and the literal sword, for self defense purposes, were enough, meaning sufficient. As Cindy mentions, their job was not military in nature. It was spiritual.